Connecticut Board of Pardons and Paroles grants most requests, denies several after victim input and record concerns

The Connecticut Board of Pardons and Paroles met Dec. 9, 2025 via Zoom to hear more than 30 applications for absolute pardons. Chair Michael Pohl opened the session by outlining the board’s limited powers and reminding applicants that any grant is tentative until state record checks are completed: “An absolute pardon, if granted, may result in the complete erasure of your record of criminal convictions in the state,” he said, adding that a pardon is not a finding of innocence.

The board moved through the docket, hearing short presentations from applicants and attorneys and asking questions focused on rehabilitation, public-safety risk and victim impact. Several applicants described long periods without new convictions, steady employment, recovery programs or community service; others faced recent convictions, restraining orders or unresolved restitution that prompted additional scrutiny.

Victim impact played a decisive role in at least one major denial. After applicant Leroy Roden described remorse for his role in a fatal crash, a family member, Emera Staton, told the panel in an emotional statement that the death “severely affects my mental health” and that she would “never forgive him.” The board cited the injury to the victim’s family and the seriousness of the offense when it moved to deny Roden’s request.

The board also denied Edwin (Ed) Ortiz’s application by a 2–1 vote after members said his record showed repeated offenses against persons and a standing criminal protective order; board members said he had minimized responsibility in his application. Another applicant, Lakitha Hinton Jones, was denied after board members found inconsistencies between her application and official records and concluded the submission lacked sufficient offense detail for the board to act.

Votes at a glance (applicant — outcome — recorded tally): - Misha Flores (certificate of employability) — granted — yes 3, no 0 - Ronald P. Armstrong Jr. — granted — yes 3, no 0 - Alan E. Coleman Jr. — granted — yes 3, no 0 - Christian E. Franceschi Sr. — granted — yes 3, no 0 - Wayne J. LeBlanc — granted — yes 3, no 0 - Edwin Ortiz — denied — yes 2, no 1 - Daniel Pagan — granted — yes 3, no 0 - Douglas J. Kroll — granted — yes 3, no 0 - John J. O'Connor III — granted — yes 3, no 0 - Jay P. Schneider — granted — yes 3, no 0 - Marcus A. Miller — granted — yes 3, no 0 - Leroy Roden — denied — yes 3, no 0 - Christopher M. Adams — granted — yes 3, no 0 - Arnaldo Arbonis Jr. — granted — yes 3, no 0 - Jonathan D.J. Clark — granted — yes 3, no 0 - Leandre G. Crandall — granted — yes 3, no 0 - Andre R. Dakers — granted — yes 3, no 0 - Cianna (Sienna) Darden — granted — yes 3, no 0 - Luis Alberto De Jesus — granted — yes 3, no 0 - Christopher J. Driscoll — granted — yes 3, no 0 - Terrence S. Edwards — granted — yes 3, no 0 - Jamil Irvin — granted — yes 2, no 1 - Lakitha Hinton Jones — denied — yes 2, no 1 - Stacy Leach — granted — yes 3, no 0 - Fritz G. Mezzadore Sr. — granted — yes 3, no 0 - Matthew Mino — granted — yes 3, no 0 - Julio Cesar Rodriguez — granted — yes 3, no 0 - Nakia Alvin Thomas — granted — yes 3, no 0 (Several other applicants were heard and granted; the hearing transcript and the board’s posted docket list all names and official outcomes.)

How decisions were reached Board members focused on three recurring considerations in their questioning: (1) whether applicants had a sustained period free of criminal justice involvement; (2) tangible evidence of rehabilitation (employment, treatment, stable family ties or volunteer work); and (3) any continuing public-safety risks or unresolved court conditions such as protective orders or unpaid restitution. When those elements were unclear or when victim statements described ongoing trauma, the board was more likely to deny clemency.

Examples from the hearing - Victim impact: Emera Staton, who identified herself as the former wife of the man killed in the 2017 crash, said the family’s lives remain disrupted and urged the board not to grant a pardon: “My son is never going to come back to me, and I do not forgive him. I will never forgive him,” she told the panel. - Minimizing responsibility: In discussing Edwin Ortiz, board member Turner pressed the applicant about minimizing his account of a decades-old assault and about steps he had taken to address anger and relationship problems; Turner said she would not support a pardon because the record showed multiple person-related offenses. - Medical and administrative complexity: Lakitha Hinton Jones gave a lengthy account of medical treatment and long repayment history; board members cited inconsistent application details, dates and restitution records and concluded the file lacked clarity necessary to grant clemency.

What happens next All pardons the board granted are tentative and subject to full record checks and clearance by the Connecticut State Police Bureau of Identification. The board repeatedly reminded applicants that final issuance of a certificate and erasure of records can take up to 10 weeks and that information may persist in third-party background checks even after state record changes.

Why it matters Pardons can open employment, licensing and travel opportunities for applicants and can remove collateral barriers to housing and economic stability. Conversely, the board must weigh community safety and victims’ ongoing trauma when evaluating whether record erasure is appropriate. The session shows the board balancing those competing responsibilities, granting relief in most cases while denying it where risk, record ambiguity, or victim harm remain significant.

Provenance: The article summarizes the Dec. 9, 2025 Board of Pardons and Paroles hearing, from the hearing opening (SEG 016) through adjournment (SEG 6617).