Hunter Biden's Delaware trial on firearms charges is getting underway, and the jury selection process has produced some interesting results. One might have some presumptions as to how this would go in deep-blue Delaware, but there have been some surprises.

In Delaware, prospective jurors who answered “yes” on a questionnaire were quizzed individually by Judge Maryellen Noreika to determine whether they could be fair and impartial. One by one, they were dismissed, winnowing down the pool.

The questions ranged from their knowledge of the case to their thoughts about gun ownership and whether they or anyone close to them have struggled with substance abuse or addiction or ever owned a gun. Other questions focused on the role politics may have played in the charges.

While my experience with jury selection is limited to the times I've been summoned to jury duty, and I'll defer to RedState's several brilliant legal minds to provide the legal analysis of this, the questions that were asked, at least the ones we know of, seem to make sense - and some of the results were surprising. I'm not aware of what may go through the minds of legal pros on either defense or prosecution, but this case may prove to be illustrative.

One prospective juror said she didn’t know whether she could be impartial because of the opinion she had formed about Hunter Biden based on media reports.

“It’s not a good one,” she replied when an attorney asked her opinion. Another prospective juror was dismissed because his family has a long history in law enforcement, and he said he could not be impartial. A third was excused because he was very aware of the case, and, “It seems like politics is playing a big role in who gets charged with what and when.”

Only one potential juror answered “no” to all the questions and moved on to the next phase. Another who was not dismissed said he holds a concealed carry permit and owns three handguns. The man said he has strong views on gun ownership and believes every law-abiding citizen should be able to own a gun.

“I believe the Second Amendment is very important,” he explained.

So, a juror who sounds like a staunch Second Amendment advocate was retained as a possible - which would appear to make sense on a firearms case, but the courts, it seems, do not always behave logically. One would think (at least, one who is not a lawyer but a biologist) that a pro-gun type would be viewed askance by the prosecution in this case, but it seems not.

An anti-gun type, though?

Attorneys jointly moved to dismiss a woman who expressed strong anti-gun views during questioning.

“I would like stronger laws in this country about certain types of weapons,” she said. “The ones with high repeat, you know, that kill children in schools.”

The woman also said the government should require more background checks and make it harder to get a gun “that can kill a lot of people at once.”

“I would ban them altogether to be honest,” acknowledged the woman, who also said she has donated to Democratic congressional candidates around the country and joined “one of the resistance groups” after the 2016 election.

Now that is interesting. One would (see disclaimer above) think that, in this case, the prosecution would favor having this person on the jury. I should think it easier to wrap up a case against someone accused of illegally buying a gun with a jury of anti-gun types, but then, anti-gun types also tend to be liberals, and we do not know how this person responded to other questions on other topics.

Mia Cathell over at our sister site Townhall Media is in the courtroom for the trial, and has a rundown of what we know about the jurors so far.

Impartiality, we should remember, is where one finds it.

Updates From Hunter Biden's Gun Trial: What We Know About the Potential Jurors So Far

What we know of the case seems like a slam dunk for the prosecution. Hunter Biden reportedly bought a handgun, bought it from a licensed dealer, bought it while he was an active user of addictive drugs, and in so doing, lied on the Form 4473 he was required to fill out in the process. But Hunter Biden, the scurrilous character that he may be, is entitled to the same presumption of innocence and fair trial before a jury of his peers as any American citizen, so we must let this process play out.

Of course, this may well affect the election. Granted, Hunter Biden is not the one running for office, but that doesn't mean that a conviction in this case wouldn't be seen by some votes as splashing the Big Guy with some approbation over the whole thing - and it also may have an adverse effect on the befuddled, fragile president. But that remains to be seen.

RedState will be covering this trial as it unfolds. Stay tuned, dear readers, as this is sure to be interesting.