The Maduro Case Needs a New Judge

Hey everyone, Ellie here wishing you a happy Friday. So I'm going to do something this week that I don't especially relish. And I've done this before, but I figured let's talk about it explicitly. I'm going to talk this week, and I've written for Cafe and New York magazine about a person who I know personally, a person who I dealt with directly many, many times.

During my time as a prosecutor at the SDNY. Now, I've done this before, most recently and most memorably, I think, with both Alvin Bragg, the Manhattan DA, and Todd Blanche, who is currently the acting attorney general. of the United States and I don't love doing this because it can be tricky. I have long standing relationships with these folks. I've known both Alvin Bragg and Todd Blanche for 20 plus years, 25 ish. years each. I was colleagues with them. I am friends with them.

And generally what we do in the media when we're talking about people in positions of power is. question and critique them, right? You're not gonna write a glowing piece about the wonders of Todd Blanche or the perfection of Alvin Bragg. There's just not, we don't write homilies to people. Now.

I have a couple rules for when I come into situations like this. Number one, I will always let you know. I will always tell you what I just told you. And I've said it ad nauseum about Todd and Alvin. I've known them for however long. Here's our relationship. Number two, I will never launch a personal attack. I don't launch personal attacks on anybody. I think that's unhelpful analysis.

I think it undermines what I'm trying to do. Yeah, well I'd be a little snarky or eye roly about Donald Trump from time to time. Sure, he can take it, I mean, of all people, and he's the president. But I don't launch personal attacks. I don't

for example, make fun of his appearance or anything like that. If he says something ridiculous, I will ridicule it back. But I don't think that's personal. Anyway, I will never launch a personal attack at someone who I've worked with in the past or really anyone else. And then third is I will never violate things that were done or said off the record. So I do tell stories about things that happened during my SDNY days. I have one coming up here in the piece I do.

But I won't for example Tell something that happened if I was out for a drink with somebody or we were just chatting over lunch with somebody or If somebody pulled me aside, a judge, as in the case we're about to see, and sort of told me something off the record, or I had a little meeting in chambers with the judge, unless obviously it would have been fine or intended for that kind of

repeating. So I do try to respect those confidences. Basically, when I do criticize someone, it will be on the basis of their public record, of their public on the record conduct. So I don't love doing this. You know, it's interesting. People have asked me, Are you still friends with Alvin, with Todd? The answer is I think so. I think they understand. I certainly understand that I have my job and they have theirs. I've seen Alvin brag.

several times, many times, since I was critical of his case that he brought against Trump. Not of Alvin personally, of course, but I thought there were problems with his case, which largely ended up

being proven out. I said they would get a conviction, but I critiqued much of the legal basis, factual basis, and questioned whether it would backfire politically. And by the way, I do think it's still likely to be overturned on appeal, which is something we'll talk about in a minute. Anyway, I have seen Alvin at several social events, SDNY events.

We're friendly to each other. We don't have long conversations like we used to, but you know, the handshake and the little bro hug, you know, with one arm around each other and it it's cordial and nice. I have fondness for him. I will tell you, I think I can tell you this. My son was working in the city last summer and texted me, oh, Alvin Bragg is campaigning on the corner here. Should I talk to him? And I said, By all means. I Alvin actually knows funny stories about my son.

And my son had a wonderful experience with him, went up to him, introduced himself as my son, and Alvin was lovely to him and warm and kind and all of that. So um that relationship is is decent. Todd, I have not spoken to since he became deputy A.G. I spoke to him frequently when he was representing Trump. I spoke to him during the transition period, but I pretty sure I've not spoken to him since he became deputy A.G. I wanted to give him his space.

And let him do what he will. And I've, as you all know, probably one of the most frequent topics and subjects of criticism over the last year. He and Pam Bondi are are probably one and two in some order. So um I don't know. I don't know. Someday I'm sure I'll run into Todd again and hopefully he can understand that I do my job and he does his and we can be cordial. I think we will. I think we will if that if and when that ever happens. Now.

This week's piece is about a judge. And I'm a little hesitant. I was a little hesitant because he's a very old guy, as we'll talk about in the piece. He's 92 years old. And I had a million cases in front of him and a good relationship with him in general. I saw him a few years ago. We had a nice sort of warm reunion. Um, I actually sent drafts of the piece, I'll tell you, to two people who I really respect from the SDNY. I said,

Is this okay? Did I go too far? They actually gave me some good feedback and I did alter the piece as a result. I didn't pull punches. I just changed the tonality of some of it. But you know, I don't have a problem with this because I'm not punching down. I don't punch down as a rule. This is a federal district court judge, a man who has life tenure, an enormously powerful person. He's been on the bench for 28 years now. Certainly no lack of confidence in himself.

And I'm critiquing him quite sharply for the way he's handling a specific case. It's not personal. So, if anything, as you can hear, I don't relish. But I think it's my job to do this. If I decided I'm gonna spike that article, here's a thought I had that I think is important to say, but I don't wanna do it because.

I like this person. I don't think I will be doing my job right or or to the best of my ability. So interested to hear what you think. Is this fair? Is it not? Any thoughts you have on this? I'd I'd really be interested to hear. Send your letters in, letters atcafe.com. Here we go. Every assistant U.S. attorney in the Southern District of New York has that one judge, he just cannot escape.

Although cases are assigned randomly through a process that combines Bingo with the NBA draft lottery, Sealed envelopes containing index cards, each bearing the name of one of the forty or so district court judges drawn randomly from a hollow wooden wheel. Every new prosecutor somehow finds that seemingly half his cases somehow wind up with one particular judge.

