Hunter Biden is seeking to postpone his federal tax trial in Los Angeles by more than two months, despite the judge warning against significant delays. He requested to move the trial date from June 20 to September 5 due to scheduling conflicts with an unrelated gun case in Delaware. The judge had previously expressed a desire to proceed to trial without significant delay, and prosecutors argued against the postponement, noting that the defendant had teams of lawyers working on both cases.
The San Francisco-based Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected Hunter Biden’s request to have the charges against him tossed. Prosecutors opposed the 77-day postponement of the California trial, pointing out that the defendant’s decision to schedule a trial in the gun case in early June was his own making and should not be a reason for a continuance. They also mentioned that over thirty witnesses, most of them out-of-state, had already set their schedules around the original trial date.
Prosecutors plan to call multiple witnesses for the trial, which includes six misdemeanor and three felony counts related to $1.4 million in federal income taxes allegedly skipped by Hunter Biden from 2016 to 2019. The taxes owed have since been paid to the government. Additionally, the first son faces three weapons charges for allegedly owning a gun while addicted to crack cocaine. Despite the charges, Hunter Biden has denied any wrongdoing in the case.
The case judge, Mark Scarsi, is scheduled to hold a conference to address Hunter Biden’s request for postponement. Scarsi had previously warned the defendant about ignoring key scheduling deadlines, indicating that significant delays would not be allowed. The prosecutors emphasized that the defendant had ample legal representation and should be held accountable for the tight turnaround between the two trials. The trial delay could impact the schedules of the witnesses, many of whom are from out-of-state.
Overall, Hunter Biden’s attempts to postpone his federal tax trial in Los Angeles face opposition from prosecutors and warnings from the judge. The defendant’s scheduling conflicts with an unrelated gun case have caused complications, but the judge had initially expressed a desire to proceed to trial without significant delay. Prosecutors argue against the postponement, stating that the defendant has teams of lawyers and is responsible for managing the tight turnaround between the two trials. Despite the challenges, the case continues with multiple charges against the president’s son, who maintains his innocence.
