Nicolás Maduro's defence in the United States and the key role of his lawyer
The unprecedented trial facing Nicolás Maduro in the US justice system tests the limits of head of state immunity and international defence strategy
- Who is Barry J. Pollack?
- Potential conflicts of interest
- Payment of fees and financing of the defence
- Motivations for choosing Pollack and his possible legal strategies
- Hypotheses about the future
The arrest of Nicolás Maduro in New York and his appearance in federal court has triggered an unprecedented legal process in recent US history that goes beyond the charges of narco-terrorism and cocaine trafficking brought by the White House.
Alongside Maduro is Barry J. Pollack, an American criminal lawyer whose name has become notorious in recent days for having taken on the defence of the Venezuelan leader.
Who is Barry J. Pollack?
Barry J. Pollack has more than thirty years of experience in complex criminal litigation in federal courts in the United States. He has chaired criminal defence associations and is a partner at the law firm Harris St. Laurent & Wechsler, with offices in Washington and New York. His career includes national security cases, such as financial crimes, espionage and fraud. Among the cases that form part of his CV are:
- Defence of Julian Assange, founder of WikiLeaks, negotiating an agreement that allowed for the release of the activist after more than a decade of litigation.
- Representation of Michael W. Krautz, an executive acquitted in the Enron scandal.
- Overturning the conviction of Martin Tankleff, who spent 17 years in prison for a crime he did not commit.
- Defence of a former CIA officer for leaking sensitive information.
Potential conflicts of interest
A conflict of interest could arise, as the defence and prosecution operate in an environment where the United States has imposed severe economic sanctions and asset freezes on organisations linked to the Maduro government. This is part of its strategy to bring about a change in the country's leadership.
These sanctions include the freezing of activities of Venezuelan oil companies and the designation of ships and companies as blocked property for alleged violations of US sanctions laws. Economic pressure from the US Treasury Department is another factor that contributes to increased tensions between legal and foreign policy decisions, as it could have an indirect impact on Pollack's strategy.
Other conflicts of interest could arise if individuals in the Venezuelan political or business circles, both inside and outside the country, paid or influenced the decision to hire high-profile external lawyers such as Pollack.
Although there is no clear information on who is paying Pollack's fees, in similar cases in other situations, private funds, family funds or corporate advisory services have been used to pay for expensive defence teams.
Payment of fees and financing of the defence
There is no public information confirming who is paying Barry Pollack's fees in this case. Due to Maduro's status and limitations imposed by international sanctions, it is likely that the fees come from unblocked resources of financial intermediaries that are not directly sanctioned, from support from political allies, or from foreign financing networks operating outside the jurisdiction of the United States.
Another possibility in lawsuits such as this is the use of legal funds deposited through other law firms or international trusts created to protect legal payments from direct sanctions.
Motivations for choosing Pollack and his possible legal strategies
Maduro's defence is not an ordinary case. The U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York attributes to Maduro and his entourage a historic conspiracy to introduce cocaine into the U.S. market. The choice of Pollack responds to:
- Experience in high-profile political and media-sensitive litigation.
- Knowledge of the federal justice system, especially in New York.
- Ability to negotiate with the government and handle sensitive or classified evidence.
- Technical reputation and professional contacts to access extensive legal resources.
So far, the defence has put forward two clear lines of argument: challenging the legality of Maduro's capture and claiming sovereign immunity, even though Washington does not recognise his legitimacy as president.
A reasonable hypothesis is that Pollack will attempt to delay the proceedings by filing preliminary motions that force the court to consider questions of jurisdiction and international law before moving forward with the trial.
Maduro's health, safety and human rights
The defence team for Nicolás Maduro could use his state of health, both physical and mental, as a central point in the proceedings. Although bail has not yet been requested, they have suggested that his health needs attention, which could lead to requests for medical treatment or even parole while the case proceeds.
The defence may argue that prolonged detention, media and political pressure, or normal prison conditions put his health at risk. Historically, in cases of detained former leaders in the United States and Europe, health and safety issues have been used to obtain special conditions of detention or temporary freedoms, such as preferential medical care and different supervision.
Maduro's safety is another important aspect, given his public profile and political opponents. The defence could use this as a legal strategy, seeking not only physical protection but also to generate diplomatic pressure. This could attract the attention of friendly governments, international organisations and human rights groups, complicating the case, which is already delicate both legally and politically.
Developments and implications of the case
At the first hearing, Maduro and his wife denied all charges. Pollack confirmed to the judge that he will not request bail for now, but may do so later, perhaps on the basis of his health or length of detention.
Although the prosecution has presented detailed charges, the complete evidence may take time to be presented in order to protect witnesses and investigation methods. This gives the defence the opportunity to focus on restricting the admission of certain evidence or requesting greater transparency before it is formally presented.
Hypotheses about the future
- Negotiating agreements: A deal could be sought to reduce the charges or penalties, as happened with Assange.
- Discussing important evidence: Some of the evidence presented could come from secret intelligence or be debatable. This would give rise to questions about the process.
- Fighting for immunity and recognition by the state: The defence could generate extensive discussions about the rights of heads of state and diplomatic recognition, with the aim of complicating the process rather than speeding up its resolution.
The legal proceedings against Maduro would take place in several stages throughout 2026 and, hypothetically, until 2027.
In January 2026, Maduro is arrested and brought to New York, where he pleads not guilty. Pollack takes on his defence. During the first three months of the year, motions are filed regarding immunity, the legality of the arrest and the validity of the evidence.
In the following three months, hearings could be held to examine evidence and hear witnesses. The defence could attempt to exclude certain elements or request that parts of the trial be held in secret.
If the initial motions do not halt the case, the trial would officially begin in the third quarter of 2026, although a settlement with the prosecution could be negotiated at any time before a verdict is reached. Hypothetically, the trial could conclude in 2027, depending on appeals, delays due to motions, and negotiations between the parties.
The fact that Barry J. Pollack is defending Nicolás Maduro means that this is no ordinary trial. His experience tells us that he will not just stick to the classic responses to the indictment, but will use complex legal strategies and techniques.
Although it is unlikely that he will obtain full immunity or be acquitted quickly, his defence could change the length of the process, decide which evidence is accepted and, perhaps, create room for negotiation. This case could set a precedent for how future leaders will be tried in the US justice system, to whom Trump has sent warning signals, the most notable being Gustavo Petro, the current president of Colombia.