Hunter Biden’s Delaware firearms trial is about to begin, and the jury selection has produced some interesting outcomes. Although one might have had some expectations about how the trial would proceed in Delaware’s deep blue, there were some surprises.
In Delaware, Judge Maryellen Norreika quizzed each prospective juror who had answered “yes” to a questionnaire individually to determine if they were fair and impartial. They were all dismissed one by one to thin out the pool.
Questions ranged from the knowledge they had of the case, to their opinions on gun ownership, and whether or not anyone in their immediate family has struggled with addiction or substance abuse. Some questions centered on the possible role that politics played in the accusations.
This case could be an example of what legal professionals on both sides of the issue are thinking.
One potential juror stated that she was unsure if she could be impartial due to the opinion she formed of Hunter Biden from media reports.
When asked by an attorney what she thought, she responded “It isn’t a good one.” A second prospective juror was also dismissed, because of his long-standing family history in law enforcement. He said that he couldn’t be impartial. Another was dismissed because he knew the case well and that “politics plays a major role in who is charged and when.”
One potential juror only answered “no”. He moved to the next stage. One juror who wasn’t dismissed stated that he has a concealed-carry permit and three handguns. He said that he is a strong believer in gun ownership and that every law-abiding person should be allowed to own one.
He said, “I think the Second Amendment is important.”
A juror who sounded like a Second Amendment supporter was retained for a possible jury. This would seem to make sense in a firearms case. However, the courts do not always act logically. It would seem (to a non-lawyer, but rather a biologist), that the prosecution would not be interested in a gun advocate.
What about an anti-gun type?
Attorneys moved together to dismiss a woman after she expressed strongly anti-gun views when questioned.
She said, “I’d like to see stronger laws in this nation about certain types of weapons.” “The ones that are high-repeat, you know, the ones that kill school children.”
The woman said that the government should also require more background checks, and make it harder for people to obtain a gun which “can kill many people at once.”
The woman said, “I would ban these altogether to be honest,” and added that she had donated to Democratic candidates for Congress across the country. She also admitted to having joined “one or more resistance groups” following the 2016 elections.
This is very interesting. You would think (see the disclaimer above), that the prosecution would prefer to have this person on the jury. I would think that a jury made up of anti-gun people could help to close a case in which someone was accused of buying a firearm illegally. However, these anti-gun people are also liberals and we don’t know what this person said to questions about other topics.
Mia Cathell from Townhall Media attended the trial and gave a summary of what is known about the jury so far.
Remember, impartiality is found in all its forms.
The prosecution has a strong case based on what we know. Hunter Biden, who was a drug addict, purchased a handgun from a licensed dealer and lied about it on Form 4473. Hunter Biden is entitled to the presumption that he’s innocent and a fair trial by a jury made up of American citizens, no matter how scurrilous he might be.
This could affect the elections. Hunter Biden may not be running for office but a conviction could still be seen as a vote of approval by some voters. It might also have repercussions on the fragile, befuddled president. That remains to be determined.
