Connecticut Board of Pardons and Paroles grants full pardons to two dozen applicants, defers one case over restitution

The Connecticut Board of Pardons and Paroles granted full and absolute pardons to a slate of applicants at its March 11, 2025 virtual hearing and postponed one case so staff and counsel can address unresolved restitution.

The board, chaired by Michael Pohl, voted unanimously on each approved application. Pohl told applicants at the start of the session that “an absolute pardon, if granted, may result in the complete erasure of your record of criminal convictions in the state.” The hearing coordinator noted that any grant is tentative until record checks are completed: “Tentatively granted as used means the board may vote to grant you a pardon, but the pardon is not final until all record checks are successfully completed and your record has been cleared by the Connecticut State Police Bureau of Identification.”

Why it matters: A full pardon can remove a conviction barrier to employment, licensing and housing applications. Applicants and their attorneys repeatedly told the board that a pardon would open job and education opportunities; victims and family members in some cases spoke in favor of or opposed relief. The panel frequently referenced applicants’ completion of treatment, college degrees, steady employment and community volunteer work as reasons for approval.

What the board decided: The board approved full and absolute pardons for 24 named applicants and moved the application of Emmanuel Velez to a future docket (about three months) for follow-up on an outstanding restitution balance reported at roughly $84,000. Board member Deborah Smith Palmeri explicitly noted that the balance “is $84,000 that remains outstanding” and urged a plan for resolving or addressing it before a final action. Counsel for Velez asked for time to investigate restitution options and the chair later said the case would be placed on a future docket in June 2025.

Notable cases and evidence presented: The first case on the docket, Melissa Griffin, was supported by family statements and an Office of Victim Services representative; the board approved her pardon by unanimous vote after deliberation. Several applicants — including Nathan Minor, Jason Beaker, Louis Arce Jr., Trevon Brown and Ricky Nelson Jr. — described steady employment, completion of programming or college coursework, and community service. Victim input was recorded in multiple cases; in at least one matter the victim told the board they opposed relief and described lasting physical and emotional harm.

Vote pattern and next steps: For every approved application the board moved, the recorded votes were Aye from Board member Deborah Smith Palmeri, Aye from Board member Sergio Rodriguez, and a final Aye by Chair Michael Pohl. Approved grants were announced as granted at the hearing; the board’s administrative staff cautioned recipients that the grants are tentative pending state police record clearance and that the erasure process may take up to about 10 weeks. The Velez matter was continued to a future docket to allow counsel and probation to explore restitution and payment-plan options.

Votes at a glance (selected docket outcomes) Melissa Griffin — motion to grant full and absolute pardon; mover: Chair Michael Pohl; vote: 3–0 (Palmeri Aye; Rodriguez Aye; Pohl Aye); outcome: granted (tentative pending record checks). Tanya Perkins — motion to grant full and absolute pardon; vote: 3–0; outcome: granted. Anthony Mickens — motion to grant full and absolute pardon; vote: 3–0; outcome: granted. Arthur Vaught — motion to grant full and absolute pardon; vote: 3–0; outcome: granted. Nathan Minor — motion to grant full and absolute pardon; vote: 3–0; outcome: granted. Gary Thompson — motion to grant full and absolute pardon; vote: 3–0; outcome: granted. Daniel Semide — motion to grant full and absolute pardon; vote: 3–0; outcome: granted. Douglas Barra — motion to grant full and absolute pardon; vote: 3–0; outcome: granted. Jason Beaker — motion to grant full and absolute pardon; vote: 3–0; outcome: granted. Steven Bobenhausen — motion to grant full and absolute pardon; vote: 3–0; outcome: granted. Thomas Giovacchino — motion to grant full and absolute pardon; vote: 3–0; outcome: granted. Dustin O'Connor — motion to grant full and absolute pardon; vote: 3–0; outcome: granted. Louis Arce Jr. — motion to grant full and absolute pardon; vote: 3–0; outcome: granted. Stedman Baskerville — motion to grant full and absolute pardon; vote: 3–0; outcome: granted. Gerald Lee Blackwell — motion to grant full and absolute pardon; vote: 3–0; outcome: granted. Trevon (Trayvon) Brown — motion to grant full and absolute pardon; vote: 3–0; outcome: granted. Imani Bryant — motion to grant full and absolute pardon; vote: 3–0; outcome: granted. Luis De Jesus — motion to grant full and absolute pardon; vote: 3–0; outcome: granted. Mary R. Edwards — motion to grant full and absolute pardon; vote: 3–0; outcome: granted. Spencer L. Gourley Jr. — motion to grant full and absolute pardon; vote: 3–0; outcome: granted. Joseph Marshall — motion to grant full and absolute pardon; vote: 3–0; outcome: granted. Ricky Nelson Jr. — motion to grant full and absolute pardon; vote: 3–0; outcome: granted. Vincent Alexander Nelson — motion to grant full and absolute pardon; vote: 3–0; outcome: granted. Stephanie Priestley — motion to grant full and absolute pardon; vote: 3–0; outcome: granted. Emmanuel Velez — motion to place on future docket (referral) pending restitution review; mover: Chair Michael Pohl; vote: 3–0 to continue; outcome: continued to a future docket (board indicated June 2025 as a target).

Context and constraints: Board members repeatedly stressed limits on the board’s process: a vote at the hearing is tentative until administrative record checks are complete and the Connecticut State Police Bureau of Identification confirms erasure. Applicants were warned not to represent that their records are cleared until they receive a mailed certificate of pardon and administrative confirmation. Several board members asked whether outstanding restitution or civil obligations remained for applicants and said unresolved financial obligations could warrant further follow-up before final action.

What to watch next: The Velez application will return on a future docket after counsel and probation investigate restitution options and possible payment arrangements. Otherwise recipients will be notified by email within about one week of the hearing and by mailed certificate after records are cleared; the board said online results would post within 48 hours of the session.

Ending: The board closed the session at 12:37 p.m. after handling the full docket.