The ongoing trial of seven Argentine medical professionals implicated in the death of football legend Diego Maradona is facing a potential setback due to concerns over the impartiality of Judge Julieta Makintach. The trial, which commenced over two months ago in San Isidro, a suburb of Buenos Aires, was abruptly halted last week following allegations that Makintach’s involvement in a documentary related to the case could constitute influence peddling and breach of judicial ethics.
Maradona, who passed away on 25 November 2020 at the age of 60, succumbed to heart failure and pulmonary edema while recuperating at home after undergoing brain surgery to remove a blood clot. His nurse found him unresponsive in bed, highlighting a lack of adequate medical oversight during his final days despite his well-documented health issues and history of addiction.
The defendants, members of Maradona’s medical team, are facing charges of “homicide with possible intent” for allegedly providing negligent care. If convicted, they could receive prison sentences ranging from eight to 25 years. The trial’s legitimacy came under scrutiny when footage surfaced showing Judge Makintach being interviewed by a film crew ahead of the proceedings, raising concerns about a breach of courtroom filming regulations.
While Makintach denies any involvement in the documentary’s production, critics remain unconvinced. Prominent lawyer Fernando Burlando, representing Maradona’s daughters, criticized the judge’s behavior and vowed to seek her removal from the case. Similarly, Mario Baudry, representing Maradona’s former partner Verónica Ojeda, called for a fresh start to ensure the trial’s integrity.
As the trial is set to resume, legal experts anticipate a formal request for Judge Makintach’s recusal. The court will need to decide whether to proceed with a replacement judge or initiate a new trial altogether. Central to the case is the decision to allow Maradona to recover in a private residence lacking adequate medical facilities and supervision, rather than in a clinical setting. Testimonies from Maradona’s daughter Gianinna suggest that the care team prioritized financial gain over her father’s well-being, painting a grim picture of his final days.
The outcome of the trial remains uncertain as the legal proceedings navigate the complexities of judicial ethics and potential bias. The case serves as a stark reminder of the importance of impartiality and transparency in delivering justice, especially in high-profile cases with significant public interest.
