A federal grand jury indicted Arcangel Pretel Ortiz, Antonio Intriago, Walter Veintemilla, and James Solages on charges that they conspired to kill or kidnap Haitian President Jovenel Moïse, provided material support for the assassination plot, and violated the U.S. Neutrality Act in connection with the July 7, 2021 killing of Moïse at his private residence in Port-au-Prince [1][2]. The case was prosecuted in the Southern District of Florida, where federal investigators established that planning and coordination for the operation occurred on American soil, a jurisdictional basis that made this one of the most consequential terrorism-adjacent prosecutions arising from the murder of a sitting foreign head of state [3]. All four defendants proceeded to trial before U.S. District Judge Jacqueline Becerra in Miami [4].
The trial ran approximately eight weeks [1]. On May 8, 2026, after deliberating for just over two days, the jury returned guilty verdicts against all four defendants on most counts, encompassing the conspiracy charge, the material-support charge, and the Neutrality Act violation [1][2][3]. The Justice Department characterized the prosecution as the first major jury conviction tied to the assassination of a sitting foreign head of state planned on U.S. soil [3]. Prosecutor Sean McLaughlin of the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida led the government's case [3]. Defense counsel David Howard represented Pretel Ortiz at trial [4].
All four convicted defendants face potential life sentences [1][4]. Judge Becerra has scheduled a sentencing hearing for late summer 2026, though a specific date had not been publicly confirmed as of the verdict date [4][5]. The material-support statute carries its own substantial mandatory-maximum exposure, which prosecutors may argue in favor of consecutive terms at sentencing.
No acquittals were entered on any count, and no counts were reported as hung [1][2]. Defense counsel had not filed formal post-trial motions as of the verdict date, though challenges to the sufficiency of evidence and to the Neutrality Act's application to conduct allegedly carried out by private actors are standard avenues that appellate counsel will likely examine on review [5].