7-Eleven messages – empty wheel

It cannot be overstated how calling Naomi Biden to testify backfired on Hunter Biden.

Contrary to what Tiger Beat journalists at the courthouse claimed, she was not called upon to “humanize” her father. Rather, they intended to refute a claim Hallie Biden made about the truck: that the console lock had been broken.

Q. So now your father has the truck, when you gave the truck to your father, I would like you to describe the interior of it. Does the truck have a console?

A. Yes.

Q. And under the console, what is there?

A. It’s like a safe.

Q. And that means it is a steel or metal object?

A. Yeah.

Q. Is there a lock or not?

A. There is a lock.

Q. And when you and Peter got it in October, was the safe working?

A. Yes.

Q. Was it broken?

A. No.

Even that backfired. Leo Wise used Naomi’s testimony regarding a clean truck as circumstantial evidence that between October 19 and 23, Hunter did indeed break down.

And if you compare what Naomi Biden said that she returned the truck clean to her father on October 19, 2018, that there were no leftover drugs or drug paraphernalia inside, with the testimony of Hallie Biden that she searched the truck On October 23, a few days later, she discovered remains of drugs. Remember, the way she testified about what a leftover dope is is that when you break off pieces, smaller pieces or cracks on a larger rock, a lot of it falls off and breaks , that’s what a remainder is, and that’s what Hallie Biden saw in it. truck on Oct. 23, and she also found drug paraphernalia.

So what does this mean? What does it mean, a clean truck without drug remains and drug paraphernalia on October 19, as in the testimony of the accused’s own daughter, then a truck with drug remains and drug paraphernalia October 23?

This means that the defendant used crack cocaine in the truck between October 15, 2018 and October 23, 2018, which was October 19, when he picked it up.

In contrast, Naomi’s claims that her father seemed hopeful during this time quickly fell apart, as prosecutors showed her her own texts with a frown, saying she hadn’t spent much time time with him while he was in New York.

Q. Well, if we turn to the next page, did you send your father a series of texts where you told him that you were in Brooklyn, but that you could ask Peter to meet him and trade , so did you ask your father if he had seen Peter and did he ask you if – and did you ask if you would have the opportunity to see him, in other words, your father?

A. Yes.

Q. And was your father’s answer no? Is it on page 1719? A. I think he said no, if he called.

Q. Your next message then is “so, we’re not seeing each other?” »

A. Yeah.

Q. And then you said, it looks like you made a rather disgruntled face, and the following? A. You ask?

Q. Yes.

A. Yes.

Q. And then the next one is, “I’m so sorry, Dad, I can’t stand this.” » And then “I don’t know what to say, I miss you so much, I just want to spend time with you.” RIGHT?

A. Yeah.

That would have been enough anyway to undermine any defense claim that Hunter cleaned during the time he possessed the gun.

But then, at 9:30 p.m. the day before closing arguments, after initially saying they would not present a rebuttal, prosecutors called Father Lowell to tell him they had to do so because Naomi was wrong about the day where his father had arrived in New York. on the 15th rather than the 17th (in fact, she answered in the affirmative when Lowell asked her if: “When he drove up, do you remember the October day, was it October 15th?” ).

Mr. LOWELL: Last night at 9:30 or whatever after the government said they wouldn’t have a rebuttal, they wrote in preparing the closing argument, and in reviewing the transcript tonight we realized that Naomi Biden had provided inaccurate testimony about when the defendant traveled to New York. This is what they wrote, this is the need for a rebuttal. I understand, we can solve this problem.

What they did after that, late at night, was provide us with a new set of texts, forty-two of them, to offer in between before he arrived in New York where where he was, who he was talking to and what he was doing. , which includes references that may be trying to contact or having people contact him for possible drug use, this was not put in his main file. If what they said, and this is a rebuttal, it’s a case of a rebuttal as to where he was or whether Naomi was wrong, then that’s what the rebuttal is. This does not need forty-two texts that include all kinds of languages.

We would be willing to stipulate that either you heard Naomi Biden testify that he arrived and he was there on the 15th, that’s not correct, it was a few days later, or we can stipulate if he is arrived there, the or we can stipulate as to the places where he was, but having forty-two texts of all these other documents that they could have proposed does not constitute a refutation of the proposition, which would be a refutation appropriate, and if it was even remotely relevant to what the location was, then that would be detrimental beyond all relevance.

To prove Naomi got the date wrong — something Hunter’s team was happy to point out — prosecutors said it warranted submitting 42 new texts as evidence, texts that had not been provided as an exhibit. potential conviction previously, texts that the defense received the morning of the hearing. .

Prosecutors used the date difference to submit a set of texts showing Hunter arranged meetings at a 7-Eleven.

Mr. HINES: The first thing I will say is that all of these text messages point to our evidence that he was still in Delaware on October 15, but nevertheless our rebuttal argument is not limited, it does not There is no rule of evidence that limits an argument in rebuttal. exactly the words spoken by the defense witness.

What I will say about the connection to the 15th is that we have location information showing him at a 7-Eleven on October 14th, 15th and 16th. I believe these are the dates that are reflected in the summary table.

And location information and a photograph is just that, it is location information, it does not identify whether the person themselves was actually in that location because the photograph shows a geolocation, that could have be someone else’s photograph. So the other messages that we’ve included are all messages, et cetera, that show the defendant was frequenting a 7-Eleven, they’re just messages from October 9th up until that date when he left the area, showing that he communicated with other people to meet. at a 7-Eleven.

In doing so, just before closing arguments (and giving Lowell no time to prepare), prosecutors presented evidence that Hunter was trying to meet a guy named Q at a 7-Eleven.

As Lowell described it when he vigorously objected, showing texts from October 10 would not disprove Naomi’s perspective of what Hunter looked like on October 19; it was a change of case.

Mr. LOWELL: I’m going to be repetitive, this is a case-changing event and it shouldn’t be a case-changing event that they get involved in. What is relevant to refute her perception of him on the 19th? If he didn’t use drugs two weeks ago, does that refute his perception? Six days until we know when he’s on crack. He must do it every twenty minutes according to the testimony. There is a discrepancy, there is an extraordinary discrepancy with the fact that she says that I saw it, perhaps she wants to look at it with blinders, perhaps she does not say what ‘he does, but it’s not…

Particularly given Hunter’s reference to the encounter with dealers at 7-Eleven in his memoir, this was some of the prosecution’s strongest evidence that he purchased drugs immediately before purchasing the weapon. Indeed, they were among the few things Leo Wise mentioned in presenting circumstantial evidence that he was on drugs that week.

What do we know specifically about this month of October. You see these drug messages on the screen on the 13th and 14th. You see the addiction messages depicted on the 15th and 23rd. You see the meeting messages on the 10th and 11th, the day before the gun was purchased on the 12th, and you see on the 23rd both drug messages, leftover drugs, and drug paraphernalia recovered by Hallie Biden from the truck. (emphasis mine)

Noreika’s decision to allow prosecutors to submit messages from a week before Naomi saw her father to refute her claim that he looked fine is another of the decisions Lowell will include in any potential appeal.

It’s also a decision, and a development, that hasn’t been fully explained.

There are plenty of armchair experts on whether Hunter should have pleaded guilty (most of which misrepresent what happened to the plea deal, although that is an exception). But few people understand how prosecutors used the mere fact that Naomi testified as an excuse to introduce texts that should have been in their main case.