[{"_1":2,"_123":-5,"_124":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87,99,111],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":44,"_46":47,"_48":49,"_50":51,"_52":53,"_54":55,"_56":57,"_58":59,"_60":61,"_62":63,"_64":65,"_66":67,"_68":69,"_70":71,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6620324,"mediaKeyId","2811748-e75df30c2a1769414b5ab37bfd11de4b","parentId",2811748,"title","Family of Amanda Monnington seeks court review after claims commissioner denies permission to sue in Enders State Forest death","audioSeconds",0,"startMs",5973000,"endMs","viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2811748-e75df30c2a1769414b5ab37bfd11de4b&start=5973&end=5973","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2811748-e75df30c2a1769414b5ab37bfd11de4b/thumbnail_5973000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6620324/Connecticut/Family-of-Amanda-Monnington-seeks-court-review-after-claims-commissioner-denies-permission-to-sue-in-Enders-State-Forest-death","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6620324-d5bd8fa33a7054c999acf3f04bf2e55b/orig.mp4?Expires=1770949283&Signature=iok78kLCGHQ7jCigtszryYgmhvL0cAGcyPS7zukZksBiREKOZEqBrTL~hikiVS6lcijWtJDVgbgJb7QjaotpDi6U-m9IGPa2oQ15Cq3-BaeqM4iwe5H4kcNPqzFKjw6S2fpsCFj1TSAnJd9jyDauB6k46b9NeayK6Hntx6N~PjL6A~GLbvfP6lsJQRRvGXVRqiJohmQRasH62OAzWOJM-~AHS8PY0t-Jf1bgLn9pEo6xw9zRRgsu8dHtyPpP9DwSxSjHi2oDys7S9dPuwPmdqG0joBJhThmI6agujTat3zBHLhiyF6LW97nt3CJZnGi~M9TGXQ0dTkznCMGOs7uv4Q__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Connecticut State Legislature - Judiciary","date","2025-03-28T17:57:08.027Z","article","HARTFORD — Attorneys for the estate of 15-year-old Amanda Monnington asked the Judiciary Committee on March 28 to allow their claim to proceed to superior court after the claims commissioner denied permission to sue the state for injuries that led to Monnington’s death.

Attorney Jack (John) Dolan said the claim arises from Monnington’s June 1, 2013 fall from the top of a waterfall in Enders State Forest in Granby. The family says the state had notice of similar incidents at the same location and “did absolutely nothing to warn or guard against visitors continuing to use this trail.” Dolan told the committee that the state’s repeated awareness of prior falls distinguishes the case from routine recreational incidents.

“Even if [the recreational-land-use statute] applies to the state, then there becomes a question of whether the claims commissioner has jurisdiction to hear claims like this one that are based on the exception to a recreational land use immunity, for the willful or malicious failure to guard or warn against the dangerous condition,” Dolan said.

The committee heard that the claims-commissioner office has reached inconsistent outcomes in related matters: the commissioner previously allowed a separate claim (referred to in the record as the Messing matter) to proceed to superior court; that case later prompted a superior-court motion practice and remains pending. Counsel told the committee the inconsistency means both matters should be decided by a single superior court so there is consistent precedent.

Representative Fishman and other members asked about the timeline and whether the state had taken remedial measures after the incidents. Dolan replied that prior to Monnington’s death, at least six similar falls had been reported and that the state investigated those incidents but did not make changes that prevented further falls. He said a similar claim was later allowed to proceed in superior court in a different matter.

No vote was taken. The family seeks permission to have the case heard in superior court and argued that the record shows a factual pattern that could meet the willful-or-malicious exception to recreational-land-use immunity.

Background

The recreational land-use statute cited in testimony (referred to in the transcript as \"52 dash 5 57 g\") generally shields owners who open land for public recreational use from negligence liability but contains an exception for the willful or malicious failure to guard or warn against a dangerous condition. Counsel argued the facts here — repeated prior incidents at the same location — present disputed questions of law and fact better resolved by a state court than by administrative dismissal.

