Connecticut Board of Pardons and Paroles grants certificates, dozens of pardons and moves many cases to hearings

The Connecticut Board of Pardons and Paroles met publicly on June 1, 2026, to consider certificates of employability and a multi‑part docket of pardon applications. Chair Jennifer Medina Zachini opened the session, explained procedures and timelines — including that an absolute pardon, if granted, may take up to 10 weeks to be securely removed from public record and that certificates of employability are mailed within about two weeks — and the board proceeded through the certificate, expedited and pre‑screen dockets.

In the certificate of employability (COE) review the board unanimously approved a COE for Betsy Seu after board member Michael Paul reviewed her record and said he would support the certificate. The board also unanimously approved a COE for Sergio Kamo Pamo, noting the applicant’s ongoing education and employment circumstances.

The board then conducted an expedited administrative pardon docket — cases that, under statute, do not require victim outreach. Board members generally recommended grants where convictions were old or the applicant showed stable employment, programming and community ties. For example, board members granted an absolute pardon to Michael Kantiello (possession conviction from 1999) and to Ryan O'Conor after noting participation in recovery programs. In a smaller set of expedited matters the board decided a fuller review was warranted: the panel voted to move Khalil Herd’s file to a full hearing citing the relative recency and seriousness of some offenses.

When the board moved to the pre‑screen review docket — applications that require victim outreach and a full hearing — members discussed each file in more detail. They granted hearings in many cases, including Stanley Belton and Nathaniel Moore Jr., citing the need for direct victim outreach and a fuller evidentiary record. The board denied several applications at this stage when members found the offenses particularly serious or recent; for example, the board denied the pardon application for Michael Wilmont, citing the nature of the sexual‑assault‑related convictions and concerns about minimization in the application. In another denial, the board cited the length and seriousness of the criminal history when it denied Shan Kohl's.

Throughout the meeting members repeatedly noted letters of support, evidence of long periods of law‑abiding behavior, participation in substance‑use or domestic‑violence programs, employment history, and family ties when weighing relief. Members also flagged cases where applications — sometimes prepared by advocacy groups — may have minimized conduct; the chair urged that applicants speak in their own words at hearings rather than relying on third‑party summaries.

Votes and next steps: the board recorded numerous unanimous procedural votes to grant certificates of employability, grant administrative pardons, or to send files to full hearings. For the cases moved to hearings, the board directed staff to conduct required victim outreach and to schedule formal hearings; for cases denied, the board recorded the reasons on the record (length/seriousness of criminal history, minimization of conduct, or insufficient time since supervision ended). The meeting concluded after the board finished the day's docket.

What this means: administrative pardons and COEs remove barriers for employment and other civil opportunities, but board members noted these actions do not equate to findings of innocence or exoneration. Where hearings were granted, victims will be contacted as required by statute and the board will hold a public hearing to receive testimony before rendering a final decision.

Representative quotes from the meeting include Chair Jennifer Medina Zachini explaining timing and limits of relief: "If you are granted an absolute pardon today, it may take up to 10 weeks from the date of this hearing to erase your criminal history securely and safely from public record." Board member Michael Paul summarized one applicant succinctly: "These are minor convictions, and I don't see any reason why he wouldn't be employable." Alex Zarkov voiced caution in several cases: "I'd be willing to bring him in for a hearing if that would make sense."