Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Connecticut Board of Pardons and Paroles processes prescreen dockets, grants multiple pardons and schedules hearings
Loading...
Summary
At its April 13, 2026 meeting the Board of Pardons and Paroles conducted expedited and prescreen dockets, granting absolute pardons for multiple applicants, denying some requests for lack of offense detail, and scheduling full hearings for applicants where victims or additional information must be consulted.
The Connecticut Board of Pardons and Paroles met on April 13, 2026, in a public expedited prescreen and prescreen review session to consider applications for absolute pardons and certificates of employability. Chair Jennifer Medina Zaccagnini opened the meeting, reviewed statutory authority and procedures for public and executive-session deliberations, and explained timelines for expungement and notification.
During the expedited prescreen docket—the set of cases eligible for administrative action because they did not require victim outreach—board members reviewed individual files and repeatedly moved, seconded, and voted on pardons. For example, after a panel summary of his record one board member said, “I would support a pardon on this case,” regarding applicant Zachary Armento; Chair Jennifer Medina Zaccagnini moved to grant an absolute pardon and the board approved the motion. Similar administrative grants were recorded for other applicants whose files the board described as showing long periods without new convictions, treatment participation, steady employment and family supports.
Not every application was approved. In the prescreen review portion—cases requiring victim outreach or further inquiry—the board voted to deny some requests and to schedule hearings for others to permit victim input and additional fact-finding. The board denied the application of Joseph Lee, citing minimization and insufficient offense details and saying public safety required the official record remain intact. For other applicants with more serious or unresolved questions about the offense, members voted to grant full pardon hearings to seek more information and pursue victim outreach (for example, Roy Clemens Jr. was returned for a hearing to allow further inquiry and outreach).
Board members frequently cited applicants’ ages at the time of offenses, completion of probation and treatment programs, letters of support, employment history, and family circumstances in justifying their votes. When members described an applicant’s shortcomings—incomplete or inconsistent applications, or what they characterized as “minimization” of responsibility—they often favored hearings or denial rather than administrative grants.
The board also reminded applicants that a pardon is not a finding of innocence or an exoneration and that it may take up to 10 weeks for criminal-history records to be securely erased from public record after a pardon is granted. The session closed after the panel completed the prescreen docket and recorded motions to grant pardons, grant hearings, or deny applications according to the record and member determinations.
The board took formal votes on each item during the meeting and recorded motions and outcomes on the record; several cases were continued to full hearings where victims’ input or further documentation was needed. The board did not announce any certificate-of-employability grants during this session.
