Connecticut Board of Pardons and Paroles clears most applicants, denies four high-profile requests

Hartford — The Connecticut Board of Pardons and Paroles granted full pardons to 25 applicants and denied four during its May 13, 2025 absolute‑pardon session held by videoconference, the board announced.

The board, chaired by Nancy Turner and joined by members Raffaro Berry and Sergio Rodriguez, heard brief oral statements from applicants and their counsel, questions from the panel, victim‑impact remarks in several cases and then voted on each petition. Most applicants were granted tentative pardons that will be finalized after required record checks and clearing by the Connecticut State Police, the board noted during the session.

Why it matters: Pardons restore civil privileges and may ease barriers to housing, licensing and employment. For several petitions heard May 13 the panel cited applicants’ long periods of law‑abiding behavior, stable employment or documented community service. In contrast, denials came where the board noted serious public‑safety concerns, unresolved victim impact or an active criminal protective order that conflicted with a pardon.

Votes at a glance (applicant — board outcome — key note): - Roderick Lewis Crocker — granted. Applicant represented by counsel; board voted to grant. - Lante Borges — granted. - Lucas David Anderson — granted. - Leon Lamar Franklin — granted. - Michael Jones — granted. - Jose Saquinala Perez — granted (majority). The board recorded a split vote; the motion passed by majority. - Anthony Pei (recorded as Anthony/“Washington” Pei in the transcript) — denied. Denial cited an active protective order against the applicant and related process concerns. - Antoine (Antoine Boyesaw) — granted. - Adrienne Laray (Adrienne Laurie in filings) — granted (majority). - Jacoby Sailor — granted. - Gary Douglas Burton — granted. - Eddie Rapo — denied. Victim family statements were read to the board; the denial cited the gravity of the homicide and its continuing impact on the victim’s family. - Abdul Jalil Shabazz — denied. The board cited the seriousness of the offense and victim impact statements in its decision. - Jose (Jayanna) Cannon — granted. - Tad (Robert) Bostock — granted. - Tilda (Negus) Brock — granted. - Frederick Craig Cherry — granted. - Alejandro Diaz — granted. - Dwight Gooden — granted. - Jamal / Jamelle Hadley Hendrickson — granted. - David Lane — granted. - George McDonough — granted. - Tanya Marie Perez — granted. - Richard Rose — granted. - Carlos Spadaro — granted. - Julie d Uphold — granted (split vote recorded). - Lamont Watts — granted. - Darnell Williams — granted.

What the board said and did: Board members repeatedly told petitioners that a pardon is not a finding of innocence but a discretionary act weighing public safety, time since the offense, rehabilitation and victim concerns. Members asked applicants about employment stability, substance‑use history, community service and specific steps taken to address the conduct that led to convictions. Where victims or family members spoke (notably in the hearings on Eddie Rapo and Abdul Shabazz), board members cited those statements in explaining denials.

Next steps and procedural notes: All pardons granted at the hearing were recorded as tentative; final administrative clearing and criminal‑record erasure by the Connecticut State Police must be completed before a certificate of pardon is issued. The board also reminded petitioners that results will be emailed within a week and posted on the board’s website within 48 hours.

Session size and timing: The panel considered roughly 29 individual pardon petitions during the May 13 session and completed the public hearing in a single afternoon session. The hearing coordinator reminded applicants that any new arrests or undisclosed convictions between the application filing and the hearing can revoke consideration.

Why readers should care: Pardons affect people’s ability to obtain jobs, housing and licenses, and they can have significant consequences for victims and families. The board’s denials in cases with substantial victim input underline how victim‑impact testimony can shape discretionary clemency decisions.

The board meets regularly; petitioners not granted a pardon may reapply in accordance with board procedures and timelines.