Next steps

The committee did not act during the hearing. Counsel asked that the committee send the matter to court or otherwise allow the family to proceed in superior court; the claims commissioner’s office and the attorney general’s office presented their positions in a later portion of the hearing.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","3/28 Judiciary Committee Public Hearing","oneSentenceSummary","Family counsel told the Judiciary Committee the state should be allowed to be sued after a 2013 fall at Enders State Forest that killed a 15-year-old, arguing the incident fits the exception to recreational-land-use immunity; the committee heard about inconsistent prior commission decisions.","taxTitle","Judiciary, House of Representatives, Committees, Legislative, Connecticut","taxId",15631,"location","Connecticut","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_46":81,"_48":82,"_50":83,"_52":84,"_54":55,"_56":57,"_58":85,"_60":61,"_62":63,"_64":86,"_66":67,"_68":69,"_70":71,"_72":73,"_74":73},6620329,"Heirs of Alphonse Skudlarich challenge claims commissioner’s COVID-immunity dismissal in medical-negligence case",6437,863000,7300000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2811748-e75df30c2a1769414b5ab37bfd11de4b&start=863&end=7300","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2811748-e75df30c2a1769414b5ab37bfd11de4b/thumbnail_863000.jpg","/articles/6620329/Connecticut/Heirs-of-Alphonse-Skudlarich-challenge-claims-commissioners-COVID-immunity-dismissal-in-medical-negligence-case","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6620329-f41fe4e6386ea1d0ccb0383959506398/orig.mp4?Expires=1770949283&Signature=bWlNOR~WAfMz5J5xsAVXxELBb4e5py9KiDnzypVy~XyKie19eAEsWOdwsiQsgwRFhSPLUwStREc1FIcsJUwg9G2~EL8vD1M9H5x9phM2n7ymm79arttyvcXd6IT92pyujyd4mYzrXuxMXppLLIsGuGBrboeL0R8iusbcvlWlxoNFEtqB0FD59kVpa-XeNqdFNDMssP6jIREZUZae71Xy1X1OUqdo7P80xSAbiL5NLtZ30LE0MNFkPWkCLdX~YqYnD6YC70PAGX2bIa-E8Ys8W~DiwOrzmtZ-e6FC-VaWiMBDPr7E-tPyZQMBeKjEiYBtHwaL6K3TPRbw9Im8cmS2wA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","HARTFORD — Counsel for the estate of Alphonse Skudlarich asked the Judiciary Committee on March 28 to overturn a claims-commissioner dismissal that the estate said misapplied the COVID-19 immunity provided by Governor Lamont’s Executive Order 7V.

Attorney Bridal McKee, representing the estate, said the claim concerns medical care at a Yukon (transcript spelling used by witnesses) medical facility after Mr. Skudlarich contracted COVID-19. McKee told the committee: “We are seeking a reversal of the claims commissioner's decision dismissing this medical malpractice case, and we're seeking release of jurisdiction to the superior court.” McKee argued the deputy claims commissioner applied an unduly narrow definition of “gross negligence” and improperly concluded the state’s liability was negated by subsequent negligence by a different healthcare provider.

McKee told the panel that the deputy claims commissioner “adopted a definition of gross negligence…that the negligence needed to be so obvious that you didn't need a medical expert for it,” and said Connecticut case law on the standard remains unsettled in the context of the governor’s immunity order. He added that “the negligence is not relieved by subsequent negligence of another healthcare provider,” and asked the committee to direct the matter to superior court for further review.

Attorney Bridal Amarante, representing the state, told the committee the claims commissioner’s written memorandum decision was correct. The state’s counsel pointed to existing appellate precedent and wrote in submitted testimony that, per the state’s understanding, the Supreme Court in Boone (cited in the state submission) described gross medical negligence as “an obvious and egregious violation of an established standard of care” and said that medication-administration claims rarely meet that standard.

