Judge blocks key defense evidence and witness on eve of Hunter Biden gun trial

[TheProle]

The federal judge overseeing Hunter Biden’s gun trial dealt his defense two setbacks Sunday, on the eve of jury selection, by blocking one of his expert witnesses and excluding a key piece of evidence the president’s son hoped to use.

The rulings from Judge Maryellen Noreika resolved some of the sticking points that were still simmering before the trial begins Monday. Taken together, these decisions could make a tough case for Hunter Biden even more challenging to win. President Joe Biden’s son has pleaded not guilty to illegally buying and owning a gun while abusing illicit drugs.

Noreika granted a request from special counsel David Weiss to block one of Hunter Biden’s expert witnesses from testifying. The defense had lined up a Columbia University-based psychiatrist who would’ve tried to poke holes in prosecutors’ assertions that Hunter Biden knew he was an addict in 2018 when he bought the gun that led to his indictment.
Hunter Biden walks with his wife Melissa Cohen Biden to board Air Force One at Dover Air Force Base, Delaware, on May 31.

“The inadequacy of Defendant’s expert disclosure for Dr. (Elie) Aoun leaves the government in the dark as to what his opinions about the facts of this case will be, thus rendering the government unable to prepare for trial,” Noreika wrote in her ruling.

The judge also blocked Hunter Biden’s lawyers from using what they thought was a key piece of exculpatory evidence: an altered version of the federal firearms form he filled out when he bought the gun in 2018 that was tweaked in 2021 by the gun store employees.

https://www.cnn.com/2024/06/02/politics/judge-blocks-evidence-hunter-biden-gun-trial?cid=ios_app

[wishstar]

1. Same judge that blew up the plea deal

[mahina]

2. Both of these seem like unfair exclusions. Any legal folks see differently? Thank you.

[FBaggins]

6. Not really much to judge on here

Yes - an offer of proof should include a summary of what the expert witness will testify to so that the opposing party can prepare. But I wouldn’t expect that gap to be in-cured this late in the game.

The other issue is much the same. Can’t see why it would be relevant (and thus why the defense wants it)

[mahina]

8. Thanks

[unblock]

3. wow, i didn't know they tampered with the evidence.

i see the argument that it doesn't matter in terms of the evidence itself, as only the original, untampered evidence will be presented to the jury. also, adding that they claim to have checked his car registration doesn't have anything to do with whether or not hunter lied on the form.

but surely the fact that a witness tampered with evidence would normally be relevant to that witness's general credibility. it shows they made a mistake and tried to cover it up, which raises the question of what other mistakes did they make and what else are they covering up. it does suggest that they might lie, or at least not be forthcoming with the truth.

this seem to be to be at less reasonably good grounds for appeal -- though that i'm guessing would come after the election....

[unblock]

4. as for the "inadequacy of defendant's disclosure" regarding a proposed witness's testimony,

wouldn't that normally result in pressure from the judge to make a more complete disclosure, as opposed to just barring the witness entirely?

or did they already go through that and the defense was somehow refused to cooperate? i find that unlikely, but i don't know what previous steps were taken.

[DET]

5. Judge Was Appointed by Trump

Here we go…

[bluestarone]

7. Seems like everytime it's a tRUMP judge that is making decisions in the courts.

Looks more and more like they knew what the were doing when he appointed judges.