Georgetown University law school professor Jonathan Turley said on Monday, ahead of Hunter Biden’s guilty verdict the following day, that the federal judge presiding over the first son’s firearms trial could jail him just because he put “everyone through a trial” despite overwhelming evidence of guilt.

Closing arguments concluded on Monday in the case concerning Biden’s purchase of a .38-caliber revolver, and the jury began deliberations, as reported by CNN. Turley stated that Biden might not avoid prison because he opted for a trial.

“I think the odds are that he will not get jailed, but this was an open and shut case and this defendant put this court through this trial,” Turley told Fox News host John Roberts. “And if he is convicted, some judges actually do not look kindly upon that, that if you put everyone through a trial on a case that seems strict liability, you check the box and it was false, some of them may feel you have to do a little time in jail even if it’s a brief stint.”

“So I would not discount that possibility because of what he went through or put the court through by challenging overwhelming evidence of guilt,” Turley continued.

In September, Biden was indicted on three felony gun charges for making false statements and illegally possessing a firearm while being addicted to drugs. He confidently pleaded not guilty during an October arraignment.

Earlier in the segment, Turley mentioned that the defense seemed to be pursuing a “jury nullification” strategy. He also pointed out the significant Biden supporters present at the trial, including First Lady Dr. Jill Biden, who has been attending the trial since it began on June 3rd.

“I think if you look at the defense, this is just as clear as you can get for a jury nullification case. The defenses that [defense attorney Abbe] Lowell put up in the opening argument collapsed within 48 hours,” Turley said. “The prosecutors just made mincemeat out of these arguments, and there was a series of them, all of them implausible, that’s not the point.”

“These are, sort of, placeholders and they are hoping that the jury will nullify the evidence,” Turley continued. “They are not asking for the jury to question the evidence, they are asking for them to ignore the evidence.”