EFE – Prosecutors in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York proposed Tuesday that the trial of former Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, who face drug trafficking charges, begin in June 2027, according to a filing submitted to a federal court in New York.
The proposal comes ahead of a hearing scheduled for Wednesday, during which the court will discuss the timeline for the case against Maduro. Defense attorneys plan to present their initial arguments in September, while prosecutors expect to disclose most of the classified evidence in November.
According to the court filing reviewed by EFE, both sides expect to complete the discovery process before the trial begins. However, several procedural steps remain, including defense motions and the review of classified material related to the case.
The filing also states that the U.S. government expects to continue providing classified information over the coming months. The defense will have until early 2027 to file additional motions before the court sets the final trial schedule.
Maduro and Flores will appear in court again on Wednesday for a status hearing in the criminal case charging them with conspiracy to commit narco-terrorism and cocaine importation.
The hearing will mark the third court appearance in New York since authorities arrested the couple at their residence in Caracas on January 3.
Maduro pleaded not guilty before the federal court in January and has spent more than six months in a federal detention facility in Brooklyn.
According to a recent analysis published by The New York Times, U.S. courts may “lack the authority to handle the case” because of a law previously ratified by the United States.
Attorneys Barry Pollack and Mark Donnelly, who lead the defense team, may ask the court on Wednesday to dismiss the case, arguing that authorities acted improperly during Maduro’s arrest in Caracas.
Last April, the United States agreed to modify sanctions on Venezuela so the Venezuelan government could pay the legal fees of the defendants’ attorneys. Previous hearings have focused extensively on that issue.
