Inset: Rudy Giuliani (AP Photo/Jose Luis Magana). Background left to right: Hunter Biden (Yuri Gripas/Abaca/Sipa USA/AP Images) and David Weiss (AP Photo/Alex Brandon).
Attorneys representing President Joe Biden’s son, Hunter Biden, 54, filed a motion complaining about the way they are being treated by the special counsel in their client’s California tax fraud case.
And, the defense claims, the prosecutor’s recent behavior is both small-bore, dishonest, and particularly petty to boot.
“Special counsel used an otherwise uneventful trial document as an opportunity to cast defense counsel in a negative light and prejudice the defendant before this Court by implying that the defense would intentionally violate this Court’s orders,” the terse, four-page filing by Mark Geragos and four of Biden’s other attorneys reads.
The recrimination comes in a Friday riposte to the government’s Thursday filing of a document that is decidedly typically mundane in pre-trial motions practice before a court: a glossary of terms.
“Defense counsel proposed additional names that the Government believes would violate the Court’s ruling on the motions in limine,” special counsel David Weiss wrote in an eight-page filing.
The government’s filing also contains “applicable medical, scientific, or technical terms, gang terms, slang, the names and spellings of names likely to be cited, and any other case-specific terminology,” but only the names of people the parties both agreed on.
In their tit-for-tat filing, the defense included the non-agreed-upon names, including former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani, current U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland, and Weiss himself.
The fast and furious accusations came after an Aug. 29 email conferral between the government and the defense to hash out a glossary of terms for the court reporter in Biden’s forthcoming trial.
The latest dueling missives are of a piece with back-and-forth between the two parties, which has consistently been marked by headline-generating departures from comity and decorum.
“Counsel for Defendant Robert Hunter Biden, provided a list of twenty-two names to include on the list,” the defense motion reads. “In response, Special Counsel expressed he was ‘concerned that adding some of them indicates that the defense intends to violate the Court’s rulings on the motions in limine,’ highlighted the names he believed fell in that category, and requested an explanation of how those names will come up at trial.”
On Aug. 27, U.S. District Judge Mark C. Scarsi issued an omnibus order dealing with 11 different motions in limine filed by both the government and the defense, which ran the gamut on what either side could introduce during trial — inclusive of would-be testimony, argument, alleged facts, narratives, motives, and so on.
Both sides won victories in their efforts to keep certain information away from jurors’ ears. On balance, the government’s seven motions, which were largely granted, by sheer number outweighed the defense’s four motions, which were also largely granted.
Hunter Biden’s contested supplemental glossary (Court filing).
In only two instances, however, did the court directly fashion its order to mention a would-be witness by name: (1) Dr. Joshua Lee; and (2) Thomas Bishop — proposed experts. In Lee’s case, the court precluded the testimony; in Bishop’s case, the court reserved judgment. Only Lee’s name appears on the defense’s supplemental glossary motion.
The government’s warnings regarding potential violations of the court’s orders appear focused on concerns Biden might make “an improper opening statement and [argue] facts not in evidence” and/or arguments “not appropriate for consideration by the jury.”
Biden’s attorneys, for their part, say this is a big dustup about nothing — because their efforts were geared toward the court reporter.
“Counsel for Defendant replied explaining that the court reporter will be transcribing matters both in front of and outside the presence of the jury, therefore the names could very likely come up in proceedings outside the presence of the jury, without any intention on the part of defense counsel to violate any court orders,” Biden’s filing reads. “Special Counsel proceeded to file the glossary without including the names, but did state in the government’s filing that the government believed defense counsel intended to violate the Court’s rulings on the motions in limine.”
And, the defense says, the government knew all of this court reporter-focused information but failed to mention it in their earlier filing.
“Special counsel did not include in the filing defense counsel’s position that the terms could be used in matters that may be raised outside the presence of the jury,” the Biden motion concludes. “Defense counsel has no intention of violating the Court’s Order by the inclusion of these names.”
Join the discussion
Have a tip we should know? [emailprotected]
