Tocorón Watch
US opposes Maduro and Flores using sanctioned funds for legal defense
On March 13, 2026, prosecutors filed a 29-page brief with Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein opposing Nicolás Maduro's and Cilia Flores's motions to dismiss the Fourth Superseding Indictment. The defense argues that being unable to use funds from a sanctioned Venezuelan government to pay their lawyers violates their Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights. Prosecutors respond that the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) already authorized both defendants to use their own personal funds, but that OFAC rules bar one sanctioned party from paying another sanctioned person's legal fees.
- Court
- U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York (Manhattan) · case 1:11-cr-00205
- Judge
- Alvin K. Hellerstein · who he is
- Prosecution
- U.S. Attorney's Office, Southern District of New York (U.S. Attorney Jay Clayton)
- Defense
- Barry Pollack (Maduro) · Mark Donnelly (Cilia Flores)
- Next date
- September 30, 2026 · Defense reply on house arrest due
- Where it stands
- Maduro and Cilia Flores held at MDC Brooklyn since January 2026; both pleaded not guilty. Trial set for June 1, 2027. Hugo Carvajal pleaded guilty (June 2025) and awaits sentencing. Diosdado Cabello is charged but not in custody.
What it means
The government argues that Venezuela sanctions have existed since 2015 and 2019 for national security and foreign policy reasons, long before Maduro and Flores were charged, so there was no improper interference targeting their defense. It also argues the defendants could not reasonably have expected access to those funds, which have been blocked to any U.S. person since 2019. Finally, it argues that even if a constitutional violation were found, dismissing the case would be far too drastic a remedy.
What happens next
Judge Hellerstein has not yet set a date to rule on the motions to dismiss; the next scheduled hearing in Maduro's case is November 17, 2026.
In the document's own words
“The defendants argue that their inability to access certain third-party funds to pay for their legal fees violates the Fifth and Sixth Amendments.”
“OFAC's adherence to the Executive Orders and Regulations in denying the defendants' extraordinary requests serves a legitimate and compelling government purpose.”
“A defendant cannot claim a deprivation of the right to counsel where he or she has no reasonable expectation that certain funds would be available for defense counsel.”
“the Court should deny the defendants' motions to dismiss the Fourth Superseding Indictment on Fifth and Sixth Amendment grounds.”
How the court describes it (original, English)
Our plain-language summary of a public court record, written with AI help and checked against the document. It is not a finding of guilt or legal advice. See a mistake? Tell us
Want to tell them what you think? Write a letter; we print it and mail it to the federal facility. Write a letter →