Jurors who recently convicted Hunter Biden of federal gun charges expressed mixed feelings about the trial’s necessity and fairness, despite finding him guilty. According to ABC News, some jurors questioned the rationale behind prosecuting the president’s son, suggesting that his high-profile status did not sway their judgment.
A Delaware woman serving on the jury voiced concerns about the use of public funds for the case, describing it as “a waste of taxpayers’ dollars.” Despite these reservations, she noted that the jury managed to reach a consensus with minimal conflict. “It turned out better than I expected. There was no fighting in the jury room,” she stated.
The 51-year-old juror emphasized that Hunter Biden, who has struggled with addiction, required assistance rather than incarceration. “I don’t think that anyone who is a nonviolent drug addict should be in prison. Just fine him. We know he did something wrong. Just fine him. He needs help,” she advocated.
The jury convicted Biden of two counts related to making false statements during a firearm purchase and one count of illegally obtaining a firearm while addicted to drugs. The deliberation was swift, concluding in less than a day. “When we took the first vote on count one, we were split 50-50, but then when we went down and read each count and you heard each person’s opinion, that made sense,” she explained.
Key evidence in the trial included text messages between Biden and others surrounding the gun purchase, which jurors found indicative of his drug-seeking behavior. “It did show in my opinion that he was trying to get drugs,” the Delaware juror remarked.
Another juror also shared his experience, stating that his awareness of Biden’s identity did not influence his judgment. “I knew it, but I didn’t take that [into account],” he said. “That didn’t affect me or sway me a bit.”
Elijah Lewis-Guy, another juror, mentioned that he was unaware of Biden’s identity prior to the trial. His personal history with gun violence gave him a unique perspective on the case. “Him being the son of the president just means that, once again, everyone is human and everyone makes mistakes,” Lewis-Guy reflected. He further noted that the evidence presented effectively demonstrated Biden’s drug use at the time of the firearm purchase.
The trial’s conclusion brings a complex mixture of opinions, highlighting the challenges and responsibilities of legal accountability, particularly when the defendant holds a significant public profile.