Now, let's take you to the US, where the jury is deliberating in the trial of President Joe Biden's son, Hunter Biden. Now, Mr. Biden is accused of making two false statements in filling out the paperwork to purchase a revolver. First, he claimed not to be addicted to or to using illegal drugs. Then he doubled down in claiming that that statement was true. He also is accused of unlawfully possessing the weapon for 11 days. If the jury finds him guilty of all three federal counts, then Hunter Biden could face time in jail. Well, my colleague, Carl Nasman is outside the court for us. So, Carl, is the jury now deliberating?

They are. Those closing statements today, they're over. The fate of Hunter Biden now in the hands of those twelve members of the jury, they've been deliberating now for maybe about half an hour or so. We expect those deliberations to continue maybe till about 4:30, about five o'clock, so not much longer now, maybe a little bit less in an hour. If they don't come to a verdict today, then they will come back to the courthouse tomorrow to continue deliberating. We heard today, each side, the prosecution and the defense, trying to wrap up their case and make their final pitch to the jury. The defense, very emotional, very critical of the way that the prosecution has been handling this case. We heard from the lead defense attorney of Hunter Biden, Abby Loal, really criticizing and saying it was cruel the way that Naomi Biden, the daughter of Hunter, was cross-examined earlier last week during this trial. We heard them saying, Look, there's been no direct evidence. The prosecution has been unable to show any actual proof that Hunter Biden was using or abusing drugs on or around the day that he purchased that weapon. So really trying to poke some holes in the prosecution's argument and saying Hunter Biden never knowingly lied about his drug use or his addiction, saying in his mind, he was not an addict at the time that he purchased that gun.

Prosecution, meanwhile, really wrapping up and crystallizing their case in one very powerful line. We heard the lead prosecutor saying that the evidence was personal, it was ugly. It was overwhelming, but it was necessary. And this has been a case that's been laid out in excruciating detail at times. More than 10 witnesses called to the stand, often former lovers, former partners of Hunter Biden, even family members, as we heard, detailing the drug addiction, the drug use, crack cocaine, the struggles with addiction by Hunter Biden. So this has been not only a fairly strong case, according to many legal observers by the prosecution, but a rather painful one for many of the Biden family who have been in attendance for many of the days during this trial.

Well, that's what I was going to ask you next, actually, Carl, because his stepmother, Jill Biden, has been in the court quite often. We've seen her images going in and out of the courtroom. Was she there today?

She was. I was in the courtroom earlier, and I saw the first lady, Jill Biden, there in the row directly behind Hunter Biden, sitting there offering her support, along with many other family members has been supporters, really the first three rows filled with people there showing up in supports of Hunter Biden. We saw some emotional scenes, actually, during the rebuttal by the prosecution. Ashley Biden, the half sister of Hunter, breaking out in some tears, struggling to control her emotions. She didn't show up for the last part of today's proceedings. It has been a difficult time, of course, for the Biden family, but this is all known. This has been a struggle over many years for Hunter Biden. He's been very public about this. He's written about his struggles with drug abuse in his memoir. In fact, we heard portions of his audiobook played out during the testimonies in court last week. So a lot of this playing out publicly and in the courtroom. It has not been easy for the Biden family or for Hunter Biden, of course.

Carl, let me just ask you about the politics around this as well, because, of course, this is an historic trial. It's the first, correct me if I'm wrong, first time that the son of a sitting President or the child of a sitting President has been on trial. How does this play into the fact that there is an election months away?

Yeah, look, there are legal implications here, of course. Hunter Biden facing a maximum penalty of 25 years behind bars. We don't think that he'll serve nearly that amount of time if he is convicted. But there is a political file out here as well. Dating all the way back to 2020 and before, Republicans have been trying to link the President, Joe Biden, with the actions of his son, not only when it comes to things like drugs or sex or the salacious actions, but with his business dealings as well. Just a few days ago, we saw the former President, Donald Trump, convicted in his own trial in New York. A conviction here might distract politically from the fallout for his main rival, expected to be anyway in November. So this is not a conviction, obviously, politically, that the Democrats or Joe Biden would prefer to see. They prefer to see some acquittal or a hung jury here in Delaware. But this is something that Joe Biden has survived before. He was very forceful in debates in 2020, going up against Donald Trump, defending his son, saying, My son has struggled. He struggled with addiction, just like many many other Americans in this country.

I stand behind him, and I love him. So this is nothing new for Joe Biden, but obviously, it's still a situation that he hopes will go away and fade away by the time to get to that November election.

Okay, Carl Nausman in Delaware at the court for us. Thank you very much. Well, joining me to discuss this in a bit more detail is Shera Scheindlin, a retired US district Judge. Welcome back to The Context, Shera. First of all, just remind us of the main main charges that Hunter Biden faces in a legal perspective, just very simply.

Yeah, well, very simply, I think you just heard them. It's making a false statement on a federal application for possession of a gun, therefore a legal possession of the gun, assuming the statement was false and the perjury that is inevitable around it. Those are the charges.

Okay. Now, the question is, if he is found guilty when the jury comes back from their deliberations, what are the possible penalties? Carl touched on them there, but what would you say they are, the full range of them?

Well, again, as you heard, the possible largest sentence would be 25 years in custody, and there's no way that that's going to happen. That would be consecutive time on each count. That never happens. There's a real question of whether there'd even be a jail sentence. You understand that typically, if this crime is committed and no other crime is committed using that weapon, then there's not even a trial. What happens is there's an offer of a misdemeanor plea, it's taken, and then the person is sentenced to diversion, which means basically drug treatment, and that's the end of it. I think that because his last name is Biden, We're having a felony trial that would not usually happen. Usually, he'd be offered a misdemeanor, and that's the end of it because the gun was not used in another crime, as you can well understand.

So you're saying, although we're here to talk to you about the legal side, you're saying that politics has played a role in this then?

Well, I believe that because statistics will show that people who are charged with making a false statement on an application to get a weapon and don't use it subsequently in a rape, a murder, a robbery, an assault, they aren't charged with the felony. It's plea, bargain down to a misdemeanor, and the sentence is not custodial. It's usually probation with diversion and a treatment program. I do think it's unusual to see a trial for these offenses in the absence of a second crime.

The prosecutor, Leo Weis, said, In closing arguments, no one is above the law. That's certainly their stance on this.

Well, no one's above the law, but no one should be treated less well because of their last name either. I agree everyone should be held responsible. But I'm telling you for the third time that statistics will show that people who are who starts with this, who don't use the gun for another crime, are not generally tried for the felony. So nobody's above the law, but nobody should be treated less well.

And what did you make of the defence's case in this?

Well, I think the defense is very much trying to appeal to the sympathies of the jury, and they're trying to say, Look, he certainly didn't knowingly lie because on that day, he did not believe he was using, and he didn't even believe he was an addict that day because he was in recovery. And we know from the evidence that there were days he was doing well and thought he would be better, and then he would slip back. And it's hard for the government to pin down the exact days on which he thought he was maybe out of the woods, out of trouble, and really on the way to recovery, even if he fell back three days later. So it's a state of mind problem. The judge explained, you have to prove knowingly. And maybe in his mind, and the jury has to try to examine his mind, maybe he didn't knowingly lie, and maybe they'll feel some sympathy for that. I think that's why the family was there all the time. I think even the witnesses from the family who were called were very conflicted.

Okay, Shira Shindlin, thank you as always for taking us through that legal case.

Thank you.