Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Denial Victim Impact topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board denies pardon for Ernesto Prrisco after victim outlines lasting trauma
Summary
The Connecticut Board of Pardons and Paroles denied Ernesto Prrisco’s application at its April 7 session after hearing a detailed victim impact statement and citing poor performance on supervision and the seriousness of the offense.
The Connecticut Board of Pardons and Paroles on April 7, 2026 denied the pardon application of Ernesto Prrisco after hearing a lengthy victim impact statement and extensive board questioning.
Prrisco, represented by attorney Matthew Sroen, acknowledged making “poor decisions” more than 20 years ago and told the panel he had completed therapy, attended sex-offender treatment and worked in the electrical trade since his release. He said he had stopped drinking and had engaged in community volunteer work and food-pantry deliveries. He told the board he takes “full responsibility” for his actions.
A victim who identified her comments only by the initials SK read a written statement to the board describing deep and persistent trauma, long-term family disruption and distrust that followed the offenses. In the hearing transcript she said, “This was not a simple mistake. This was not an oops. This was a choice that he decided to make not only once but multiple times over a period of time.” The victim asked the board not to grant a pardon.
Board members pressed Prrisco about details in the police report and about repeated violations of supervision. Board member Nancy Turner said she was not prepared to grant a pardon “for reasons 6, 7, and 12” (as listed on her review notes), including the injury to the victim, the applicant’s performance while on supervision and the seriousness of the offense. Board member Rafaro Barry likewise opposed a pardon, citing the impact on the victim and supervision issues.
Chairperson Michael P moved to deny the application; the motion carried with recorded votes for denial. The board’s statement on the record cited the victim impact, the applicant’s community-supervision record and the seriousness of the underlying crime as the basis for denial.
The board’s denial is tentative only in the sense that administrative processes follow hearings; the record shows the board voted to deny the pardon and directed staff to notify the applicant and post the disposition according to standard procedures.
What happened next: The board recorded the motion to deny and said staff will notify the applicant. Denial preserves the applicant’s criminal record; the board noted the applicant may reapply in the future but declined to grant relief at this hearing.
Sources: Public hearing transcript, April 7, 2026 (victim statement and board deliberations).
