On April 8, 2014, Cordaryl Silva, then 26, was convicted of the May 12, 2012, murder of Javon Zimmerman, who was 22 at the time he was killed. Silva maintained that he did not do it and knew who did. But he refused to name the person whom he maintained was actually guilty. He asked the judge presiding over the trial for a 63-year prison sentence. He was facing 25 to 60 years for the murder conviction and three years for a probation violation. He was sentenced to 50 years.

Roughly 20 years into that sentence, Silva is still attempting to follow through on a promise he made shortly before he was sentenced:

“Give me the whole 63. I’m not going to do half of it.” Silva told superior court judge Denise Markle shortly before he was sentenced, referring to his belief that he could clear his name on appeal.

Silva has been raising several concerns since he was convicted. The first involves irregularities with his trial, where Silva was prevented from firing his lawyer, who he claims did not properly brief him on the case against him or make arguments he believed more strongly showed his innocence, and acting in his own defense. The second involves a line of questioning that a lawyer who represented Silva during his first appeal says should not have been allowed.

And last is evidence Silva uncovered through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) that he says shows the Derby Police Department, which investigated Zimmerman’s murder, did not properly follow protocol, leading them to ignore evidence that exonerates him.

From the beginning of Derby police’s investigation into Zimmerman’s murder, Silva was the only suspect.  According to the Valley Independent Sentinel, which extensively covered Zimmerman’s murder; the investigation; and Silva’s trial, Lieutenant Justin Stanko of the Derby police said Silva was the only suspect from the beginning of their investigation. Stanko stated they had eyewitness testimony, forensic evidence, and video surveillance placing him at the scene of the murder.

Silva also had a prior police record, including convictions for possessions of narcotics, disorderly conduct, and carrying a dangerous weapon. At the time a warrant for Silva’s arrest in Zimmerman’s death was issued, Silva was already in custody for a probation violation. The probation was the result of a 2007 conviction for selling controlled substances. Shortly after Zimmerman’s murder, Silva was also a suspect in a drug investigation that spanned several towns. Zimmerman, who police suspected of being part of a larger network of drug dealers in the area, was also suspected of being involved.

Details of the investigation into Zimmerman’s murder, and of the arrest warrant for Silva, were sealed from public view, allegedly to protect the identity of witnesses. Silva himself was an informant for Ansonia police, for whom Zimmerman was allegedly a major target in a drug investigation. After Silva, who was provided a redacted copy of the arrest warrant, waived a probable cause hearing, the prosecutor declined to release the redacted warrant and indicated he would be filing a motion to keep it secret.

Public information was initially limited to the following details: that Zimmerman, a second cousin of Silva’s, was shot several times outside RJ’s Café in Derby around 2 a.m. on May 12, 2012.

When the redacted warrant was eventually made public, it cited multiple eyewitness testimonies claiming to have either seen Silva shoot Zimmerman or heard Silva state his intent to shoot Zimmerman. It did not reference Silva’s status as an informant. Police speculated that bad blood between Zimmerman and Silva, ostensibly related to stopped payments from Zimmerman’s family to Silva’s incarcerated brother, was the motive behind the killing.

The warrant also revealed that an owner of an apartment building near where the shooting had occurred showed a person running from the scene of a crime and hiding on a porch. Numerous witnesses identified the man as Silva. Silva later told police he was running because he heard shots and because he had seen a car containing Zimmerman pull into the bar and was afraid he was in danger.

Prior to Silva’s arrest, when he was discussing the crime with police, and during his trial, Silva made multiple allusions to others who were present at RJ’s shortly before the shooting and told him to ‘watch his back.’ He also alluded to knowing who had actually killed Zimmerman but never actually named anyone.

Prosecutors offered Silva a plea deal that would have seen him spend 25 years in prison, but Silva declined, determined to clear his name at trial.

But things did not go smoothly for Silva, who complained repeatedly that Lawrence Hopkins, the public defender assigned to him, was not adequately representing him. Silva claimed Hopkins had not gone over the case with him. Silva’s mother also filed a grievance against Hopkins. Hopkins eventually filed a motion to withdraw from the case, citing poor communications between him and Silva. Prosecutor Charles Stango suggested Silva might be listening to his family more than his lawyer.

