Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Connecticut Board of Pardons and Paroles grants 18 pardons, denies several requests after victim input and recent protective orders
Summary
The Connecticut Board of Pardons and Paroles met Feb. 3 by Zoom and voted on more than two dozen pardon applications, granting 18 full pardons, denying several and continuing one case after victims’ testimony and review of applicants’ rehabilitation.
HARTFORD — The Connecticut Board of Pardons and Paroles met Feb. 3 for an absolute-pardon session conducted via Zoom and decided on two dozen pardon applications, granting a majority and denying several after hearing victims’ statements and board discussion.
The board, chaired by Nancy Turner with members Joy Chance and Michael Pohl in attendance, heard applicants in person via video, reviewed prehearing materials and took individual votes on each case. The board’s hearing coordinator reminded applicants that any pardon granted at the hearing is “tentative” until the Connecticut State Police Bureau of Identification completes record checks and clears their files, a process the board said can take up to about 10 weeks.
Why it matters: Pardons remove or limit collateral consequences of convictions — for employment, licensing and family processes — and the board balanced applicants’ rehabilitation and community contributions against victims’ statements, outstanding protective orders and the seriousness of the original offenses. Victim input and recent court actions changed outcomes in multiple cases during the session.
What the board did: The panel granted full and absolute pardons to 18 applicants and denied or continued others. Most grants were decided after applicants described rehabilitation efforts, steady employment, family roles and community volunteer work. Denials followed either recent court-ordered protective measures or board concern that the seriousness of the offense and victim harm would be improperly reduced by expungement. In several cases a board member explicitly cited recent victim statements or a standing protective order as decisive.
Votes at a glance
(Each entry lists the applicant, the board outcome, the recorded roll-call votes and the board rationale in brief.)
- Sean Doherty — Granted (Pohl: aye; Chance: aye; Chair Turner: aye). Board noted long elapsed time since offense and community contributions.
- David Fogle — Denied (motion carried on roll call; chair recorded motion carries). Denial cited injury and impact to the victim and a standing criminal protective order the…
Already have an account? Log in
Subscribe to keep reading
Unlock the rest of this article — and every article on Citizen Portal.
- Unlimited articles
- AI-powered breakdowns of topics, speakers, decisions, and budgets
- Instant alerts when your location has a new meeting
- Follow topics and more locations
- 1,000 AI Insights / month, plus AI Chat

