What special counsel David Weiss wants to show at Hunter Biden's tax trial

Original Article:

Source: Link

The criminal tax case against Hunter Biden is taking shape ahead of his trial set for next month, with a new court filing providing insight into special counsel David Weiss’ approach. According to that filing — part of a flurry of pretrial litigation — federal prosecutors want to introduce testimony from an associate with whom, they say, the defendant agreed to help a Romanian businessman contest bribery charges in Romania. Prosecutors say they expect evidence will show Biden and the associate “received compensation from a foreign principal who was attempting to influence U.S. policy and public opinion and cause the United States to investigate the Romanian investigation.” Prosecutors also want to introduce evidence of Biden’s business dealings with a Chinese energy conglomerate and his compensation for his position on the board of a Ukrainian energy industrial conglomerate. “This evidence will not include evidence that the defendant performed lobbying activity in exchange for this compensation,” prosecutors wrote. “Rather,” they said, “the evidence will show the defendant performed almost no work in exchange for the millions of dollars he received from these entities.” The government filing comes in response to the defense request that the judge exclude allegations of improper political influence or corruption — including any allegations that Biden acted on behalf of a foreign principal to influence U.S. policy or public opinion. His lawyers cited a federal rule that bars one side from introducing unfairly prejudicial evidence against the other. “None of these alleged crimes involve evidence or testimony relating to conspiracy theories about Mr. Biden’s supposed improper political influence and/or corruption, and such evidence or testimony is wholly irrelevant in this case,” they previously wrote to U.S. District Judge Mark Scarsi in California, who’s presiding over the tax case. In June, the president’s son was found guilty in the separate gun trial prosecuted by Weiss’ team in Delaware, where he is due to be sentenced in November. When it comes to Biden’s request to exclude allegations of acting on behalf of a foreign principal, prosecutors responded that Biden “did receive compensation from a foreign principal to attempt to influence U.S. policy and public opinion, as alleged in the indictment, and this evidence is relevant and not unfairly prejudicial.” Arguments over what evidence can be introduced at trial happen in every criminal case, though here that exercise is playing out in the extraordinary prosecution of the sitting president’s son. Generally speaking, defendants want to narrow the prosecution’s evidence to make it more difficult to carry the heavy burden of proving a case beyond a reasonable doubt. Prosecutors, meanwhile, want to paint broadly, to tell what they see as the full story surrounding a defendant’s alleged criminality. That full story can involve unsavory elements, which is seemingly what Biden’s lawyers want to prevent. The extent to which they succeed on that score remains to be seen, but the defense may have a difficult task ahead. Subscribe to the Deadline: Legal Newsletter for updates and expert analysis on the top legal stories. The newsletter will return to its regular weekly schedule when the Supreme Court’s next term kicks off in October.