Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Pardons Session topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Connecticut Board of Pardons and Paroles grants most requests at May 12 session; one denied after prosecutor objection
Summary
At a May 12, 2026 absolute-pardon session held by the Connecticut Board of Pardons and Paroles, the board heard applicant statements, asked questions, and voted on more than 30 applications. The board denied Joe Forgoso’s petition after concerns and a state's attorney objection; the remaining cases recorded here were granted.
The Connecticut Board of Pardons and Paroles met by videoconference on May 12, 2026, to hear more than 30 applications for absolute pardons. Chair Jennifer Medina Zachanini opened the session, reviewed the board’s standards and procedures and reminded applicants that any tentative grants are subject to record checks before a pardon is final.
The hearing proceeded case by case. Applicants made brief personal statements and answered questions from board members and panelists about the facts of their cases, participation in treatment, work and family circumstances. Officer Eastwood administered the oath and reviewed disclosure rules and the processing timeline for any granted pardons.
One application was denied: Joe Forgoso (who identified himself in the hearing) apologized to his victim and described treatment and polygraph testing, but board members pressed inconsistencies between his application and official records about the duration and nature of the conduct and noted a formal objection filed by the state's attorney’s office. The board moved to deny Forgoso’s application and recorded the denial.
Most applicants who appeared were granted absolute pardons. Examples include Jose Lewis Garcia, whose application drew questions about grooming behavior but whom the board credited for ongoing therapy and educational advancement; Deborah Hayes, noted for long-term community volunteer work; and a series of applicants with long intervals since their convictions and evidence of steady employment, treatment or community engagement. Several applicants emphasized sustained sobriety, counseling or program completion as evidence of rehabilitation that, the board concluded, supported a pardon.
Votes were announced on the record after discussion of each file; in the cases where the transcript records roll-call-style responses the board recorded affirmative votes from the presiding members present and granted or denied relief accordingly. The board repeatedly reminded applicants that a pardon becomes final only after state police and other checks confirm that records have been cleared, and that recipients should not assert their record has been erased until they receive a mailed certificate.
The hearing concluded with the board granting most of the listed applications and adjourning at about 12:18 p.m. The board said decisions would be emailed within a week and posted on the board’s website within 48 hours.
Votes at a glance (applicant — outcome): Joe Forgoso — denied; Jose Lewis Garcia — granted; Deborah Lynn Hayes — granted; Wandelle A. Az — granted; Marcio Eduardo Gomez — granted; Adrian (Adrien) Elliott — granted; Gregory Germaine Jackson — granted; Roy William Clemens Jr. — granted; Michael Vincent Algarini — granted; Andrew Dwayne Coot — granted; Ro Donz Jr. (Wfredo Donz Jr.) — granted; Travis Felder — granted; Nelson Coleman Johnson IV — granted; Tamika Nicole Johnson — granted; Alexis Maldonado Cologne — granted; Jonathan Lewis Moss — granted; Stanley E. McWilliams Jr. — granted; Annabal (Annabelle) Reyes Sees Jr. — granted; Elvin Santiago — granted; Shane David Scott — granted; Anthony Isaac Troxler — granted; Martin L. Warren — granted; Shamar E. Whitfield — granted; Brian O. Williams Jr. — granted (full list and transcript timestamps in provenance).
What happened next: The board closed the session after recording votes and instructed applicants to await the mailed certificate of pardon after the completion of record checks. Decisions are to be emailed within one week and posted to the board website within 48 hours.
Context: The board repeatedly emphasized that granting a pardon is not a finding of innocence nor an exoneration; rather, it is an act of mercy that can remove statutory barriers to employment, licensing and housing. Several applicants described the collateral consequences they continue to face — loss of licensing, housing and employment opportunities — and board members weighed those impacts alongside statements of remorse, program participation and time elapsed since conviction.