Representative Spine and others questioned the claimant’s counsel about factual details, including that the decedent was not an inmate but an elderly man admitted for COVID symptoms in March 2020 and that claimants had submitted a health-care-provider letter before the claims-commissioner hearing. McKee said claimants had obtained a similar health-care-provider letter identifying gross negligence and argued the deputy claims commissioner nonetheless dismissed the case based on Executive Order 7V’s COVID immunity.

The committee did not vote. Claimants asked that the committee reverse the dismissal and release jurisdiction to the superior court; the state asked the committee to confirm the claims-commissioner decision. The hearing record includes written submissions from both sides and an evidentiary hearing transcript referenced by the claims commissioner’s memorandum decision.

Why this matters

The case turns on interpretation of Executive Order 7V (the executive COVID-19 immunity order referenced in testimony), the statutory and common-law standard for gross medical negligence, and whether subsequent negligence by a separate provider can relieve state liability. The question has broader implications for how immunity orders or emergency directives interact with traditional malpractice standards.","Attorneys for the estate of Alphonse Skudlarich asked the Judiciary Committee to reverse a dismissal of a medical-negligence claim the claims commissioner found barred by Governor Lamont’s COVID-19 immunity order, arguing gross negligence should survive the immunity grant.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_46":93,"_48":94,"_50":95,"_52":96,"_54":55,"_56":57,"_58":97,"_60":61,"_62":63,"_64":98,"_66":67,"_68":69,"_70":71,"_72":73,"_74":73},6620334,"Vernon hiker seeks permission to sue after state-owned footbridge collapsed, leaving him paralyzed",144,7656000,7800000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2811748-e75df30c2a1769414b5ab37bfd11de4b&start=7656&end=7800","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2811748-e75df30c2a1769414b5ab37bfd11de4b/thumbnail_7656000.jpg","/articles/6620334/Connecticut/Vernon-hiker-seeks-permission-to-sue-after-state-owned-footbridge-collapsed-leaving-him-paralyzed","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6620334-57771f67c42641fe6e9bea6ccde70015/orig.mp4?Expires=1770949283&Signature=iEuJVSa1JtAvvAWkWoeCj4yoct2q1KD1QGwVTtuVvbtyIH9T01L9q3jCDbm~qs1mlJePQUS-0ILwgRbCqQ5dtZRn69zEuJ8vLlZunlvdqTiUDU3xpHtjat1emg5Z-ygPGmkJG6gn64axmkVk67CTNNyVxSTViTuzlhuB-Sd4bQlOQ5TZ5JUb2WgfXqUHLV1rT6I85GaZEJzkwYd~rXLeWk3rcuw2YqQ9lBJnWT1KFSBR9oT908ZvZDiwZzbIq5xcn4hOj2zW62KghTk7EouODV13QAgv~rWg9SV~H8i3U7xvlrXigzl4~xoNOjWiYe2Lau4zbiOFPkxb25EM134F-g__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","HARTFORD — A Vernon resident who sustained a catastrophic spinal cord injury after falling through a state-owned footbridge told the Judiciary Committee on March 28 that the state knew of the hazard months before his accident but did not warn the public or complete repairs.

Dwight Otis testified that on Sept. 3, 2018, a rotten board on a bridge in the Belding Wildlife Management Area collapsed under his foot and he fell approximately 10 feet into a river, striking a boulder. He told the committee he was left temporarily paralyzed from the neck down and now lives with central cord syndrome and chronic nerve pain. “I will feel this pain 24 hours a day, 7 days a week for the rest of my life,” Otis said.

Otis and his wife, Sharon Reynolds, presented documents they said show the Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (DEEP) identified the bridge as a safety hazard at least six months before the accident, that materials were ordered four months before the accident and that the project was designated high priority three months beforehand. Witnesses at the hearing said no warning signs, caution tape, or interim measures were put in place and that repairs were completed only after Otis’s injury.