For me, that judge was Alvin K. Hellerstein, the same man who now presides over the Nicholas Maduro case, and through a combination of inaction and irrationality, threatens to waylay the prosecution. I don't relish saying all this. Judge Hellerstein is a good man, well intentioned, and generally amiable.

I did find in his courtroom, and there's plenty more good blood between us than bad, but he's simply not up for the job of presiding over the single most important criminal case currently pending in our federal court system. Judge Hellerstein took the bench in nineteen ninety eight upon nomination by Bill Clinton. He's held senior judicial status since twenty eleven, which means it carries a reduced caseload. The judge is now ninety-two years old. Yes, ninety-two.

He was born in December 1933. He was 11 when World War II ended, 29 when JFK was assassinated, and 41 when the Vietnam War ended. Judge Hellerstein reportedly fell asleep on the bench at times during his most recent trial last year. When I practiced in his courtroom in the mid 2000s and early twenty tens, he was in his seventies. He was capable then, but at times displayed spotty judicial decision making. Too often, Judge Hellerstein rules by gut instinct without regard for the law.

As Politico delicately phrased it, the judges renowned among practitioners for his quote, stubborn streak and quote, an often unorthodox approach to running his courtroom, end quote. As one personal example, he made an obvious legal error in a gun case of mine that was about to go to trial. I filed a brief explaining why he was clearly wrong,

But he never read it. He ruled against the prosecution anyway, and then he got reversed unanimously by the Court of Appeals, which noted pointedly that the judge's legal rationale had previously been, and I quote, rejected by this court without equivocation. End quote. When the Nicholas Maduro indictment was wheeled out randomly to Judge Hellerstein in early january twenty twenty six,

He could have reassigned it. Senior judges sometimes do this with cases that promise to be drawn out and demanding, but the judge kept the case for himself. That fateful decision already has had troubling consequences. First, the Maduro case is moving along at an exasperating pace for all involved. District judges hold virtually unfettered power to set schedules, and a judge who understands the necessity for a prompt resolution can typically move from indictment to trial in a year or less.

Yet now nearly four months in, the Maduro case is essentially nowhere. Forget about a trial date. The judge hasn't even yet set a definitive schedule for pretrial motion.

At this pace, there's no chance of a 2026 trial, and even 2027 might be a stretch. Judge Hellerstein, by the way, is seemingly a magnet for high-profile case assignments. He also has a piece of the appeal of Donald Trump's hush money conviction. Nearly six months ago, the Court of Appeals ruled that the judge had not, quote, adequately considered issues relevant to the case, end quote, and sent the matter back to him for reconsideration. He hasn't ruled yet.

Judge Hellerstein now stands on the brink of a precipitous decision that could undermine the Maduro prosecution and potentially set the case back to its starting point. In March, the judge held a hearing to determine whether Maduro's legal fees could be paid by Venezuela, the country itself.

Maduro's private defense team, which likely will accrue fees in the millions of dollars, argued that Venezuela is willing to pay and that Maduro's Fifth Amendment right to counsel would be compromised by any decision barring such funding. The Justice Department countered that economic sanctions imposed by the US government against Venezuela and Maduro prohibit such payments, and that Maduro should not be permitted to use quote plundered assets to fund his defense.

At the hearing, the judge seemed distinctly inclined in Maduro's favor. He questioned the wisdom of the US government sanctions. The judge said, quote, What is the interest of the government now in blocking those funds? We are doing business in Venezuela, end quote. And Judge Hellerstein noted that, quote, the defendant is here. Flores, Maduro's wife, is here. They present no further national security threat, end quote.

Judge Hellerstein concluded the hearing without ruling and promised to issue a decision soon. Nearly a month later, he hasn't ruled yet. If Judge Hellerstein allows Venezuela to fund Maduro's defense, he'll put the Justice Department in a bond.

On one hand, prosecutors could accept such a ruling, incorrect though it would be. Judge Hellerstein plainly misunderstands or oversimplifies the purpose of sanctions. He seems to think they're based on whether a person poses, quote, a national security threat. when in fact sanctions can be about so much more international diplomacy, politics, economics, and trade. Moreover, under basic constitutional mandates. Sanctions are within the purview of the executive and legislative branches.

not the judiciary. It takes breathtaking arrogance for any district judge to unilaterally purport to overturn the will of the president and Congress on matters of foreign affairs and international relations. Or the Justice Department could choose to appeal a ruling allowing Venezuela to fund Maduro's criminal defense, notwithstanding U.S. sanctions.

Prosecutors would likely win, but the appeal itself would take months, and then Maduro would receive court-appointed counsel. That would effectively hit the reset button on the entire case, as new lawyers would need to start from scratch and get up to speed. The Maduro case involves global stakes in its own right, and now the Trump administration apparently intends to use similar tactics elsewhere.

Sarah Fitzpatrick of the Atlantic reports that, quote, the US Attorney's Office in South Florida is preparing indictments against Cuba's political and military leadership, end quote. following the Maduro model of removal and prosecution of disfavored foreign heads of state. Judge Hellerstein should have reassigned the Maduro case right away, and he still should reassign it now, though it's clear he won't.

This bit of judicial self-indulgence, coupled with the excruciating pace and baffling nature of his decision-making, threatens to undermine the Maduro prosecution and potentially others to follow. The world is watching and it's not looking good. Thanks for listening everyone. Stay safe and stay informed.