WILMINGTON, Delaware — One of the 12 jurors who convicted Hunter Biden on gun-related charges said shortly after the verdict that key defense strategies in the trial did not gain traction in the deliberation room.

The juror, who was granted anonymity because he was concerned about potential repercussions from his involvement in the high-profile case, said the defense’s decision to call Biden’s daughter Naomi to the stand did not help his case.

“I thought it was a mistake,” the juror told reporters Tuesday. “I think that was probably a strategy they should not have done. No daughter should have to testify against her dad.”

Officially, Naomi Biden was testifying in her father’s defense, not against him. But during an unsparing cross-examination from prosecutors, she was pushed to acknowledge that her father was difficult to reach and exhibited odd behavior around the time that he bought a gun in October 2018. Prosecutors argued that, despite Naomi’s testimony that her father seemed to be on a path to recovery from his crack cocaine addiction, he was still frequently using the drug at the time.

The juror, a 68-year-old man from Delaware’s beach area, said the jury did not find credible the defense’s central argument that Biden was sober and could have fairly no longer viewed himself as an addict during the weeks when he bought a gun from a Wilmington gun store.

The jury of six men and six women returned a unanimous guilty verdict on all three felony counts after just three hours of deliberations spread over two days.

“We talked about him going into recovery and we learned that he went to recovery, and he got like, two weeks before he relapsed again. So, did he really get treatment? Was he successful? I don’t think it was a success,” the juror said. “We’re hearing that he relapsed after two weeks. I’ve seen alcoholics and drug addicts, I see the damage that they do.”

The juror spoke to reporters in an unusual series of interviews in the parking lot of a Doubletree Hotel where out-of-town jurors were housed during the trial. Jurors were chosen from across the state.

The juror endorsed Biden’s decision not to take the witness stand, but said his memoir about his struggles with addiction served as powerful evidence against him. Throughout the trial, prosecutors played excerpts of Biden reading his own audiobook.

“He didn’t testify but, by all accounts, he did testify through the book because that was his words,” the juror said, adding that the audiobook effectively foreclosed any possibility he could claim a ghostwriter or someone else crafted the prose. “He chose to have an audio. So when you have an audio, and he’s writing that book, and he’s telling you, ‘I’m an addict,’ that has to play a part.”

In an initial straw poll shortly after deliberations began on Monday afternoon, jurors were split 6-6 on Biden’s guilt on all the charges, the juror said. However, as the jury reviewed the evidence — particularly the federal background-check form Biden was accused of lying on — the group that initially leaned toward acquittal changed positions, the juror added.

There was little discussion in the jury room about the fact that Biden is President Joe Biden’s son and, until deliberations began, many jurors did not even realize first lady Jill Biden was in the gallery during most of the trial, the juror said.

Confusion about the role of defense objections may also have contributed to the quick guilty verdicts. The juror said that by failing to object, Biden’s lawyers had effectively conceded the accuracy of testimony by two women who were in relationships with Biden during the years leading up to the gun purchase: designer Zoe Kestan and his former sister-in-law Hallie Biden. Both women testified that Biden was using crack frequently in 2018.

“The defense attorneys … whether it’s Zoe or whether it was Hallie, they never objected to any of the things that they were saying,” the juror said. “So, therefore, everything that they had to be saying, Hunter had to know that what they were saying was true, or else he would have told us why that did not happen. And then he could have stopped them.”

Objections aren’t customarily lodged because a lawyer or defendant contends that testimony is untrue, but rather because there’s an argument it isn’t admissible. Judge Maryellen Noreika repeatedly instructed the jurors that the lawyers’ arguments and objections shouldn’t be considered by the jury, but the instructions didn’t explicitly say not to consider a lawyer’s failure to object to certain questions or answers.