THANKS FOR JOINING US. >>> JURY SELECTION WAS SET TO START THURSDAY IN THE SECOND TRIAL THIS YEAR FOR HUNTER BIDEN, THIS TIME FOR FEDERAL TAX EVASION, BUT THE PRESIDENT'S SON REQUESTED TO CHANGE HIS PLEA SEVERAL TIMES OVER THE COURSE OF THE DAY AND EVENTUALLY ENTERED A GUILTY PLEA. HUNTER ORIGINALLY PLEADED NOT GUILTY TO NINE COUNTS RELATED TO FAILING TO PAY AND FILE HIS TAXES BETWEEN 2016 AND 2019. THIS IS HUNTER BIDEN'S SECOND CONVICTION. HE WAS FOUND GUILTY IN JUNE OF ILLEGALLY PURCHASING AND POSSESSING A FIREARM AND FACES SENTENCING NEXT MONTH. CBS NEWS POLITICAL CONTRIBUTOR AND LOYOLA LAW SCHOOL PROFESSOR JESSICA LEVINSON JOINS ME NOW. TRYING TO KEEP UP WITH THIS, IT STARTED WITH A NOT GUILTY PLEA. THEN HE REQUESTED TO CHANGE HIS PLEA TO AN ALFRED PLEA, WHICH I'D LOVE FOR YOU TO EXPLAIN TO US, AND THEN IT BECAME AN OPEN PLEA. A, WHAT DOES ALL THAT MEAN AND WHY DO YOU THINK IT HAPPENED? >> WELL, ALL OF THAT MEANS THAT HE HAD A SHIFTING STRATEGY AT THE VERY END AND WHEN IT COMES TO STATE COURT, A LOT OF DEFENDANTS PLEAD -- IT'S NOT CALLED ALFRED IN STATE COURT. IT'S USUALLY NAMED AFTER A DIFFERENT CASE LIKE IN CALIFORNIA IT'S CALLED PEOPLE V. WEST, BUT WHAT IT MEANS IS BASICALLY NO CONTEST. IT HAS EXACTLY THE SAME IMPLICATION AS A GUILTY PLEA, BUT IT ALLOWS THE DEFENDANT TO SAY I SEE YOU HAVE A LOT OF EVIDENCE, BUT I'M NOT ADMITTING GUILT, BUT WHATEVER HAPPENS AFTER THAT THE SENTENCE, IT HAS EXACTLY THE SAME EFFECT. SO SPEAKING TO MY FRIEND WHO IS A PROSECUTOR, IN STATE COURT HAVE YOU EVER SEEN A JUDGE SAY I'M NOT ACCEPTING A PLEA OF NO CONTEST AND HE SAID YEAH, ONE TIME IN 15 YEARS. WHAT WAS HAPPENING WAS LARGELY NOT ACTUALLY ANYTHING LEGAL. IT WAS POLITICAL. THEY WANTED TO GIVE HUNTER BIDEN SOME ABILITY TO SAVE FACE AND ULTIMATELY THE PROSECUTION JUST WASN'T GOING FOR IT, WHICH IS ALSO, FRANKLY, PROBABLY A LITTLE POLITICAL. >> SO JUST ON THAT NO CONTEST CONCEPT, THAT'S PUZZLED ME. IS IT BASICALLY JUST FACE SAVING? I GET TO TELL MY FRIENDS AND FAMILY NO, I WAS REALLY INNOCENT DESPITE THE MOUNTAINS OF EVIDENCE. >> IT REALLY IS LARGELY JUST FACE SAVING. IN TERMS OF THE CONSEQUENCE, AGAIN, THERE'S GENERALLY VERY LITTLE DIFFERENCE. WHEN IT COMES TO AN ALFRED PLEA, THAT'S IN FEDERAL COURT. THEY ARE MORE RARE IT. IS NAMED AFTER A SUPREME COURT CASE AND WHEN IT COMES TO FEDERAL PROSECUTORS, THEY ARE GENERALLY AVERSE TO THAT. THEY WANT WHAT SPECIAL COUNSEL SAID TODAY WHICH IS LOOK, HE DID THIS. WE HAVE ENOUGH EVIDENCE AND WE WANT TO HEAR IT IN OPEN COURT, BUT IN TERMS OF THE LEGAL CONSEQUENCE IT'S LARGELY ABOUT SAYING WELL, I PLED NO CONTEST. I DIDN'T PLEAD GUILTY. >> FINALLY ON THE LEGAL CONSEQUENCE, WHAT KIND OF PUNISHMENT COULD THE PRESIDENT'S SON BE FACING? >> WELL, NOW THAT HE HAS PLEADED GUILTY HE WAS FACING UP TO 17 YEARS. I DO NOT THINK HE'LL GET THAT, NOT BECAUSE HE DECIDED TO PLEAD GUILTY AND SAVE EVERYBODY THE TIME AND RESOURCES AND, FRANKLY, HIMSELF THE EMBARRASSMENT, BUT BECAUSE MOST PEOPLE DON'T GET THE MAXIMUM. LET'S BE CLEAR. SO WHEN IT COMES TO THIS, A NONVIOLENT CRIME, WHEN THE JUDGE WHO IS SENTENCING KNOWS HE ULTIMATELY DID PAY BACK THE MONEY, I THINK WE'RE GOING TO SEE SOMETHING SUBSTANTIALLY LESS THAN 17 YEARS. THERE IS NOT A FIRST TIME OFFENSE. HE WAS CONVICTED OF THE GUN CHARGES, BUT EXACTLY WHERE WE SEE THAT, I THINK EV