“Three months before my accident, the state included the Belding Bridge repair on its habitat priority projects list designated it as high priority,” Reynolds said. “Yet despite this knowledge, the state failed to make repairs and did not issue any warnings.”

Otis and Reynolds urged the committee to reverse the claims commissioner’s dismissal and allow a lawsuit in superior court, arguing the recreational land-use immunity statute includes an exception for “willful or malicious” failure to guard or warn about a dangerous condition. Their counsel said the facts and internal communications meet that exception.

Committee members asked whether the case resembled other claims the commission has allowed to proceed; others at the hearing noted similar prior incidents on state trails and asked how the recreational land-use immunity has been applied. The attorney general’s office and the claims commissioner’s staff later discussed the statutory framework for recreational immunity and whether claims alleging willful or malicious conduct against state employees should be filed directly in superior court.

No committee vote was taken. The claimants asked the committee to allow the claim to proceed in court; the committee did not make a decision at the hearing.

Background and legal note

Witnesses cited the recreational land-use immunity statute (referred to in testimony as \"52 dash 5 57 G\" in the transcript) which generally limits owner liability for property open to the public, but has an exception for willful or malicious failure to warn or guard against dangerous conditions. Claimants said DEEP emails and procurement documents show prior awareness and procurement of materials for repair, and asked the committee to permit litigation under the exception.

Next steps

The committee will consider whether to vote on the claims-commissioner decision at a later meeting. Claimants and counsel said they will submit documentary materials to support their request to proceed to court.","A Vernon man seriously injured when a rotted board collapsed under him on a state-owned footbridge told the Judiciary Committee the Department of Energy and Environmental Protection knew of the hazard months earlier and ordered materials but delayed repairs.",{"_33":100,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":101,"_41":102,"_43":103,"_45":104,"_46":105,"_48":106,"_50":107,"_52":108,"_54":55,"_56":57,"_58":109,"_60":61,"_62":63,"_64":110,"_66":67,"_68":69,"_70":71,"_72":73,"_74":73},6620339,"Family seeks reversal of claims commissioner's finding after trooper tased Ryan Marzi; advocates say body-cam gaps hinder review",182,3179000,3361000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2811748-e75df30c2a1769414b5ab37bfd11de4b&start=3179&end=3361","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2811748-e75df30c2a1769414b5ab37bfd11de4b/thumbnail_3179000.jpg","/articles/6620339/Connecticut/Family-seeks-reversal-of-claims-commissioners-finding-after-trooper-tased-Ryan-Marzi-advocates-say-body-cam-gaps-hinder-review","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6620339-9a6a969bdb3a3b7dc59561201a4027f8/orig.mp4?Expires=1770949283&Signature=J1009nu1USkNW~M-SvcJfBlo3gSJCASdlGccL9yKFSTUqCdixoNHaFqtUOjqmnk87n4vI9kPIGCwem10VzmroKxOef-nG0KBoQy6vY0R04iAa-qVNNxA~qzyp4utib6PISGyO~HQnUsdMVp62Zs-aeuiFeH5M62wx1-EfOBnMfQnjHu3Biqa0V1pP4Bvs6NjfzPfTsgEEiBKx2V97SgPN9W0I5yaPGvPA2jMTYCoN0YjzqU7aH8hmnUhUhPRSK2jgneIPCRgMGUEfKCbkSCVGdpHSnLLEjarxvsbDIJqFWUWocQuGbIoqBH0GO1JidxN32ffsdreS8yjIndfweGCrw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","HARTFORD — The family and counsel for the late Ryan Marzi told the Judiciary Committee on March 28 that the claims commissioner’s ruling in their case was legally incorrect and should be sent to superior court.

Attorney Ken Krajewski, representing the estate, described a March 2022 incident he says involved two state troopers: his client fell during an encounter with police and later was tased for an extended period. Krajewski said the tasing lasted 60 seconds and that his client suffered an embolism that caused his death two days later. The claims commissioner’s award — which Krajewski described in testimony as “$20,000 for 60 seconds worth of tasing” — is insufficient, counsel said, and the estate seeks permission to pursue the case in superior court.