Complicating Silva’s desire for a new lawyer were two things: time needed by his family to raise money to hire private counsel and his desire to file a motion for a speedy trial. But presiding judge Frank Iannotti informed Silva that if he wanted the former request granted, he could not grant the motion for a new lawyer.

Though Iannotti appeared to patch up the relationship between Silva and Hopkins, the relationship soon fractured. As testimony began on the first day of the trial, Silva again asked for Hopkins to be dismissed and to act in his own defense. Judge Denise Markle denied the claim, saying the issue should have been addressed before the trial.

After the jury was given preliminary instructions, Hopkins again informed Markle that Silva had asked to represent himself. He also stated he had told Silva that wouldn’t delay the trial, and he would serve as standby counsel. Silva stated that he wanted a new lawyer but when Silva had told Hopkins he wanted to subpoena witnesses for his defense, Hopkins had said the only way he could do so was if he acted in his own defense.

Markle denied the motion, saying that “the question of when and how subpoenas are rendered can be best address[ed] by an attorney…not by somebody without experience.”

Markle asked about Silva’s education and employment and again reiterated that Hopkins knew the law, but she was not sure Silva did.

It was not the only surprise of the day: Tyquan Bailey, an eye witness who had told police they witnessed Silva shoot Zimmerman recanted that statement on the witness stand. During his testimony, Stango, who was granted permission to treat Bailey as a hostile witness, produced a statement Bailey had given to police that named “C” for Cordaryl Silva as Zimmerman’s shooter. But Bailey denied seeing Zimmerman shot. Under cross examination from Hopkins, Bailey said that he’d given police what they wanted to hear in his statement and that he had been in RJ’s when the shooting had happened.

During cross examination, Hopkins also pointed out a number of contradictions in other witnesses’ testimony. Jeff Johnson, the bouncer at RJ’s the night of the murder, told police he saw Silva fire two shots. But, as Hopkins noted, Johnson was standing at a patio outside the bar and couldn’t see the target of those shots.

Hopkins also pointed to discrepancies in eyewitness descriptions about what Silva was wearing the night of the murder. Johnson told police the day after the shooting that Silva was wearing a white t-shirt. But Derby police officer John Dorosh, who was on patrol near RJ’s at the time of the murder, described seeing someone wearing a baseball cap and all black clothing running from the scene.

Hopkins also noted that several individuals who had provided testimony received preferential treatment in their criminal cases for speaking against Silva.

When Silva took the stand in his own defense, he told the jury he hadn’t shot Zimmerman but knew who did.

“My boy went over to basically tell [Zimmerman] to tell him to chill out, it ain’t even like that, we just chilling, everybody’s chilling.” Silva said on the stand. “He kept running his mouth, that’s when what happened happened. And I took off.”

Hopkins pressed Silva to reveal the identity of “my boy” but Silva refused, saying that he was one of the only people who could keep his family safe. He also admitted to being the person Dorosh had seen fleeing the scene.

The jury ultimately found Stango’s case, which also pointed to inconsistencies Silva had made in statements to police, more convincing. He was found guilty by the jury after a five day trial.

Less than a year later, Silva filed an appeal asking for a new trial.

New Haven Legal Assistance Association lawyer Glenn Falk represented Silva in the case and argued that denying Silva the right to represent himself violated the Constitution. He also argued that part of the prosecution’s case, which relied on testimony from multiple police officers who implied periods where Silva refused to answer questions verbally but also shrugged when asked if he killed Zimmerman signaled his guilt , violated his right against self-incrimination.

Markle’s repeated refusals to allow Silva to represent himself—and insinuations that he could not act in his best interest because he did not know the law like Hopkins did—violated Silva’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel, Falk argued and required a new trial.

“The improper denial of a request for self-representation is structural error requiring a new trial.” Silva’s brief argued.

