U.S. Government Opposes Motion to Dismiss Indictment Against Hunter Biden
the Department of Justice (DOJ) strongly opposed a motion to dismiss the indictment against Hunter Biden. The filing comes after Hunter Biden’s legal team argued that his recent presidential pardon should lead to the dismissal of all charges against him. The DOJ asserts that no legal precedent mandates such a dismissal, even following the issuance of a pardon.
The Defense Argument
Hunter Biden’s legal team filed a motion titled “Defendant’s Notice of Pardon,” arguing that the full and unconditional pardon granted by President Joe Biden requires the dismissal of the indictment with prejudice. The defense claims that the pardon nullifies the charges and effectively concludes the case. They also argued that the indictment itself was a result of selective and vindictive prosecution driven by political motives.
The DOJ’s Rebuttal
The DOJ’s response, led by Special Counsel David C. Weiss, refutes the claims made by Hunter Biden’s defense. According to the DOJ, a presidential pardon does not require the dismissal of an indictment. Instead, a pardon exempts the individual from punishment while preserving the historical and legal record of the charges and the judicial process.
The DOJ cited prior cases, including United States v. Flynn and United States v. Urlacher, to demonstrate that courts have historically chosen not to dismiss indictments following a pardon. Instead, the case records are typically updated to reflect the clemency without erasing the indictment itself. The filing argues that dismissing the indictment could create the false impression that the charges were baseless, which the DOJ disputes.
Vindictive and Selective Prosecution Claims
Hunter Biden’s motion to dismiss also alleges that the charges stemmed from vindictive and selective prosecution due to his status as the President’s son. The DOJ’s filing dismissed these claims as “baseless,” citing prior rulings in both the Central District of California and the District of Delaware that found no evidence of improper motives behind the charges. The court records highlight that the prosecution was initiated and carried forward by a Special Counsel appointed by Attorney General Merrick Garland, under President Biden’s administration.
The DOJ noted that 11 different federal judges, appointed by six different presidents, have reviewed and rejected Hunter Biden’s claims of selective and vindictive prosecution.
Legal and Historical Precedent
The DOJ’s opposition emphasizes that a pardon does not expunge guilt or erase the grand jury’s finding of probable cause. The filing cites the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Burdick v. United States, which held that accepting a pardon carries an implicit acknowledgment of guilt. In this context, the DOJ argues that the court should not dismiss the indictment as it would contradict established legal principles and undermine the integrity of the judicial process.
The court will now consider the arguments presented by both sides. The DOJ has requested that the indictment remain on record, with the case closed administratively to reflect the pardon without erasing the historical record of the charges.
The outcome of this case could set a precedent for how pardons are treated in future cases involving high-profile defendants. For now, the DOJ’s stance underscores its commitment to preserving the integrity of the judicial process while acknowledging the clemency extended by the President.
About The Author
