Connecticut Board of Pardons and Paroles grants majority of 21 pardon requests; several votes include recorded dissents
Loading...
Summary
At its April 1, 2026 virtual hearing the Board of Pardons and Paroles heard 21 applicants and granted a majority of absolute pardons after testimony, victim-service input and board questioning; several grants recorded individual dissenting votes. Key contested moments included victim opposition in one case and a board member dissent in two others.
The State of Connecticut Board of Pardons and Paroles held a full pardon docket by videoconference on April 1, 2026, hearing 21 applicants who or whose counsel spoke on their behalf. Chair Jennifer Medina Zaccagnini opened the session and reviewed the board’s authority to grant an absolute pardon or a certificate of employability and explained that any grant is tentative until record checks are cleared and the State Police Bureau of Identification confirms the erasure of records.
The board took testimony, asked follow-up questions and heard input from the Office of Victim Services in multiple cases. Applicants described a mix of rehabilitation steps — sobriety, counseling and steady employment — and many submitted letters of support. Office of Victim Services read victim statements into the record in several cases; in one instance the victim’s letter urged the board to deny a pardon because the underlying offense involved a child.
Most petitions on the docket were approved. The chair moved to grant absolute pardons in the individual matters heard and the board recorded votes on each. Examples: Frankie Vernell Harris was granted a full and absolute pardon after questioning about past assaults and registry status; Kwok Lam, who is participating in ongoing treatment, received a majority grant with Board member Joy Chance recorded as dissenting; Nina Studioso Rodriguez faced a written victim opposition that described an attempted manslaughter involving a child, but members who voted in the majority said rehabilitation and current circumstances weighed in favor of removal; Joseph Weizenblum’s file prompted extended questioning about serious facts in the record, and his pardon passed by majority with one dissenting vote from Board member Aileen Keyes.
Board members repeatedly emphasized that a pardon is not an exoneration and does not overturn findings of guilt. Chair Medina Zaccagnini and staff explained the administrative follow-up: all grants are tentative pending criminal-history verification; after successful checks the board will issue a pardon certificate by mail and post results on the board website. Applicants were reminded that internet records and third‑party background checks may persist even after a pardon is issued.
The hearing concluded with more than a dozen pardons recorded as granted on the record; where a board member registered a ‘nay’ that was noted in the minutes. Several cases highlighted the board’s balance between weighing victims’ concerns and evidence of applicants’ rehabilitation. The full docket was closed at the end of the session; applicants will receive written notice of disposition and, if cleared, a mailed certificate once record checks are complete.
