Prosecutors urge court not to dismiss Hunter Biden case after pardon

Federal prosecutors have argued against dismissing charges against Hunter Biden following a presidential pardon granted by his father, President Joe Biden.

The legal filing, submitted to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, states that no legal precedent mandates the dismissal of an indictment simply due to a pardon, even if it was granted by the president.

Hunter Biden had been convicted this year of federal charges related to tax evasion and illegal possession of a firearm. The charges carry combined penalties of up to 42 years in prison.

Following the pardon, Biden’s legal team submitted a motion arguing that the “Full and Unconditional Pardon” necessitates dismissal of the charges with prejudice, effectively ending the case.

But prosecutors, led by special counsel David Weiss, countered this assertion. “A pardon does not blot out guilt or expunge a judgment of conviction,” the filing stated while citing past rulings such as United States v. Steven Bannon. They emphasized that a pardon removes the punishment but does not invalidate the legal basis for an indictment.

The prosecutors’ opposition draws on historical practice and judicial precedent. They highlighted cases like United States v. Urlacher, where pardoned individuals were administratively terminated from court records rather than having their charges dismissed outright.

“The majority of courts, when faced with such a decision, have chosen to dismiss an indictment only with the government’s consent or where single-defendant cases were involved,” the memorandum reads​.

Weiss also referenced the D.C. Circuit’s decision from In re North, which found that a presidential pardon does not erase probable cause for guilt established in an indictment. “An indictment establishes probable cause that the accused has committed a crime. Guilt can only be established by a much higher standard, proof beyond a reasonable doubt,” the filing stated​.

Hunter Biden’s defense team has contended that the charges were politically motivated. In a separate document, they labeled the prosecution as a “surrogate to attack and injure his father.”

Prosecutors dismissed this claim, arguing there was no evidence supporting allegations of selective or vindictive prosecution. Courts in California and Delaware had previously rejected similar motions from Biden’s team, finding no credible basis​.

“To the extent that Defendant’s claim that he is being selectively prosecuted rests solely on him being the son of the sitting President, that claim is belied by the facts. The Executive Branch that charged Defendant is headed by that sitting President—Defendant’s father. The Attorney General heading the DOJ was appointed by and reports to Defendant’s father. And that Attorney General appointed the Special Counsel who made the challenged charging decision in this case—while Defendant’s father was still the sitting President,” the Delaware court ruled.

President Biden’s decision to pardon his son has sparked significant criticism, with opponents saying it defies the president’s prior promises to maintain independence and integrity within the justice system. Biden defended the clemency: “Raw politics infected this process and led to a miscarriage of justice.” He also expressed hope that the American people would understand his actions as both a father and the president​.