Judge questions US stance on Maduro legal fees but allows case to proceed

A United States judge has cast doubt on Washington’s justification for blocking funds linked to Venezuela from being used to pay for Nicolás Maduro’s legal defence, even as he refused to throw out the high profile drug trafficking case against the ousted leader.

At a hearing in Manhattan on Thursday, Alvin Hellerstein signalled unease with the government’s position, suggesting it may clash with the constitutional right to legal representation. Still, he made clear that the case itself would continue.

Read also: Here is what to know about the Brooklyn New York jail where Nicolas Maduro is held

Nicolás Maduro, 63, and his wife Cilia Flores, 69, appeared in court wearing prison uniforms more than two months after United States forces captured them in Caracas and transferred them to New York. Both have pleaded not guilty to charges that include narcoterrorism conspiracy and remain in custody in Brooklyn awaiting trial.

Their legal team had asked the court to dismiss the case, arguing that sanctions blocking access to Venezuelan state funds prevent them from hiring counsel of their choice, a right protected under the Sixth Amendment. Their lawyers say the couple cannot afford to fund their defence privately.

Read also: Why the United States wants Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro

Prosecutor Kyle Wirshba defended the restrictions, saying they stem from longstanding national security and foreign policy concerns. But Hellerstein appeared unconvinced, noting that Washington has eased some sanctions on Venezuela since Maduro’s removal from power.

“The right that is implicated, paramount over other rights, is the right to constitutional counsel,” the judge said, questioning whether the defendants still pose any meaningful security threat.

The dispute has created uncertainty around the future of Maduro’s legal representation. Defence lawyer David Pollack has indicated he may withdraw from the case if payment issues are not resolved and the charges are not dismissed.

The courtroom drama comes against a wider political backdrop. Earlier on Thursday, Donald Trump, the United States president said additional charges could be brought against Maduro, without providing details.

Read also: How plot to overthrow Venezuela’s Nicolás Maduro ran aground

According to a Reuters account of the operation, United States special forces carried out a surprise raid on January 3 at Maduro’s residence in Caracas, capturing him and Flores before flying them to New York to face prosecution. The move marked a dramatic escalation in a long running confrontation between Washington and the Venezuelan leadership.

Outside the courthouse, tensions spilled onto the streets. Supporters and opponents of Maduro gathered in separate groups, with police keeping them apart as rival chants and placards underscored the deep divisions surrounding the case.

At the heart of the legal battle is a question of recognition and legitimacy. United States prosecutors argue that because Washington has not recognised Maduro as Venezuela’s president since 2019, he cannot claim access to state resources for his defence. They say public defenders remain available if he cannot pay for private lawyers.

Maduro, however, maintains that under Venezuelan law, the state covers the expenses of a sitting president and first lady. He has also long rejected United States accusations of corruption and drug trafficking, framing them as political tools aimed at undermining his government and gaining control over Venezuela’s oil wealth.

The case itself may test rarely used legal ground. The narcoterrorism charge, which links drug trafficking to activities deemed to support terrorism, has seldom been tried in court and has seen mixed results in past convictions, according to a Reuters review of court records.

Relations between Caracas and Washington have shifted since Maduro’s capture, with signs of cautious engagement emerging after Delcy Rodríguez assumed interim leadership. Yet the courtroom proceedings in New York suggest that legal and political tensions remain far from resolved.