Case 3:20-cr-00371-RAM Document 148 Filed 02/01/23 Page 1 of 9

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v. CRIMINAL NO. 20-371 (RAM)

NESTOR ALONSO-VEGA

Defendant

___________________________

SENTENCING MEMORANDUM

TO THE HONORABLE COURT:

Comes now, NESTOR ALONSO VEGA, through his undersigned Counsel, and to this

Honorable Court very respectfully submits the following:

1. The sentencing hearing in the present case is set for February 7, 2023.

2. Even though the Prosecution expressed during his summation before the jury

that defendant is not legally blind, we have provided the U.S. Probation Office with

medical evidence to establish Mr. Nestor Alonso-Vega is in fact, legally blind and has

that disability since he was a child.

3. During the process of providing data and witnesses for the Presentence Report,

we requested Probation Officer Ariel Rivera to assist us in determining whether the

Bureau of Prisons (BOP) has a facility to provide custody and services for the

rehabilitation of blind inmates. We received no response to our request. Counsel has

not found such facilities in the BOP system.

 Case 3:20-cr-00371-RAM Document 148 Filed 02/01/23 Page 2 of 9

4. As of today, Mr. Alonso’s mother and father have expressed to me they have not

been interviewed for the PSI nor has there been a visit to their home or the defendant’s

home.

5. On September 17, 2021 the Court issued a Memorandum and Order denying

defendant any accommodations during the process of discovery that included hundreds

of documents and numerous videos, as well as access to the Court’s docket. No

accommodations of any kind.were provided during the trial preparation process.

6. During the discovery process in preparation for trial, Counsel did not have

sufficient time to personally sit down with Mr. Alonso to review and read to him the

hundreds of pages of documents provided by the prosecution during discovery. This

certainly affected trial preparation due to the pace of the Court’s process to go to trial.

7. Prior to trial, the Court treated Mr. Alonso as if he were a defendant with sight. It

is one thing to determine as a matter of law that the Americans with Disability Act (ADA)

did not apply to the federal prosecutor or the Court; it is entirely another matter that the

Court, in its discretion, provide some type of pretrial accommodations considering

defendant’s blindness. Measures allowing for more time for trial preparation were not

granted. This put this particular defendant at an obvious disadvantage.

8. When the Court denied accommodations prior to trial, the Court first stated that

defendant requested the documents in braille and determined defendant “ is a

sophisticated defendant given his legal training”. If the Court was aware Mr. Alonso has

graduated from law school, it must also been aware that he never was administered the

bar exam; he never practiced as a lawyer; never went to a trial; and was in the same

position as any other defendant who had never entered a courtroom, state or federal.
 Case 3:20-cr-00371-RAM Document 148 Filed 02/01/23 Page 3 of 9

9. Defendant might be a so-called “sophisticated” defendant but this in itself does

not make him capable of examining printed documents, read documents on a computer

screen, see the videos provided by the prosecution, access the docket and do things

any other defendant who is not blind, no matter what their educational background,

could do without assistance from another person or a machine.

10. In addition, defendant did not request accommodations based exclusively on the

braille system, but also suggested other technology that is available for reading of

documents. The requests were denied based on the Court’s ruling that Americans with

Disabilities Act (ADA) did not apply to the federal government, including courts.

11. Prior to trial, Mr. Alonso was not allowed to “feel” the courtroom with a guide, nor

was he provided with a person with sight to simultaneously narrate was being done, that

is, the conduct displayed by the parties, the Court, and its officers. He had to rely on my

explanations after the Court session. Again, defendant was treated by Court as a

person with sight.

12. During jury selection, the Court never explained to the prospective jurors the

defendant’s blindness. This coupled with the prosecutor eliciting from main witness

Alexis Torres that Mr. Alonso had some type of sight and could allegedly see light and

objects, certainly was prejudicial to Mr. Alonso.

13. We add that, during summation, the prosecutor suggested to the jury that Mr.

Alonso was not totally blind, certainly this statement from the representative of the U.S.

government, could have jurors conclude that Mr. Alonso was feigning his condition of

blindness as part of a pattern of dishonesty and manipulation.

