During a pre-trial hearing in Hunter Biden’s federal tax evasion case Wednesday, defense attorney Mark Geragos revealed his team’s unsurprising strategy and prosecutors laid out some details of the evidence they plan to introduce during the trial, which is scheduled to begin September 5 in Los Angeles.
Attorneys for both sides argued their motions in limine, which are “motions that seek the exclusion of specific evidence or arguments from being presented during a trial.”
RELATED: Filings in Federal Tax Case Claim Hunter Biden Was Paid by Romanian Oligarch to Get Investigation Killed
Judging by the motions filed and the arguments made Wednesday, it seems the defense strategy will be to argue that while in the throes of addiction Hunter had diminished mental capacity, and secondarily that his tax preparers and advisors had some type of enhanced responsibility to ensure that his deductions were all legit and shirked that responsibility.
Assistant US Attorney Leo Wise hit back at that strategy, saying:
“No matter how many drugs you take, you don’t suddenly forget that when you make $11 million you need to pay taxes.”
Geragos argued at length that he should be able to call an addiction expert who’ll supposedly provide testimony that Hunter’s cocaine addiction was caused by traumas such as the 1972 car crash that killed his mother and sister and his brother Beau’s death in 2015, but in the expert witness disclosure he failed to list any of the particular opinions this expert would give or the methodology used or how the expert arrived at that opinion.
The prosecution argued that without knowing these details there was no way they could prepare to cross-examine the witness or call their own rebuttal expert. On that motion Judge Mark Scarsi ruled for the prosecution, excluding that expert.
Scarsi also ruled that witnesses can testify to what they observed about the level of Hunter’s drug use over time, but not opine as to what they think caused it. Witnesses such as Hallie Biden could testify to Hunter’s drug use, Wise said, and other family members the defense might call to the stand could also be asked about it. Inexplicably, Geragos then said:
“The difference between the government and the mafia is that the mafia spares women and children.”
Geragos attempted to exclude any evidence or testimony about “tabloidy” details of what Hunter Biden spent money on instead of paying taxes, saying:
“What they are asking to do is … we’re gonna sit here, we’re gonna read from his autobiography, we’re gonna talk about his paying for prostitutes, we’re gonna talk about him being on drugs 24 hours a day. That’s what they plan on presenting in their case in chief.”
The legendary defense attorney claims that the prosecution strategy is to “slime” his client by going into detail about the money Hunter spent on prostitutes, drugs, Lamborghinis, pornographic websites, and luxury hotel suites for drug-fueled orgies and claimed as business expenses.
“It’s actually a form of character assassination by the prosecution in order to paint a lopsided, completely untethered from reality, picture of Mr. Biden.”
AUSA Leo Wise retorted:
“[Hunter] describes his life as a bacchanal. Partying in those hotels with a cast of strippers. He chose to pay those strippers. He chose to take it as a business deduction.”
And, Wise argued, it’s necessary for the government to provide details of what the money was spent in order to meet their burden of proof:
“We don’t need to gild the lily here. He goes to pick this woman up at the airport. He rents a Lamborghini. Then he deducts that as a business expense. The jury needs those details in order to determine whether there was a mistake.”
In other words, if the prosecution doesn’t provide full details of what the money was spent on, which would come into evidence through bank or other financial records, or witness testimony, Hunter could argue that the inclusion of that expense as a business expense was a simple mistake.
As one example, Wise mentioned the website StreamRay, which he said their investigation revealed “allowed consenting adults to meet, and it’s of a sexual nature,” adding:
‘You can spend $30,000 on a porn website if you want. That’s not illegal, but you can’t claim it’s a business expense.”
The government also plans on calling numerous women who were paid by Hunter during the time in question, whether through sites such as Venmo or as “employees.” Wise read from a transcript of grand jury testimony from one potential witness:
“I got a $1,500 Venmo payment.”
“Where’d you meet him?”
“In a strip club.”
“The [payment description] is for artwork. Did you sell him artwork?”
“No.”
Wise also revealed that Hunter paid a number of women as employees through his Owasco PC company so that he would have the required number of employees on payroll to qualify for a corporate health insurance plan since Hunter needed health insurance. A few of the women actually signed up for the plan, as well. The problem is, none of the women were actually working for Hunter.
Scarsi provided a stern warning for the defense team should they try to allude to evidence he’s already ruled would not be coming in, as a Hunter’s defense team in the Delaware gun case (a different group) did.
“The Court’s pretty strict about motions in limine; I’ve overturned jury verdicts because of violations of motions in limine,” Scarsi said. And given the high-profile nature of this particular case, the number of witnesses flying in to testify, the extra security expenses of this trial, Scarsi warned that if there are violations of his rulings on motions in limine that lead to a mistrial, “the Court will issue monetary sanctions against attorneys” who are in violation and that those sanctions would likely be in the six-figure range.
In addition, it was learned that entertainment attorney Kevin Morris was paying a number of Hunter Biden’s expenses during the time Hunter was not paying taxes, including rent on his Malibu mansion, a Porsche payment, retainers for a crisis communications team, and a security detail.
While jury selection in the trial begins September 5, opening statements are scheduled for Monday, September 9. The attorneys estimated that it would take eight court days to present their evidence.
