Connecticut Board of Pardons and Paroles grants most applicants at Jan. 8 absolute-pardon session; several denials and one continued request

The Connecticut Board of Pardons and Paroles met by Zoom on Jan. 8, 2025, to hear absolute-pardon applications and voted on each case. Chairperson Jennifer Medina Zaccagnini opened the hearing by summarizing the board’s authority and the difference between an absolute pardon and a certificate of employability, noting the record checks required after a tentative grant (Jennifer Medina Zaccagnini, chairperson of the Board of Pardons and Paroles). The board heard applicants, reviewed attorney remarks, received victim input through the Office of Victim Services and then took votes.

Nut graf: The board tentatively granted pardons for most applicants at the hearing and denied a small number. Several cases included extended questioning about treatment and supervision; one contested hearing produced a denial after victims described lasting harms. One application (for Ryan Tapp) was continued so the board could pursue a restorative-justice outreach and receive further reporting from victim services.

Votes at a glance (applicant — outcome — key note) - Karen Palmer — granted — board moved to grant an absolute pardon after applicant and counsel described rehabilitation and cleared outstanding restitution. - Helen Caraballo — granted — applicant described work in health care and education goals; board voted aye. - John Marshall — granted — applicant described long sobriety and stable employment; board voted aye. - David Morgan — granted — applicant described education, promotion history and completion of probation and registry term; board voted aye. - Robert Valentine — granted — applicant described long period since conviction and steady business ownership. - Antonio (Ovega) Martinez III — granted — applicant described treatment class and no further contact with victim; board voted aye. - Edwin Torres — granted — applicant described business ownership and steady family involvement; board voted aye. - Kiwanah Carraway — granted — applicant completed anger-management programming and described community involvement; board voted aye. - Henry Orajema — granted — applicant, age 74, described completion of required classes and volunteer work; board voted aye. - Michael Boyle — granted (by majority) — board record shows Miss Berry voted no while other members voted yes; the board granted the pardon by majority after hearing victim input and evidence of long-term sobriety and treatment. - Ryan Prentiss — granted — applicants and counsel described long-term sobriety and community engagement; board voted aye. - Frank Testa — granted — panel heard a victim statement read into the record, and the board granted the pardon. - Shanika Cave — denied — multiple victims and victim services described ongoing harm and severe prior offenses (including an animal-cruelty case); the board denied the pardon, citing victim impact, minimized responsibility in questioning, and seriousness of the offenses. - Jennifer Cruz — granted — applicant described completion of programs more than 20 years earlier, stable employment and education; board voted aye. - Michael Gart (Gare) — granted — applicant described long-term recovery and steady work; board voted aye. - Samantha Gantner — granted — applicant described 10 years sobriety, ongoing AA participation and plans to attend nursing school; board voted aye. - Bobby Mann — granted — applicant described long-term employment and steps to rebuild family relationships; board voted aye. - James McGee (Migichi) — denied — board denied the pardon at this time citing the seriousness of the named offense and ongoing child-welfare concerns; applicants were encouraged to continue services and reapply in the future. - James Newsome — granted — longstanding sobriety and community involvement noted; board voted aye. - Mark Paiva — granted — applicant presented extensive post‑release training and apprenticeship work; board voted aye. - Ryan Tapp — continued to April — victims provided written and oral victim-impact statements describing lasting physical and psychological injuries; at the victims’ request and by board motion the case was continued to allow outreach and attempt to arrange a restorative-justice conversation and an interim report back to the board. - Raquel Reeves — granted — applicant acknowledged past domestic and substance issues and described rehabilitation; board voted aye. - Brian Richardson — granted — applicant provided evidence of counseling and family stability; board voted aye. - Giovantoni (Jovan) Santiago — granted — applicant described ongoing work and family roles; board voted aye. - Jose (Josue) Velez — granted — applicant apologized to the victim in person and had no recent offenses; board voted aye. - Corey Winn — granted — applicant described therapy and steady work; board voted aye. - Julio Alicia — granted — conviction from youth; applicant described long clean record and steady employment; board voted aye. - Deomis Hamilton Jr. — granted — applicant completed counseling and maintains steady employment and family support; board voted aye. - Rodney Seymour — granted — applicant said prison was transformative, has custody of daughters and steady work; board voted aye. - Philip Sims Sr. — granted — applicant described steady work and efforts to provide for five children; board voted aye.

What the board emphasized: Chairperson Jennifer Medina Zaccagnini reiterated procedural limits — grants are tentative until state-record checks and Connecticut State Police Bureau of Identification clearances are completed and applicants receive a certificate by mail. The chair also reminded applicants that a pardon does not necessarily purge Internet third‑party background information. The hearing coordinator said pardons are “tentatively granted” and that it may take up to 10 weeks for records to be erased if all checks clear (Hearing coordinator, Pro Officer Dickey).

Victim input: The board read multiple victim-impact statements during the session. In the high-profile case continued for follow-up (the Feb. 2008 crash), victims described permanent physical injuries and life-long trauma; one victim said, “I still think about it,” and another described ongoing vision loss and career disruption. The Office of Victim Services read several statements into the record and asked the board to consider continuing outreach rather than immediately erasing the conviction from the applicant’s record. The board agreed to continue that individual case to the April docket and requested victim-services follow-up and a written update for the file.

Procedural notes and next steps: The board’s votes were recorded in open session and will be posted to the board’s website within 48 hours, per the chair’s instructions. Pardons granted are “tentative” until record checks are completed; applicants who were denied were told they may reapply in the future and were offered referrals to services or programs the board identified during questioning.

Ending: The hearing concluded after the board had heard the docket. Applicants who were granted a pardon will receive written notice and, if the state-record checks clear, a formal certificate by mail. Applicants denied today were told the reasons for denial and offered guidance about services to address outstanding concerns.

Quote: “The people of the state of Connecticut have vested the board of pardons and paroles with the power to grant pardons,” Chair Jennifer Medina Zaccagnini said in opening remarks, reminding applicants of the board’s responsibilities and the limits of the board’s action.

(For a complete list of individual votes and motions recorded during the Jan. 8 session, see “Votes at a glance” above. Victim statements and board minutes will be posted by the board per its public-records procedures.)