Here are the obstacles facing the US’ case against Nicolás Maduro, his wife
Alexandra (Xander) Meise, an associate teaching professor in the School of Law at Northeastern, addresses how such an unusual and complex case might play out in a U.S. courtroom — and the chances it proceeds to trial.
Two days after U.S. military strikes in the Venezuelan capital and the capture of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, the pair appeared in federal court in New York on Monday to face indictments alleging narcoterrorism and drug trafficking.
Maduro and Cilia Flores were arraigned in the Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse, a heavily fortified federal complex abutting the city’s Chinatown neighborhood, in the Southern District of New York. U.S. District Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein presided over Monday’s appearance.
The pair and three others were charged. The indictment lays out four charges: narco-terrorism conspiracy, conspiracy to import cocaine, possession of machine guns and destructive devices and conspiracy to possess machine guns and destructive devices. The next hearing in the case is scheduled for March 17.
Prosecutors in the U.S. first indicted him in 2020, accusing him of narco-terrorism and drug trafficking tied to the so-called “Cartel of the Suns,” and offering a $15 million reward for information leading to his arrest. That bounty was raised to $25 million in 2024 — and again to $50 million last year.
With so many questions swirling around Saturday’s dramatic events and the court proceedings to follow, Northeastern Global News spoke to Alexandra (Xander) Meise, an associate teaching professor in the School of Law at Northeastern, whose research includes the intersection of public and private international law, with a focus on the limits of sovereign power in emergency contexts. She provided context on how such an unusual and complex case might play out in a U.S. courtroom — and the chances it proceeds to trial.
Her comments have been edited for brevity and clarity.
Talk about the interplay between international law and U.S. criminal procedure. Just how many legal jurisdictions — domestic and international — does this case involve?
So there are multiple legal questions at play with regard to these operations. Some of them are questions of international law, and the relations between sovereign states and questions of sovereignty. And then we have domestic legal questions. The case in the Southern District of New York is being brought under U.S. domestic law and the charges are U.S. domestic law. So the procedures that will apply are the procedures of our federal court system.
There’s been a lot of reporting and commentary that the United States violated international law by going into another country, capturing its leader, arresting them and bringing them back to the United States. Would a sitting U.S. judge concern itself with questions of international law if they pertain to a defendant or case they’re addressing in their courtroom?
Rarely does international law come into play in U.S. court proceedings. In a case like this, questions are going to be evaluated under U.S. law. So, even the question of whether a head of state has immunity … is going to be analyzed under U.S. law, even though there are international law standards with regard to immunity.
Different countries have addressed this in different ways, and the federal court here is going to look at: what have U.S. courts said about immunity and rendition when there is an extradition treaty in place? There is an extradition treaty between the United States and Venezuela. Famously, Venezuela has not extradited people to the United States.
But a U.S. federal court is going to look at how other federal courts have addressed questions of immunity, and questions about how the defendant was acquired raises issues about the court’s jurisdiction over the defendant. How a defendant ends up in the courtroom can raise certain questions, but that’s different from whether there is a valid case against the defendant.
So it sounds like they’re going to be addressing those procedural issues before they address what he’s actually being charged with.
I would expect that. I would expect the defense to challenge jurisdiction in some way — basically, to challenge the authority of the court.
Would the defendants be afforded the same procedural rights and treatment as any other defendant in the U.S. court system?
In criminal matters, defendants are entitled to rights no matter what, even if they’re not U.S. citizens. However, there is an extra layer here because this involves a foreign government official and a foreign head of state. That raises potential immunity questions that a regular criminal defendant would not have.
Editor’s Picks
With respect to public access, are there any transparency or security concerns that could limit access to the case, particularly given potential national security implications?
Our court system is built on the idea of as much transparency as possible. That doesn’t mean parties can’t request that certain aspects of cases be sealed. Very often, filings are sealed for national security reasons. There are many famous federal cases that have involved great issues of national security, issues of intelligence, issues that raise questions about sources and methods of intelligence gathering, which are the kinds of information the state would want to keep secret. After the first World Trade Center bombing in the 1990s, there were federal court proceedings where certain documentation was sealed. There are also many terrorism cases and others where filings are sealed.
In a case like this, I would expect some filings to be public and others to be under seal. A main brief might be public, while exhibits or supporting materials could be sealed. Overall, a case like this in federal court will have public access, with as much transparency as is reasonable, while still accounting for the need for secrecy for national security or other important reasons.
