Maradona murder‑negligence trial paused over disputed kidney test
The trial of seven health workers accused of failing Maradona is on hold while judges verify whether key medical evidence belongs to the football legend or his late father.
Seven Argentine health‑care workers face criminal negligence charges for the treatment they provided to Diego Armando Maradona before his death in November 2020. A fresh trial that began in April was suspended on Thursday after the defence argued that kidney‑function tests presented in court may belong to Maradona’s father, who died in 2015.
Trial put on hold
Presiding judge Alberto Gaig ordered a break until 27 August to determine whether the samples correspond to the former football star or to someone else. The claim centres on test results dated 2015, a year when Maradona was living abroad and could not have provided the specimens.
The prosecution, led by Patricio Ferrari, dismissed the allegation as a tactic to derail the case.
"They (the defence) will not succeed in bringing down the trial," prosecutor Patricio Ferrari said Thursday.
Implications for the case
The original trial was annulled last year after a judge was found to have participated in a documentary about the proceedings. The current hearing has already heard testimony that Maradona suffered chronic kidney disease, a condition that should have prompted daily blood tests during his two‑week convalescence at a rented home in the Buenos Aires suburb of Tigre. No records of such tests have emerged.
Defence lawyer Agustin Varela highlighted the 2015 dates, noting that Maradona was in Dubai at the time. Nancy Forlini, one of the accused nurses, argued that the evidence could not be hers. Another of her attorneys, Nicolas D'Albora, said he wants a swift resolution so his client knows her judicial fate.
Next steps
The court will commission an independent analysis of the samples. Should the results be linked to Maradona’s father, the defence may seek to discredit the medical commission’s findings, while the prosecution is likely to press ahead with the charges, arguing the alleged mix‑up does not affect the core accusations.
Both sides await the forensic report, which will shape whether the trial resumes in late August or faces a further procedural setback.