“The defendant’s reasons for the request were not frivolous—they went to the heart of his right to make a defense of his own choosing. Among other things, his appointed lawyer failed to subpoena the witnesses he wanted, and the lawyer failed to cross-examine the state’s witnesses as he wanted, neglecting to bring out what he regarded as important details and contradiction.” it further argued, also noting Silva had written notes he wished to be read during closing arguments that Hopkins did not read.

The brief asked the appellate court to follow a ruling from the Supreme Court of Vermont that granted a new trial after the defendant’s right to self-representation was denied. It also noted that Silva’s lack of legal knowledge about subpoenas was an insubstantial reason to deny his right to self-representation since it would not delay the trial and Hopkins had offered to act as standby counsel.

Falk also argued the prosecutions’ claim that Silva’s shrug in response to questions about whether he killed Zimmerman proved his guilt violated his Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination and demanded a new trial because it could not be proved beyond a reasonable doubt that they did not influence the jury.

The case was transferred to the Connecticut Supreme Court, which denied Silva’s request for a new trial.

Falk, now a professor at Trinity College, told Inside Investigator that he did not remember the details of the case as it occurred a decade ago. He did state that he believed the appeal raised strong claims and that he believed the courts took “too narrow a view” of Silva’s rights to self-representation and right to remain silent.

While Falk said he was not sure if any additional information had been discovered in post-conviction habeas proceedings, he raised an important point: unlike a direct appeal, habeas proceedings allow for the introduction of new evidence.

Silva is currently acting on his own behalf in several habeas proceedings and has turned to FOIA to help him uncover exonerating evidence.

For the incarcerated, FOIA has the potential to be a powerful tool to mount a defense against a wrongful conviction. But navigating the law is not always easy for incarcerated requesters or for public agencies responding to requests sent from behind bars.

FOIA works differently for the incarcerated than it does for other requesters. Under Section 1-210(c) of state statute, agencies must first notify DOC that they have received a request from an incarcerated individual before they begin processing it. The same holds true for those confined at Whiting Forensic Hospital. State statute also allows the director of DOC or of the Department of Mental Health and Addiction Services (DMHAS) to withhold responsive records if they believe they contain “information on contacts between inmates…and law enforcement officers.”

Enforcement of this portion of FOIA has proved confusing for agencies. The FOIC has issued multiple rulings seeking to clarify this section of statute.

In 2008, the New Haven Police Department provided records responsive to a request from an incarcerated individual to DOC’s FOIA liaison, not the requester. DOC’s FOIA liaison did not forward the records to the requester or notify him they had been received. The police department believed they had fulfilled the request. But the FOIC found that Section 1-210(c) does not require public agencies to consult with or provide responsive records to the DOC or DMHAS commissioner before fulfilling a request and also does not mean public agencies are absolved (syn) of their requirement to provide records directly to requesters.

In another case from 2008, an incarcerated requester filed a complaint with the FOIC because the Department of Administrative Services (DAS) sent records responsive to his request to DOC’s commissioner to review before providing them to him. The FOIC found DAS sent the records to DOC as part of their notification that they had received the request. The FOIC again found that, while DAS did not act in bad faith and believed it was complying with the law, they violated FOIA by not providing the records directly to the incarcerated requester.

In a third case from 2009, the Department of Environmental Protection (now the Department of Energy and Environmental Protection) provided records responsive to an incarcerated individual’s request to DOC’s commissioner and relied on him to “forward any records it deemed appropriate to disclose to the complainant.” Again, the FOIC found that while the agency was not acting in bad faith and believed it was complying with Section 1-210(c), they violated FOIA and should have provided records directly to the incarcerated requester.

Taken together, those three cases led both the FOIC and DOC to enter into a resolution and to post a notice outlining the process public agencies should follow when responding to requests from incarcerated individuals.

It directs public agencies to deliver documents to which redactions it believes are appropriate have been applied to DOC’s FOIA administrator. DOC has the ability to further redact records it believes might pose a security risk.