The family and counsel pointed to gaps in the available video as complicating the review. Krajewski told the committee the trooper’s body camera was not on, dash-cam footage lacked audio and the only available footage created “an adverse inference” in the estate’s favor. “We felt the adverse inference under the Police Accountability Act and the body cam legislation leads us to the fact that this was negligent,” Krajewski said.

Richard Marzi, the claimant’s father, told the panel he wants full adjudication in court. “The claims commissioner's decision neglected the testimony of use of force from expert doctor Darren Porcher,” Marzi said, referencing an expert who, the family said, disputed trooper testimony that Ryan posed an immediate threat. Marzi said he believes the police response to his son’s injury and the subsequent tasing contributed to his death.

A number of witnesses described the facts and the family’s loss; the committee heard from the claimant’s mother and other relatives who said they believe procedural gaps and a limited award by the claims commissioner failed to account for the circumstances of the encounter.

The attorney general’s office was present at the hearing; counsel said at various points that the claims commissioner had reviewed evidence and reached a decision. Committee members asked whether internal investigations or inspector general reviews had been completed; Krajewski said the state inspector general’s office exonerated the first trooper, and he questioned aspects of that review.

The committee took no action at the hearing. The claimants requested that the committee vote to overturn the claims commissioner’s recommendation and allow superior-court litigation.

Background and next steps

The claimant’s counsel asked the committee to reverse the claims-commissioner ruling and allow the estate to seek a trial in superior court. No vote was recorded during the hearing; counsel on both sides said there remain unsettled factual and legal disputes that would be decided by the trier of fact if the case proceeds to court.","The estate of Ryan Marzi and counsel urged the Judiciary Committee to overturn a claims-commissioner decision and allow litigation after authorities tased Marzi and he later died, arguing body-cam gaps and expert evidence show excessive force.",{"_33":112,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":113,"_41":114,"_43":115,"_45":116,"_46":117,"_48":118,"_50":119,"_52":120,"_54":55,"_56":57,"_58":121,"_60":61,"_62":63,"_64":122,"_66":67,"_68":69,"_70":71,"_72":73,"_74":73},6620342,"Innocence Project, exonerees press Judiciary Committee on compensation process and pre-settlement loan oversight",485,2639000,3124000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2811748-e75df30c2a1769414b5ab37bfd11de4b&start=2639&end=3124","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2811748-e75df30c2a1769414b5ab37bfd11de4b/thumbnail_2639000.jpg","/articles/6620342/Connecticut/Innocence-Project-exonerees-press-Judiciary-Committee-on-compensation-process-and-pre-settlement-loan-oversight","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6620342-763a44a8c5e251b6265342552f51e206/orig.mp4?Expires=1770949283&Signature=h0zkiPF~NP5by4wdlBNUflAvB2Dt4jimMS2ybJHnK0yse8hHxwV3GDmm3cBHCsO1OymXn6~qfb-02VTNX-WRwPrZBgmskNhqokyiV7~Sn2Tc2yh3VRfy8xwXq~xw7y2pgHIVE7b8tW4kjBnFHuHpEb5pznpDnihfrr-SH5pISa7GETvKcBg~t7pSacLHTaKrl8r~pkK~sXQXF0o6-AEWPyjwfXuqjK69wcxlAUz4H7c-e6--S2-Sn9vfHjkRk5gimIx0ovi94fXI76qB7drmkvx5kyjg2pYAPDFwuQmvbrsdbqYgOhniFQ~P-KjscmudFno8AHv9bNrYFMSW8iUtZA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","HARTFORD — Advocates for wrongfully convicted people and several exonerees testified to the General Assembly Judiciary Committee on March 28, urging lawmakers to clarify the state’s process for approving exoneree compensation and to require public reporting and safeguards for pre-settlement loans that many exonerees use after release.

