Just as his trial on tax evasion is about to start, Politico reports that Hunter Biden’s legal team is attempting a very unique strategy. Here’s the reporting by Politico’s Betsy Woodruff Swan and Melanie Mason:
Hunter Biden submitted a plea to accept responsibility for tax evasion and other tax crimes on Thursday just moments before his trial on those charges was scheduled to begin.
The plea offer is a major plot twist in a six-year investigation of the president’s son that exposed his lucrative business deals with foreign companies and his lengthy struggles with drug addiction.
Biden’s attorneys told the judge that Biden would like to enter an unusual plea known as an Alford plea, in which a defendant maintains innocence but concedes that prosecutors have enough evidence to obtain a conviction. Courts treat Alford pleas the same as guilty pleas. […]
If the plea is accepted, Biden would admit that prosecutors can prove that he willfully failed to pay more than $1.4 million in taxes he owed for tax years 2016 through 2019. He would also avoid a trial that threatens to embarrass the president’s family by dredging up unflattering details from the younger Biden’s past.
[source]
Even though his father is no longer running for President, there are some key reasons that Hunter Biden would want to get through his trial and sentencing as soon as possible. The biggest reason is that, as we have seen multiple times, Federal trials and sentencing take a while. If things continue as is, it’s entirely possible that the process could extend past the 2024 Presidential Election. It’s probable that sentencing might not occur until after next year’s transition of power. Given that it’s entirely possible that Donald Trump could be our next President, it’s in Hunter Biden’s best interest to have this resolved before a potential Trump DOJ takes over.
However, the court must accept the plea deal to avoid trial. My sense is that is far from a done deal. Again, from Politico’s reporting:
U.S. District Judge Mark Scarsi did not immediately say how he would handle the new plea and ordered a short recess to consider the matter. Prosecutors said the courtroom revelation was “the first we’ve heard of this,” and that they want to assess whether an Alford plea is “appropriate.”
Biden’s lawyer Abbe Lowell said it’s indisputable that his client, who had previously pleaded not guilty to the nine tax charges, has the right to enter the new plea. It’s unclear if the trial will continue Thursday as planned.
While Lowell is correct that they have the right to submit this plea, it’s also the case that the Court isn’t required to accept it. While the Alford plea is treated the same as a traditional guilty plea, the fact that Hunter Biden is unwilling to acknowledge guilt could be a big blocker.
Additionally, this is the type of move that both judges and prosecutors want to know about before it is publicly announced. This is especially the case when the defense waits until the last minute to enter a unique plea. Fair or not, pissing off the judge and the prosecution is not the best thing to do when you are essentially admitting that there is more than enough evidence to convict.
That said, the court may accept the plea and then extract their pound of flesh during sentencing. The results could mean that Hunter Biden will get a harsher sentence than if he had pleaded guilty earlier in the process. Only time will tell.
Hat tip to Jack for the heads-up about the plea offer in today’s open forum.
Update: The Washington Post now has an article up with some additional details about “Alfrod pleas” and the Prosecution’s reaction to this move:
Prosecutors objected to the proposal, which they had not been told of in advance. U.S. District Judge Mark Scarsi is expected to decide this afternoon whether to adjourn the proceedings until Friday or give the two sides more time to come to agreement.
“I want to make crystal clear: the U.S. opposes an Alford plea … Hunter Biden is not innocent, he is guilty,” Leo Wise, an attorney working for special counsel David Weiss, told the judge. “We came to court to try this case.”
Biden’s attorney, Abbe Lowell, noted that Alford pleas are an option available to all criminal defendants — even though such plea agreements are relatively rare. “All over the U.S. people do this,” Lowell said. “It’s not that [Hunter Biden] seeks special treatment, but that he gets the same rights as everyone who is charged.” …
An Alford plea, named after a case North Carolina v. Alford, is a way for a defendant to register a formal admission of guilt toward charges they are facing while simultaneously maintaining their innocence.
United States attorneys are only able to consent to Alford pleas “in the most unusual of circumstances” and consult with top officials at the Department of Justice before doing so, according to federal prosecution guidelines. [source]
What’s also great about the OTB commenter community is we have folks from all professions contributing, including a lot of lawyers. Before the update Ski, who is a lawyer (but not in a criminal legal system practice), added this commentary:
I would be shocked if the Court didn’t accept it. Failing to accept it would be a huge waste of government resources and the Court’s time.
IMO, the judge may not count it as a guilty plea in terms of sentencing considerations/factors but they are definitely accepting it.
Ski’s right that trials require a LOT of resources, creating incentives to avoid them. That’s part of what has led to our Criminal Legal System being based on plea deals (an issue I’m very attuned to). I know cases are more likely to go to trial in the Federal System versus State/County courts.
I agree that if the plea is accepted over the objections of the prosecutors, I expect that Biden will pay for this move when it comes time for sentencing.
I look forward to learning what the rest of our learned counsels think about this topic.
