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

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.