There are defense strategies that deserve to be studied in law schools and others that could be studied in schools of legal cunning. Jean Alain Rodríguez’s seems to want to combine both: using the resources that the law allows to defend oneself and, when the accumulated time becomes a favorable argument, requesting that the same time be used to close the case.
Join me as I tell you this story: on August 17th, the Second Collegiate Court of the National District rejected the request for the extinction of the criminal action filed by the defense of Jean Alain Rodríguez, the main defendant in the Medusa case.
The indictment maintains that Rodriguez led an alleged administrative corruption structure during his tenure as attorney general, between 2016 and 2020, which reportedly caused damages exceeding RD$6 billion through contracts, purchases, payments, and the irregular handling of public resources.
So far, so good. The problem begins when looking at the calendar and the incidents. Of the 41 postponements in the process, 13 are linked to Jean Alain Rodríguez, equivalent to 31.7% of the total. The other defendants have one, two, or no postponements at all.
For example, Altagracia Guillén and Javier Forteza Ibarra have three postponements each, 7.3%; the Public Ministry also records three, another 7.3%. Isis Tapia, Ramón Lucrecio Burgos, and Jonnathan Loanders Medina appear with two, 4.9%. The other registered actors have one, equivalent to 2.4%.
It is not a minor detail. Nor does it mean that Jean Alain is responsible for all the delays: the chronology records medical and climatic reasons, court decisions, and the actions of other defendants. It would be dishonest to attribute everything to him, just as it would be to erase from the account that his defense ranks first in requesting those postponements.
There is a particularly revealing piece of data: between April and May 2026, Jean Alain Rodríguez’s defense was presenting their motions during multiple consecutive hearings.
April 22, 2026, was postponed so that they could continue presenting their incidents; April 27 as well; and the same happened on May 13, 18, 20, 25, and 27. On June 3, finally, the Public Prosecutor’s Office was in charge of responding to the more than 120 incidents raised by the parties.
And here is another irony: those three postponements attributed to the Ministry (June 3, 8, and 15) came to respond to the more than 120 incidents raised by the parties.
Are you following me?
Then came another chapter of the same story: on July 29, 2026, Jean Alain Rodríguez presented his motion for dismissal due to the maximum duration of the process. And, paradoxically, that hearing was also postponed due to the late hour. Finally, on August 17, it was rejected.
The street smarts are in the paradox: Jean Alain’s strategy is to buy time in order to later ask for time to run out.
But this is where the story gets even more interesting.
After the court rejected the request for dismissal filed by Jean Alain, 12 other defendants (former employees and former officials of the Attorney General’s Office linked to the case) have insisted on also requesting the dismissal of the criminal action.
More Read
And watch out for the difference.
We are not simply talking about other defendants having the right to present their own arguments. Naturally, they do. The problem lies in the effect that a strategy replicated successively can produce: that each defense presents its motions, that each motion forces the court and the Public Prosecutor’s Office to pause to respond, and that the process continues to consume time while the moment to enter the trial on the merits moves further away.
In fact, on repeated occasions, the judges have ordered the prosecutors to begin reading the charges. However, the defense teams have prevented the progress of the proceedings by interrupting the hearings to present new motions.
The clock paradox
And here is the play: Jean Alain put the extinction due to the duration of the process on the table, and now other defendants seem willing to play the same card, one by one. The effect can be as paradoxical as it is convenient: keep dragging out the process only to later claim that it lasted too long.
No one disputes the right to a defense. In a state governed by the rule of law, the accused may raise motions and use the tools that the law grants them. But exercising that right should not become an obstacle course whose destination is to avoid reaching the bottom of the matter.
In fact, by rejecting the extinction requested by Jean Alain, the judges considered that the duration of the process has been justified and reasonable, taking into account the postponements requested by the parties and the actions necessary to guarantee their rights.
Therefore, rather than asking only how long the Medusa case has been going on, one should ask: who did what to make it reach this point?
If, after using procedural mechanisms to gain time, one intends to turn that same time into the reason to extinguish the process, the paradox is evident.
That is the true legal trickery: buying time to later claim that time has run out.
