By Caden Pearson
Special counsel David Weiss on Friday opposed Hunter Biden’s attempt to halt district court proceedings concerning his gun charges, asserting that an appellate court lacks the jurisdiction to hear the appeal.
According to an April 17 status report and notice of interlocutory appeal, Mr. Biden intends to revisit his arguments with an appellate panel at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit and, therefore, asserts that the district court no longer has jurisdiction.
The prosecution disagreed, arguing on Friday that the Third Circuit doesn’t have jurisdiction just on the basis of Mr. Biden’s notice of interlocutory appeal.
“In his reply to a pleading he framed as a ‘Status Report,’ the defendant for the first time asks this Court to stay the district court proceedings while he pursues a frivolous appeal which the Third Circuit does not have jurisdiction to hear,” prosecutors wrote in their Friday filing.
“The government treats the defendant’s reply as a motion to stay proceedings and files this opposition. Without providing any authority to support his claim that the issues he appeals are subject to interlocutory review, the defendant simply asserts that ‘this Court has been divested of jurisdiction, so it cannot proceed.’”
“The defendant is incorrect,” they added.
In a status report filed on April 17, Mr. Biden’s attorneys sought “further clarity regarding a scheduling order in this matter.” The defense requested a scheduling status conference with the judge due to their ongoing appellate actions, impending deadlines, and disagreement over the schedule proposed by the special counsel.
Prosecutors pointed to this as a bid to stay proceedings.
Mr. Biden’s lawyers argued in a subsequent filing later that day against what they said was the prosecutor’s suggestion to “plow ahead” in scheduling a trial while the case is under appeal, calling the request “unlawful and illogical.”
The defense asserted that it would be improper for the district court to address the matter while an appeal is now being sought with the Third Circuit. The defense cited legal precedent that, when an appeal is filed, the district court loses jurisdiction over the aspects of the case involved in the appeal.
Prosecutors called it “misleading” for the defense to characterize their arguments as trying to “plow ahead” toward a trial, noting that both parties agreed to the June 3 trial date and deadlines.
They argued in their Friday filing that Mr. Biden had not met his burden of establishing that an appellate court has jurisdiction over the appeal. They argued that attempts to appeal “nonappealable” district court orders can be blocked from disrupting proceedings “even while the appeal is pending.”
Courts have previously found that doing otherwise “would enable a litigant temporarily to deprive a district court of jurisdiction at any non-critical or critical juncture including trial itself, thus bringing proceedings in the district court to a standstill while a non-appealable ruling wends its way through the appellate process,’” according to the filing.
Prosecutors argued that the defense “has not properly raised his request to stay proceedings in this Court” and that the “improper” notice of interlocutory appeal filed on April 17 “does not divest the district court of jurisdiction.”
For this reason, the Third Circuit has long recognized that district courts retain jurisdiction over appeals that are not subject to interlocutory review, the prosecutors argue.
Following Mr. Biden’s filing with the appeals court, the Third Circuit immediately issued an order on April 17 requesting a briefing on the threshold jurisdictional question within 14 days because the “orders on appeal may not be final and may not be otherwise appealable at this time.”
Case
On April 17, lawyers representing Mr. Biden filed a notice of interlocutory appeal to revisit the same arguments with an appellate panel at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
This came after presiding U.S. District Judge Maryellen Noreika, a President Donald Trump appointee, rejected the defense’s motions to dismiss.
Mr. Biden’s lawyers argued that he was granted “immunity” under a government plea deal and diversion agreement made last summer that was crumpled. They also contended that special counsel David Weiss’s appointment and funding were unlawful and that his indictment breached the separation of powers.
Judge Noreika deemed the claims in Mr. Biden’s motions “not credible” on April 12.
The president’s son was indicted last September on two counts related to not disclosing his drug use during a purchase and one count related to unlawfully possessing a firearm while addicted to a controlled substance.
He pleaded not guilty to all charges after negotiations with the government collapsed on a plea deal that would have seen Mr. Biden plead guilty to two tax offenses in order to sidestep a formal firearm-related charge under certain terms.
The plea deal, described by Republicans as a “sweetheart” deal, was put on hold, prompting Abe Lowell, Mr. Biden’s attorney, to accuse the Department of Justice of changing their decision “on the fly.”
Currently, the trial in the case is scheduled for June 3.
