Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro appeared at the federal court in Manhattan on the 5th local time, becoming, in an unprecedented move, a sitting head of state to stand before the U.S. judiciary. The trial is a historic case that tests the limits of U.S. jurisdiction and the international legal order. As such, along with the core battle of proving the charges, who leads the defense, who prosecutes, and which judge presides are seen as crucial factors that will shape the trial's direction.
The judge overseeing the case, Alvin Hellerstein, is 92. He was appointed during the Clinton administration in 1998 and has held the post for about 30 years. During that time, he ruled on major international cases multiple times, including lawsuits related to the 9/11 attacks and the Sudan genocide. Notably, more recently he handled politically sensitive, high-profile cases such as the "hush money" case involving President Donald Trump. That case centered on allegations that Trump, ahead of the 2016 presidential election, paid hush money to block the exposure of a sex scandal and concealed it through corporate accounting fraud.
In trials held in New York in 2023–2024, Judge Hellerstein rejected the immunity argument advanced by Trump's side. He ruled that "hush money payments are a personal matter unrelated to the president's official duties." He is known for strictly separating political remarks from legal issues in court and moving proceedings forward swiftly with a focus on legal principles. Major outlets projected that this track record would put considerable pressure on Maduro's planned argument of "head-of-state immunity." At the first appearance on the 5th, Judge Hellerstein curtailed remarks amounting to political claims by Maduro's side and dealt only with identity verification and procedural matters. Observers said he signaled an intent to preemptively block the proceedings from devolving into emotional or political disputes.
Maduro's side has put forward a veteran criminal defense lawyer experienced in international disputes and national security cases. Barry Pollack, who is leading Maduro's defense, is an international disputes specialist. He represented Julian Assange, the WikiLeaks founder, and secured a guilty plea and return in 2024. Pollack is challenging the very process by which Maduro was brought before a U.S. court. He said Maduro's capture was "a military kidnapping and an unlawful rendition."
The defense team's strategy is focusing more on "shaking the procedures" than on "proving innocence." Before arguing guilt or innocence, they intend to claim that the very act of securing custody through a U.S. military raid lacked legality. Before the appearance, Pollack also previewed a large-scale pretrial fight by raising issues such as whether the U.S. military intervened, the legality of an overseas arrest, and the jurisdiction of U.S. courts.
He also plans to actively invoke the immunity that a sitting head of state should enjoy. Analysts say the likely strategy is to point out procedural defects and buy time rather than push the case into substantive hearings. Pollack emphasized, "There are significant procedural issues that must be resolved before the merits." Legal circles projected that if Maduro's side executes this strategy well, the case could be tied up for years in debates over international law and jurisdiction without entering the merits.
On the U.S. side, veterans from the Terrorism and International Narcotics Unit at the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York (SDNY) have stepped to the forefront. Prosecutors Amanda Houle and Kyle Wirshba are representative. Houle has extensive experience handling complex international cases, including a drug trafficking case linked to Hezbollah and the takedown of a Kenyan criminal organization.
Prosecutors have defined the Maduro case not as a simple drug crime but as "narco-terrorism" (state-level organized drug crime). The theory is that Maduro colluded with armed groups and directly threatened the security of U.S. citizens. Legal experts interpreted this as reflecting an intent to show that U.S. jurisdiction can extend beyond a defendant's personal crimes to reach foreign national leaders.
Prosecutors currently call the case "organized crime that threatened U.S. security." They are confident of proving guilt through extensive evidence, including past charging records and cooperating witnesses' statements. The indictment is also said to include economic crimes such as a $100 million (about 145 billion won) money laundering allegation.
Legal experts expect the trial will not end quickly. That is because jurisdictional disputes and debates over immunity could continue for years before any determination of guilt or innocence. Even for a high-profile case, the months-long gap until the next hearing reflects this trend.
The first issue drawing attention in legal circles is whether the method of bringing Maduro to the United States was lawful. Maduro's side is likely to argue that it amounted to a "military kidnapping." By contrast, U.S. courts have many precedents where they did not void indictments even when foreign defendants claimed unlawful rendition during arrest. If both sides repeatedly seek suppression of evidence or additional hearings, the trial schedule could be substantially prolonged.
The second issue is whether head-of-state immunity applies. The Maduro trial serves as a gauge to define the scope within which the United States can exercise jurisdiction over foreign heads of state, going beyond the punishment of an individual. Experts agreed the outcome will be a significant milestone for future international relations and interpretations of diplomatic immunity. A key variable in determining whether immunity applies is whether, before the arrest, the United States had recognized Maduro as Venezuela's legitimate head of state. This is a question of law intertwined with diplomatic and political judgment. International law experts noted, "Whether immunity is recognized could depend heavily on the U.S. government's official position, rather than a purely independent judicial determination." Maduro remains in custody awaiting the next hearing.