 Case 3:20-cr-00371-RAM Document 148 Filed 02/01/23 Page 4 of 9

14. This is important because most of the videos presented by the prosecution were

made by Torres on his own, without FBI supervision, and showed the prosecution

witness flashing money in front of Mr. Alonso. The jury could see the flashing of money;

Mr. Alonso never could see it, but the jurors could infer that, since was not blind, he

could see the shadow of money. This also affected Mr. Alonso’s right to a fair trial.

15. During jury selection, Counsel has requested individual questioning of

prospective jurors on publicity. None was provided by the Court at any time. Of the

approximately sixty two (62) candidates, only one (1) admitted he had seen pretrial

publicity related to public corruption in general. None raised their hands when asked

about Mr. Alonso’s specific case publicity prior to trial.

16. This was a professional jury pool; practically all prospective jurors had prior jury

experience, something Counsel has never seen before in my years of professional

experience trying jury cases.

17. Everybody in Puerto Rico, in Court or out of it, knows the enormous publicity

generated in mainstream media and social media in Puerto Rico, concerning federal

cases alleging public corruption. Mr. Alonso’s case in particular was the butt of

hundreds of jokes and ridicule in media, all related to his condition of blindness.

18. The Court, knowing this reality we live on a daily basis, accepted the silence of

the candidates to the jury that they were not aware of any prior publicity or of the press

conference the U.S. Attorney in all cases of this type. No individual questions were

allowed to each of the candidates to explore their prior knowledge of the case either

through social media or in any other way.

 Case 3:20-cr-00371-RAM Document 148 Filed 02/01/23 Page 5 of 9

19. During trial, the prosecution commented on defendant’s silence. Even though

the Court sustained our timely objection, it never instructed the jury in detail. The

prosecutor also alluded and showed the Court receipts of money provided to the FBI

and other documents that were never provided in discovery with no legal

consequences.

20. Also during trail, the prosecution elicited from main witness Torres to comment

on other public corruption cases of legislators like Maria Milagros Charbonier and

Nelson Del Valle-Colón, of which the witness knew nothing of, in order to bootstrap his

case and related this case with a so called pattern of conduct by legislators. The

prosecution then commented the unrelated cases to the jury during summation. The jury

received no clarifying instruction as to this improper conduct.

ISSUES OF CUSTODY OF MR. ALONSO

21. Now defendant faces a new situation in the federal prison system with enormous

security problems as well as practical problems of movements and complying with the

daily routines that persons with vision do not even think about.

22. We proffer that we have expert accounts provided to the U.S. Probation Office

that not only legally blind, but that the life of the blind person is qualitatively different

from the life of a person with sight. Blind persons have difficulty walking in a normal

way. Moving in an unfamiliar environment without a cane is extremely difficult. We

presume that a walking cane will not be accepted in a prison environment since it could

be considered a weapon. The prison will not allow Mr. Alonso to be led by the arm by a

prison officer for his security.

 Case 3:20-cr-00371-RAM Document 148 Filed 02/01/23 Page 6 of 9

23. As Dr. Fernando Medina-Martínez has written, the tasks of daily life such as

food, hygiene, clothing, require more effort, time and help from other parties. The lack of

vision will expose Mr. Alonso to be an easy target of physical, sexual assault,

harassment and he will be defenseless in those situations.

24. Without the proper equipment, Mr. Alonso will not be able to read, work, and

participate in physical activity to insure his physical and mental health. His process of

rehabilitation cannot be conducted in the same manner as sighted people.

25. Mr. Alonso is not a flight risk since he cannot, drive, travel or move without

assistance. His wife cannot assist him since she is also legally blind. He is not a danger

to anyone due to his blindness.

26. These circumstances move us to request home confinement with electronic

monitoring, in his home 24/7, with regulated medical treatment there, regulated family

visits, computer equipment adapted for use only in educational settings, no cell phone

access and regulated calls only to listed family members.