The testimony focused on two bills before the committee — HB 7251 and SB 1544 — and on several awards recommended by the claims commissioner that the committee is invited to confirm. Amanda Walwin, a state policy advocate with the Innocence Project, told the panel the nonprofit supports HB 7251 because it “clarifies and streamlines the process ensuring everyone is on the same page” and supports SB 1544 “which will require reporting on pre settlement loans for exonerees.”

The bills and awards matter because exonerees often face immediate financial needs after release, witnesses said. Walwin described the loans as “a critical lifeline toward rebuilding their lives” for some clients, but warned that the contracts can be opaque and potentially exploitative. She asked legislators to consider whether state support or a regulated mechanism would reduce reliance on private loans.

“We are hopeful that the changes made under SB 439 will reduce the need for these loans in the future,” Walwin said, referring to prior legislation she said improved Connecticut’s statutory framework for exoneree compensation.

Panel members asked about the uses and risks of the loans. Senator Derek Slap (the transcript records the questioner as Senator Winfield) pressed for recommendations on an overall model for post-release supports; Walwin answered there is no single state model she could point to, but recommended a combined approach of services and immediate cash assistance. Representative Fishbein asked whether loans are used for basic expenses; Walwin said they are used both for day-to-day needs and for larger reentry expenses such as transportation and housing.

The hearing also included attorneys and advocates seeking confirmation of awards for individual exonerees. Attorney David Keenan and others urged approval of awards for clients including Adam Carmen, who served 29 years in prison, and Richard LaPointe, who served 26 years, describing longterm harms and the difficulty exonerees face rebuilding their lives. Counsel for claimants and the attorney general’s office described negotiation and review processes for arriving at award figures.

Committee members asked how the statutory compensation baseline is calculated and how discretionary increases are determined. Representative Fishbein queried the process surrounding baseline calculations under the newly enacted wrongful-incarceration statute (transcript referenced the statute in shorthand as \"54 1 0 2 u u\"). Attorney representatives told the committee that claim and award calculations typically rest on expert economic reports that are exchanged and vetted as part of negotiation and the claims-commissioner hearing process. Counsel for the state said awards and any discretionary increases are negotiated and reviewed within the attorney general’s office before coming to the commissioner.

Several exonerees and family members spoke in support of confirmation of awards and of the bills to regulate loans. Adam Carmen, who attended, was described by his counsel as having been wrongfully imprisoned for nearly three decades; counsel said the award under consideration reflects duration of incarceration and severe reputational harms associated with the underlying charges.

The committee did not act on any awards or bills during the hearing. Witnesses said they would continue to work with legislators on statutory language and timelines aimed at reducing reliance on private loans and improving the clarity of the claims-commissioner process.

Context: Pending bills and awards

HB 7251 — described to the committee as clarifying and streamlining claims-commissioner procedures for exoneree compensation and related filings.

SB 1544 — described to the committee as requiring reporting on pre-settlement loans to allow public oversight and to reduce potential exploitation of exonerees.

At this hearing, counsel also discussed awards recommended by the claims commissioner for multiple exonerees; the awards and some of the supporting economic calculations were discussed with committee members but not voted on.

Looking ahead: Sponsors and advocates said they will continue to refine statutory language and discuss the loan-reporting requirements with stakeholders to ensure protections for exonerees and transparency for the public.","Advocates and exonerees testified March 28 before the Judiciary Committee urging statutory clarifications on exoneree compensation and tighter oversight of pre-settlement loans as the committee considers awards and related bills.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Family of Amanda Monnington seeks court review after claims commissioner denies permission to sue in Enders State Forest death

Heirs of Alphonse Skudlarich challenge claims commissioner’s COVID-immunity dismissal in medical-negligence case

Vernon hiker seeks permission to sue after state-owned footbridge collapsed, leaving him paralyzed

Family seeks reversal of claims commissioner's finding after trooper tased Ryan Marzi; advocates say body-cam gaps hinder review

Innocence Project, exonerees press Judiciary Committee on compensation process and pre-settlement loan oversight