Nicolás Maduro appeared in Manhattan federal court Thursday for a status conference in his narco-terrorism case, his first court appearance since his January arraignment. The hearing lasted roughly an hour and produced no trial date and no ruling.
Maduro, held at the Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn since January 3, faces four counts: narco-terrorism conspiracy, cocaine importation conspiracy, possession of machine guns and destructive devices, and conspiracy to possess machine guns and destructive devices. His wife, Cilia Flores, faces three of the same counts. Both have pleaded not guilty.
The central issue Thursday was money. Defense attorney Barry Pollack has told the court he cannot continue representing Maduro unless the Venezuelan government is allowed to pay his fees. That requires a license from the Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control. OFAC granted one on January 9, then revoked it hours later without explanation and has refused to reinstate it. Prosecutors called the initial grant an administrative error and argued OFAC regulations bar using a sanctioned government’s funds to pay a separately sanctioned defendant’s legal bills.
Judge Alvin Hellerstein — who at 92 has handled federal litigation for nearly 30 years — pushed back. He said it is unrealistic to expect court-appointed counsel to adequately defend a case of this complexity, and that national security interests do not override the Sixth Amendment right to counsel. “The right to defend is paramount,” Hellerstein said. He declined to order OFAC directly, noting prosecutors argued only a civil lawsuit could compel the agency. He is expected to give the government a fixed deadline to consult with OFAC before ruling.
Trump, speaking at a Cabinet meeting the same morning, said additional charges against Maduro are coming. He accused Maduro of emptying Venezuelan prisons and directing migrants toward the United States. Experts estimate the case is at least one to two years from trial.
Support Independent Local Journalism — High Country Advocate was created as a real alternative to regional media that too often silences dissenting voices while taking sides in the political struggle. Producing in-depth, unflinching reporting like this series and others is expensive: servers, editing, research time, and legal review all add up quickly. If these articles have informed you or given you new perspective, please consider supporting HCA with a paid subscription — every subscriber helps keep this reporting strong and independent. 