Judges from the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit in Boston raised multiple questions regarding the justification for allowing the star witness to be absent from the trial against former representative María Milagros “Tata” Charbonier and her husband Orlando Montes.

During an oral argument today at the federal court in Old San Juan, the three appellate judges raised questions about the ruling that Charbonier’s former employee, Frances Acevedo, would not have to testify regarding the charges against her former boss for bribery, payment of illegal kickbacks, and embezzlement of federal funds.

Acevedo pleaded guilty in November 2023 after reaching an agreement with the Public Prosecutor’s Office. However, two months later, he did not testify as a witness, and his plea was used in the trial against Charbonier under an exception authorized by the San Juan District Court.

At today’s hearing, federal prosecutor Brendan B. Gants noted that her absence had been authorized because her attorney stated that “she was unavailable due to her mental fragility and because, at that very moment, she was undergoing psychological treatment.”

“We maintain that people with mental health issues are competent to testify at all times. And our case law supports this,” said Appellate Judge Ojetta Rogeriee Thompson.

For his part, the presiding judge of the First Circuit, David J. Barron, appeared to be dissatisfied.

“If she were on Mars, she might be qualified to testify, but she wouldn’t be available. But since she’s right here, the important question is: Does she have the capacity to testify?” Barron asked.

“It could be the case that there is some limitation that does not actually constitute a disability per se. But in this case, is it simply a claim by a lawyer who argues that she is in a fragile condition?” he asked.

Gants said that the claim of unavailability is based on medical reasons for “being unable to withstand the rigors of testifying at a trial,” so Acevedo’s attorney assured them that she would not testify even if she were served with a subpoena.

“That’s not a statement that… it’s a finding of incapacity for medical reasons… that she didn’t want to do it for psychological reasons,” Barron said.

After the prosecutor insisted that Acevedo would not be able to do so, appellate judge Seth R. Aframe asked what evidence the attorney had presented to substantiate that claim, “because anyone can say that.”

Although he acknowledged that a doctor had not certified her condition, Gants said that the District Court made its own observations “regarding Acevedo’s mental condition.” He added that “she was crying uncontrollably.”

However, Judge Aframe noted that “I have handled many cases involving pleas of guilt, and I have seen many people cry because it is very sad, but that does not necessarily mean that they are mentally unable to testify in another trial on another day.”

Aframe went further, stating that Acevedo “is a white-collar defendant who… I don’t know anything about her, but my experience tells me that she’s had a good life, that she’s involved in this very bad corruption scheme, and now she’s pleading guilty in district court, facing time in jail. People are going to react to that experience, including crying a lot. What I don’t understand is how that connects to her being unable to testify about the facts a few weeks or months later.”

Meanwhile, the prosecutor maintained that Acevedo’s absence had no impact whatsoever because the evidence she was going to present could be submitted through other channels, including recordings and statements from other former Charbonier employees, such as Sheila Mangual and federal government cooperating witness Johnathan Alemán, who went on to head the legislative office.

In contrast, the defense attorneys have argued in the appeal that the inability to cross-examine Acevedo was prejudicial to the defendants, which is one of the reasons they are seeking to overturn the verdict.

Meanwhile, the judges also asked numerous questions about a discrepancy that the attorneys alleged existed between the indictment and an instruction given to the jury.

The charges alleged violations of a federal statute for embezzling $5,000 in public funds in the same year that the government of Puerto Rico received $10,000 or more in federal funds.

According to the indictment, this federal violation occurred when Charbonier raised Acevedo’s salary between 2017 and 2020 in exchange for her passing on part of that money to her as illegal commissions.

However, the attorneys argued that, by combining the four years—2017 through 2020—they did not know for which specific year Charbonier was charged.

Similarly, they alleged that an instruction given at the end of the trial had altered the original indictment because it allegedly allowed the jury to find Charbonier guilty for any of the four years that the alleged scheme lasted, rather than for a specific year.

“She could have been found guilty for one of the years in which the requirements were not met,” Pimentel explained.

When asked whether the jury instructions amended the charge and broadened its scope, Gants argued that, on the contrary, they “narrowed” it by “focusing” it on a single year, although he did not specify which one.

For his part, Montes’s attorney, Johnny Rivera González, emphasized the argument that his client is “innocent” and was prejudiced after being denied a separate trial because most of the evidence was against Charbonier.

However, Aframe did not seem very convinced when he was reminded that the indictment named him as part of an alleged conspiracy.

Charbonier Laureano is currently serving her sentence at the Federal Prison Camp in Bryan, Texas. Her release date is scheduled for May 2030.

Meanwhile, according to the Federal Bureau of Prisons, Montes Rivera, who is scheduled for release in August 2027, is being held at the Beaumont Correctional Institution, also in Texas.

---

This content was translated from Spanish to English using artificial intelligence and was reviewed by an editor before being published.