U.S. Legal Proceedings Against Nicolás Maduro: Could the Venezuelan Leader Face a Life Sentence?

Share this @internewscast.com

Key Points

Nicolás Maduro has pleaded not guilty to a range of criminal drug charges in New York.
The US government’s evidence against him has yet to be unveiled.
The deposed Venezuelan president is being represented by Julian Assange’s former lawyer.

It was the moment that the United States Justice Department had been seeking for years: Nicolás Maduro facing drug trafficking charges, finally — on US soil.

Hands bound and flanked by heavily-armed police, the captured Venezuelan leader was transported from a Brooklyn jail to a New York courthouse to face American justice on Tuesday morning AEDT, following his capture by US forces some 48 hours earlier.

Maduro, 63, pleaded not guilty in court to four charges — a decision meaning prosecutors will have to reveal the evidence they have against him.

The once-powerful Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, along with his wife Cilia Flores, is now at the center of serious legal proceedings, facing significant charges linked to drug trafficking activities.

A man and a woman in handcuffs are being escorted by armed officers.

According to official sources, Flores is accused of orchestrating kidnappings and murders. Additionally, she allegedly accepted bribes in 2007 to facilitate a meeting between drug traffickers and Néstor Reverol, the then-director of Venezuela’s National Anti-Drug Office.

The prosecution is expected to bring forward key witnesses, including former high-ranking Venezuelan officials who are currently serving time in U.S. prisons. Among them is Hugo Carvajal Barrios, a former military intelligence chief, who confessed to narco-terrorism offenses in 2025. Another potential witness is Cliver Alcalá Cordones, a former general sentenced to over 21 years for his involvement in supporting the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia back in 2024.

Maduro is charged with four US criminal counts, including narco-terrorism conspiracy, cocaine importation conspiracy, possession of machine guns and destructive devices, and conspiracy to possess machine guns and destructive devices.

The charges variously carry minimum sentences of 10 to 20 years under US law. If convicted, Maduro could face a maximum sentence of life imprisonment on the narco-terrorism charge alone.

The same charges were included in a 2020 indictment against Maduro by the justice department during the first Trump administration.

The updated indictment, made public on the weekend, contains new details and includes Maduro’s wife, Cilia Flores.

The indictment alleges Maduro used his “illegally obtained authority” to “transport thousands of tons of cocaine to the United States” and that he “has tarnished every public office he has held”.

He is accused of having “provided law enforcement cover and logistical support” to major drug trafficking groups, such as the Sinaloa Cartel and Venezuela’s Tren de Aragua gang.

Maduro has entered a plea of not guilty to a four-count indictment. The charges allege that he led a conspiracy to channel cocaine into the United States, reportedly collaborating with armed guerrilla factions, drug cartels, and international criminal organizations.

How strong is the case against Maduro?

It will depend on the evidence, which has not been laid out in the charging documents.

It will also depend on the strength of evidence provided by witnesses against Maduro.

The prosecution could call, as witnesses, former senior Venezuelan officials currently in US jails — Hugo Carvajal Barrios, a former Venezuelan military intelligence chief, who admitted to narco-terrorism charges in 2025. Another could be Cliver Alcalá Cordones, a former Venezuelan general who was sentenced to 260 months in prison for providing material support to the US-designated Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia in 2024.

A courtroom sketch of Nicolás Maduro and Cilia Flores.

Nicolás Maduro pleaded not guilty to a four-count indictment accusing him of leading a conspiracy to funnel cocaine into the United States, including by working with armed guerrilla groups, drug cartels and international gangs. Source: AAP / AP / Elizabeth Williams

Markus Wagner, an expert on US constitution law at the University of Wollongong, said the evidence in those cases could be used in the Maduro trial.

“All of that will be tested in a regular court,” he told SBS News.

“It’s not like a military proceeding, à la Guantanamo, but it’s a regular proceeding in ordinary courts that the US government has to sort of convince.”

Harry Melkonian from the US Studies Centre at the University of Sydney, who specialises in the US constitution, said it will depend on first-hand, reliable witnesses who can be brought against Maduro, but added that the details in the indictment were “sufficiently vague”.

He said it’s unclear what evidence US prosecutors have against Maduro, on how they allege the Venezuelan leader facilitated both the transportation of drugs and the growth of narco-terrorist groups.

“There’re crimes going on in the United States. That doesn’t mean that Donald Trump is facilitating it,” Melkonian told SBS News.

The indictment contained state department data, estimating 200 tonnes of cocaine was allegedly trafficked through Venezuela annually.

“You could read this quite honestly and come to the conclusion of saying, ‘Boy, this guy was [a] really lousy president. He couldn’t control this stuff’,” Melkonian said.

“But that’s not a crime. They’ve alleged that he facilitated it, that he was involved in it, and that’s a whole different story.”

Melkonian said prosecutors could have a tough time proving their case.

“I think they’re going to have a heck of a time getting admissible evidence against him, and … they could end up very sorry that they brought him back to New York for trial, because it could turn into a humiliation for the government,” he said.

How will Maduro defend himself?

Maduro is being represented by Barry Pollack — the Washington lawyer who represented WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange.

In court on Tuesday, Pollack said he anticipated extensive legal wrangling over what he termed Maduro’s “military abduction”, signalling the defence will argue the US operation was unlawful.

It’s also likely that Maduro will seek to dismiss the case on the grounds that he is immune, or shielded, from criminal prosecution as a foreign head of state.

But that’s complicated by a historic precedent: a US court’s rejecting an immunity argument from then-Panama leader Manuel Noriega, who, like Maduro, was accused of conspiring to smuggle drugs into the US and was captured in a US military raid in 1990.

The US government successfully argued Noriega was not Panama’s legitimate leader — an argument likely to be resurrected against Maduro.

“They’re going to be looking at that Noriega case very, very carefully,” Melkonian said.

“There’s a real danger in bringing somebody like Maduro to trial, because it’s one thing to make it the news headlines, to get the grand jury indictment, but it would be pretty significant if the case is lost at trial or if a judge throws it out.”

Maduro could also argue on procedural grounds, including the legality of the manner in which he was brought before the court: his capture by US forces.

Wagner said this is complicated by the “Ker-Frisbie doctrine” — which has essentially allowed US courts to prosecute criminal defendants regardless of how they were brought into the country.

“It gives sort of carte blanche to US governments to abduct someone, and as long as they can capture that person, courts will not stand in the way.”