The Verdict on Manuel Noriega

The courtroom was quiet. The jury had deliberated for five days. On April 9, 1992, Judge William M. Hoeveler read the verdicts. Count one: guilty. Count two: guilty. The pattern continued through eight charges of drug trafficking, racketeering, and conspiracy. The defendant, Manuel Antonio Noriega, sat motionless. He wore his uniform. He was, by that point, a former military dictator of Panama, removed from power by a U.S. invasion in 1989. His trial was a legal experiment. He was prosecuted under a U.S. law designed for organized crime, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. The government argued he had turned Panama into a narco-state, protecting cocaine shipments bound for the United States. The defense argued he was a prisoner of war, that the court had no jurisdiction. The judge dismissed that. The evidence presented was voluminous. Testimony linked Noriega to the Medellín Cartel. Tape recordings of his conversations were played. The legal language was precise: conspiracy to import, distribution, aiding and abetting. There was little courtroom drama in the moment of sentencing. The law prescribed terms. He received 40 years, later reduced to 30. The proceeding established a precedent: a foreign head of state could be tried in an American civilian court for crimes against American law. It was a measured, procedural end to a violent and chaotic story.