27. An established roadmap exists to guide sentencing courts when discerning a

reasonable sentence, which begins with assessing the guideline sentencing range

(“GSR”). See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 49-50, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445

(2007); United States v. Madera–Ortiz, 637 F.3d 26, 29–30 (1st Cir.2011); United States

v. Martin, 520 F.3d 87, 91–92 (1st Cir.2008). The sentencing court must also consider a

number of relevant factors, see 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), but “the weighting of those factors

is largely within the court's informed discretion.” United States v. Clogston,662 F.3d 588,

593 (1st Cir.2011); see Gall, 552 U.S. at 49–50, 128 S.Ct. 586 (holding that while the

GSR is a valuable starting point, the sentencing judge must make an “individualized
 Case 3:20-cr-00371-RAM Document 148 Filed 02/01/23 Page 7 of 9

assessment based on the facts presented”). Indeed, “[t]here is no single reasonable

sentence in any particular case but, rather, a universe of reasonable outcomes,” United

States v. Walker, 665 F.3d 212, 234 (1st Cir.2011), and sentencing decisions are

entitled to great deference given the superior judicial vantage point of sentencing

judges, see Gall, 552 U.S. at 51–52, 128 S.Ct. 586.

28. As this Honorable Court is well aware, the primary directive in Section 3553(a) is for

sentencing courts to impose a sentence sufficient, but not greater than necessary, to

comply with the purposes set forth in paragraph 2. Section 3553(a)(2) states that such

purposes are:

(A) to reflect the seriousness of the offense, to promote respect for the law, and
to provide just punishment for the offense;

(B) to afford adequate deterrence to criminal conduct;

(C) to protect the public from further crimes of the defendant; and

(D) to provide the defendant with needed educational or vocational training,

medical care, or other correctional treatment in the most effective manner.

29. In determining the minimally sufficient sentence, 3553(a) further directs sentencing

courts to consider the following factors:

1) the nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and characteristics of the
defendant (3553(a)(1);

2) the kinds of sentences available (3553(a)(3);

3) the need to avoid unwarranted sentence disparities among defendants with similar
records who have been found guilty of similar conduct (3553(a)(6); and

4) the need to provide restitution to any victims of the offense. (3553(a)(7).

30. Other statutory sections also give the district court direction in sentencing. Under 18
 Case 3:20-cr-00371-RAM Document 148 Filed 02/01/23 Page 8 of 9

U.S.C. 3582, imposition of a term of imprisonment is subject to the following important

limitation: in determining whether and to what extent imprisonment is appropriate based

on the Section 3553(a) factors.

31. Equally important, evidence of post-incarceration and prior sentencing

rehabilitation is highly relevant to several of the statutory sentencing factors that

Congress has expressly instructed district courts to consider at sentencing. 18 U.S.C.A.

§ 3553(a), (a)(1, 2), (a)(2)(B)(C, D). Pepper v. United States, 562 U.S. 476, 131 S. Ct.

1229, 179 L. Ed. 2d 196 (2011)

32. Applying these factors to the present case, the Court should weigh the factors of

deterrence and punishment, with the need for vocational, educational and medical

treatment in this particular case.

33. Finally, defendant has provided the U.S. Probation Officer copy of the report

authored by Dr. Fernando Medina-Martínez, forensic psychologist, regarding the

custodial setting discussed briefly in this memorandum. Dr. Medina will be available to

testify and address the Court on the details of his report and the recommendation of

house arrest.

34. Counsel has not found any federal sentencing case with circumstances similar to

this case. We requested the Probation Office to direct us to any facilities in the BOP that

adapt to this disability but have received no guidance. This is certainly uncharted

territory for Counsel and probably for the Court.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.

In San Juan, Puerto Rico, this the 1st day of February , 2023.
 Case 3:20-cr-00371-RAM Document 148 Filed 02/01/23 Page 9 of 9

S/ MICHAEL S. CORONA-MUÑOZ
USDC #202505
110 BORINQUEN STREET
SUITE 4-1
TRUJILLO ALTO,PR 00976
Tel. (787) 281-6215; 691-9325
Fax (787) 758-5396
liccorona@msn.com

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this date, February 1st, 2023, a true and correct copy of

this motion was provided via electronic mailing through the CM/ECF system to Scott

Anderson AUSA at his known electronic address at the United States Attorneys= Office.

S/ MICHAEL S. CORONA -MUÑOZ