Tocorón Watch
Prosecutors oppose defense sharing evidence with co-defendants at large
Prosecutors asked Judge Hellerstein to approve their proposed protective order, the rules on how evidence they hand over may be used, and to reject the defense version. The defense had argued that four unapprehended co-defendants, including Diosdado Cabello, are potential witnesses. As a fallback, the government agreed the defense could share material with one of them only if the court grants a Rule 15 deposition of that person, and only as needed for that deposition.
- 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 dispute is whether lawyers for Maduro and Cilia Flores may show the evidence to co-defendants who are outside the United States. The government argues this would create risks to witnesses, evidence and ongoing investigations. It adds that its proposal does not stop the defense from interviewing those co-defendants, as long as the material is not shared with them.
What happens next
The judge must choose between the proposals; the letter gives no date for a decision.
In the document's own words
“The defendants argue that the four unapprehended defendants in this case—Diosdado Cabello Rondón, Ramón Rodríguez Chacín, Nicolás Ernesto Maduro Guerra, and Hector Rusthenford Guerrero Flores (the “Co-Defendants”)—are potential witnesses even if they never appear before this Court”
“Absent the protections proposed by the Government, there is an intolerable risk that the disclosure of sensitive information relating to this prosecution would be used by individuals who have a powerful motive to harm witnesses, corruptly render them unavailable, or otherwise undermine the integrity of this case.”
“Moreover, the Government’s proposed protective order places no limitation on the defense’s ability to interview the Co-Defendants, provided that the defense does not share Disclosure Material with them.”
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 →