Legal Experts: Hunter Biden Could Be Hoping for ‘Jury Nullification’

Hunter Biden’s legal defense could be hoping for jury nullification, legal experts warned.

Jury nullification occurs when a defendant is proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt but jurors disregard their oath to find the defendant not guilty.

Hunter is charged with one count of false statement in the purchase of a firearm, one count of possession of a firearm by a person who is an unlawful user of or addicted to a controlled substance, and one count of false statement related to information required to be kept by a federal firearms licensed dealer.

Hunter used crack when he purchased the firearm, according to a wide variety of photos from the time on his abandoned laptop, and the gun was found discarded in a public trash can next to a school. The Secret Service allegedly intervened in the investigation of that incident.

While many legal experts say a jury should easily convict Hunter, constitutional scholar Jonathan Turley and Judge Jeanine Pirro said on Fox News that jury nullification is a real risk for the prosecution.

 Turley explained to the Hill:

So why wouldn’t Hunter just plead guilty? Even without his earlier plea deal, a guilty plea could significantly reinforce a request to avoid jail time in the case. It would also avoid an embarrassing trial for himself and his father during a presidential election.

While Hunter could always throw in the towel before the start of testimony, there is currently no discernible strategy beyond hoping that a pending case in the Supreme Court might undermine the indictment.

There may also be another possible strategy in play: jury nullification.

Pirro was also surprised Hunter did not plead guilty to forgo the trial, she told Fox News’s Martha MacCallum in reference to potential jury nullification. “They’re [defense] trying to overlook the fact that there is proof beyond a reasonable doubt here,” she said:

They’re trying to get the jury to maybe nullify the verdict, which simply means a jury may believe that the case has been proven to their satisfaction to everyone beyond a reasonable doubt, but they’re going to cut him [Hunter] loose for any reason.

Hunter’s lawyers appear to be using a “remarkably clever and remarkably careful” defense of their client, defense lawyer Ron Kuby told CNN, noting the defense is predicated on two arguments:

• Biden did not know he was lying on the form “because he thought when he was asked, ‘Are you using drugs?’ That meant right now.”
• Biden did not identify as a drug addict at that time.

“In order to get the jury to kind of disregard some things, first, you need to make them want to acquit your client,” Kuby explained. “It’s a redemption here — here was this drug addict, and now here is this fine-looking, clean, sober man. The jury is going to want to find a reason to vote not guilty.”

“Once the jury has decided to hunt for reasonable doubt, they’ll usually find it,” he said.

Read more about the case here.

The case is United States v. Hunter Biden, No. 24-1703 in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.

Wendell Husebo is a political reporter with Breitbart News and a former GOP War Room Analyst. He is the author of Politics of Slave Morality. Follow Wendell on “X” @WendellHusebø or on Truth Social @WendellHusebo.