In connection with the Trump trial, when I surmised that we’d get a quick verdict, that was because of the logic, as it were, of what District Attorney Alvin Bragg had charged. He had taken what essentially was one transaction and diced it into 34. The point was not to reiterate all of the legal reasons why it was wrong for the DA to do that; it was to try to see the case as the jurors must be seeing it: It wasn’t like they had to make 34 decisions; rather, they had to make just one decision and then reaffirm it 34 times.

The Hunter Biden gun trial is different. The indictment sets forth three counts, and I can see a logic for a split verdict — in this instance, a couple of guilty verdicts combined with an acquittal.

I’d break the three counts into two categories. In the first, I’d put counts one and two, each of which alleges a false statement — made, respectively, on the federal form 4473 and in providing information to the licensed firearms dealer (LFD). In the second category, there is the count-three charge of illegal possession of a firearm.

Let’s first consider the illegal-possession charge. It’s brought under §922(g)(3), which makes it a crime for a person “who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance” (including cocaine) to possess a firearm. There has been a great deal of evidence that Hunter was using crack cocaine at times proximate to his purchase of a Colt Cobra .38 revolver on October 12, 2018. But because of the fluid question of what the Second Amendment shields from government regulation of the right to keep and bear arms (which I’ve addressed here), the main battleground on which this charge has been fought is addiction.

To be sure, there is overwhelming evidence that Hunter was using because he is an addict. On the other hand, being a user and being an addict are different things, even if they are far from mutually exclusive.

While I don’t believe it would be a correct interpretation of the evidence, I could see a Wilmington jury, if it wanted to cut Hunter a break out of sympathy, concluding that the evidence that he was an addict did not satisfy the demanding “proof beyond a reasonable doubt” standard — even if it acknowledged that the evidence that he was a user was quite strong. And, because addiction was the main ground on which the parties disputed the unlawful possession charge, I think it’s possible a jury could acquit if they can’t unanimously agree that Hunter was an addict.

The false-statement charges are different. On Form 4473 and in information provided to the LFD, as the indictment alleges, a gun purchaser commits a crime if he certifies, knowingly falsely, that he was not “an unlawful user of, or addicted to” drugs. There is no Second Amendment right to lie regarding information federal law mandates a buyer to provide in a gun purchase.

Consequently, even if there is room to debate whether Hunter was technically an addict, there is no doubt that he was clearly using crack cocaine at times very proximate to the gun purchase. His defense that he was not using cocaine at the moment he made the purchase is frivolous, and Judge Noreika has instructed the jury that the drug use need only be around the time of the gun purchase.

As a result, I don’t think there is any rational way to acquit Hunter on counts one and two. The evidence that he was a user and had to know he was lying is mountainous.

To repeat, I believe the evidence of guilt is overwhelming on all three counts.

Nevertheless, there has rightly been a lot of commentary about the possibility of jury nullification, given the reputed popularity of the Biden family in Wilmington, where the case is being tried. As I’ve observed, I wouldn’t confound Joe Biden’s popularity among the Delaware Democratic political class with community-wide popularity that necessarily extends to his troubled — and troubling — son. Indeed, a number of potential jurors were excused because they were sufficiently disgusted by Hunter that they didn’t think they could be fair.

Moreover, I believe jurors are generally inclined to take their cues from the judge, not the defense lawyer. Judge Noreika has conducted a fair trial, one that has not been overly indulgent of either side. Under her jury instructions, Hunter should be convicted on all three counts.

Still, I mention all this because jury nullification, when it happens (which is rare), is not always (or even usually) an either/or proposition — i.e., across-the-board acquittals. Nullification can also result in a compromise: a split verdict. In such an outcome, the majority of jurors who believe conviction is warranted nevertheless agree to acquit on one or more counts in order to resolve the case, rather than hang. (Jurors — solid citizens who put their lives on hold at great inconvenience in order to perform their civic responsibility — don’t want to leave feeling like the trial was wasted time; by and large, they want to reach a verdict.)

With that in mind, I could see nullification playing out in a split verdict, in which Hunter is convicted on the two false-statements charges but acquitted on the possession charge — on the rationalization that maybe he was just a user, not an addict.

That is not what should happen, or what will probably happen. It’s what could happen.