If DOC does withhold records responsive to a FOIA request, they are supposed to provide the incarcerated requester with notice that records have been withheld and with a description of those records. In the event an incarcerated requester files a complaint with the FOIC, DOC is required to retain the records it has withheld while an appeal is ongoing. If it does not receive notice of an appeal within 60 days, it is to return responsive records to the agency that provided them.

Evidence suggests this process does not work perfectly. Failure to receive records an agency has provided is not an infrequent complaint when final decisions on complaints from incarcerated individuals are heard by the FOIC.

Incarcerated individuals have also faced difficulties appearing in complaints they’ve filed with the FOIC. In 2004, the FOIC and DOC issued a memorandum of understanding allowing incarcerated individuals who had filed an appeal to appear at FOIC proceedings via telephone if they certified they could not obtain legal representation to act on their behalf.

During Silva’s trial, Stanko said the following on the witness stand: “From the minute that I arrived on scene until today, there has never been any evidence pointing to anyone…other than Cordaryl Silva as the shooter.”

Silva disagrees with that statement, and he’s used FOIA to obtain records that he says thoroughly disprove that statement.

But he’s had to fight for those records. Silva told Inside Investigator that of the ten requests he filed with Derby police, he had to file a complaint with the FOIC to obtain records in all but one. Due to the delay in the police department’s response to the requests and the time it takes for a FOIC complaint to be adjudicated, Silva says he didn’t receive a number of records from three requests because evidence was not preserved.

He also filed four requests with the Connecticut State Police (CSP), which aided in the investigation of Zimmerman’s murder, and says he had to go to the FOIC for each of them to compel them to turn over records. Additionally, he filed five FOIA requests with the Ansonia police department, which along with the Shelton police department participated in the investigation. While he received all the documents he requested, he had to file two FOIC complaints to get them.

In one complaint Silva brought against Derby, the FOIC leveled a civil penalty against the police department because they found they’d similarly failed to fulfill other requests.

On December 3, 2023, Silva requested a number of files connected to his case from the Derby police department, including:

• Recordings of dispatch and radio transmissions from the night Zimmerman was killed
• Documents produced by Netto and Stanko showing the beginning of the investigation into Zimmerman’s death
• Data taken from Silva’s cellphone
• All notes taken by Derby police officers relating to their investigation into Zimmerman’s death

Derby police determined after receiving Silva’s December 3 request that they had previously disclosed the audio records he was requesting in requests Silva made in 2015, 2017, and 2018. But they never contacted Silva to let him know that or to otherwise acknowledge his request.

Silva filed a complaint with the Freedom of Information Commission (FOIC) on December 14 and requested a $1,000 civil penalty be imposed.

During a hearing on Silva’s FOIC complaint, Derby police conceded that they did not acknowledge Silva’s request but argued that because they had previously provided the documents he was requesting, they had not violated FOIA. They also claimed they had searched for records responsive to the three remaining elements of Silva’s request and found none.

But that’s not how FOIA in Connecticut works. Court rulings have found that public agencies are still required to provide responsive records to a request even if it has been made before.

“Indeed, a complainant may seek to start an appeal period over again by asking for a record again, or a complainant may have lost the document after the first request.” a New Britain superior court ruling found in a case where the city of Torrington lost an appeal seeking not to have to turn over records to a requester it claimed was using duplicative request to harass city officials.

The FOIC therefore found Derby’s response did not satisfy FOIA. While the department maintained that they conducted a diligent search for records, the FOIC also found that they had not actually done so. They submitted no evidence about the scope or sufficiency of the search and also did not begin the search until a hearing officer assigned to Silva’s FOIC complaint sent an order to submit evidence.

Because the FOIC found the police department had similarly failed to respond to respond to or provide records in another complaint, they assessed a civil penalty of $250. They also ordered the department to conduct a search for the remaining elements of Silva’s request and to turn over any records that were produced free of charge.

At a FOIC meeting where the decision was adopted, lawyers representing the police department objected to the requirement to turn over any records they found within 14 days on the grounds that those categories of records did not exist.

Other complaints of Silva’s have run up against the state’s record retention schedule and FOIA exemptions for law enforcement records that, while intended to protect individuals who could be harmed by the release of information in police records that isn’t already public, were used to deny him records about himself.

The Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection (DESPP), which houses the state police, fought to deny records Silva requested in a FOIA request directed at the Ansonia police department relating to his work as a confidential informant, including audio records, police reports, and paperwork that detailed his registration as an informant.

As is required by the FOIA exemption Ansonia cited, the police department contacted DESPP, which is authorized to direct an agency to withhold requested records if they believe there are “reasonable grounds” the release would pose a safety risk. DESPP directed Ansonia to withhold the records Silva was seeking.

Despite Silva’s work as a confidential informant being public knowledge since it was mentioned during his trial, DESPP argued releasing the records would risk the safety of other people named in the records and “divulge details of the process and procedures used in drug enforcement work.”

The FOIC dismissed the complaint against DESPP but found that the Ansonia police violated FOIA’s promptness requirement by failing to turn over other documents he requested for the seven months after the request was made. It wasn’t the only complaint Silva brought where the FOIC found the department violated FOIA. In another complaint, Ansonia police withheld some responsive records, arguing that they were similar to other records that were responsive to the request and which DOC had notified the department would be withheld because they contained criminal records that the agency considered it a safety risk for inmates to possess. The FOIC noted the police department was not permitted to do this.

In a fourth FOIC case, Silva’s complaints have been dismissed because they involve the destruction of records, which is beyond the FOIC’s jurisdiction. In a March 2023 complaint Silva filed with the FOIC, he alleged CSP had violated FOIA by failing to provide copies of radio and dispatch transmissions of their response from the day of Zimmerman’s death.

CSP maintained that they searched for audio recordings and found none and that no recordings had been logged in evidence. Silva maintained the records had been improperly destroyed. Under the state’s record retention schedule, CSP is only required to retain dispatch recordings for 30 days after they were recorded and is required to retain calls for service and dispatch logs for two years following the end of the year in which they were recorded.

In general, many records generated by law enforcement are not required to be retained for long periods of time. For example, video footage from dashboard or body worn cameras is only required to be retained for 30 days. While FOIA requires faster response times for these types of requests, which must be disclosed within two or three days after a request is received, the shorter retention schedule makes using FOIA for Silva’s purposes more difficult.

But despite his FOIA challenges, Silva has been successful in obtaining records that he says show police who investigated Zimmerman’s death ignored protocol and evidence that exonerates him.

Documents Silva obtained through FOIA and shared with Inside Investigator show discrepancies between statements police made during the initial investigation and during the trial.

Silva believes one document shows Stanko coaching Bailey to lie about seeing him flee after shooting Zimmerman.

“And we also know that somebody with some athletic skills ran out of this little door here and did like a Superman over the top of that wall—that double patio porch wall there. All’s we need—we have this and we have this—all’s we need is one person to say who the person was right there. In that little window, right there. We got people that say that this same person was in here.” Stanko tells Bailey.

The patio wall being referenced is the same one that obstructed Jeffrey Johnson, the RJ’s bouncer who claimed to have seen Silva shoot Zimmerman, from seeing the parking lot where the murder took place and drew questions during Silva’s trial.

Silva has compiled pages of handwritten notes about Johnson’s testimony. He has noted a number of discrepancies between two statements Johnson made over time, including differences in the clothes Silva was wearing, whether Johnson went into the bar, whether Silva was in Zimmerman’s car, and what kind of gun he allegedly saw Silva carrying.

Another document says “Johnson was at the [bar] door when he observed a male known as Cordaryl Silva get into a vehicle with Zimmerman. Johnson believed that Zimmerman let Silva into the vehicle. Johnson then heard a gunshot and observed Silva coming from the side of Zimmerman’s vehicle. Johnson observed Silva shoot Zimmerman again with a small black handgun.”

One police report he obtained notes that, on the night of the murder, Johnson “indicated by gesture that he saw what happened but did not want to discuss it in the presence of the crowd and provided a phone number for investigators to contact him.”

Another report states “Johnson said he saw a dark colored car pull up and Javon got out of the car. Javon let someone in but doesn’t know who and had no description.”

Silva also obtained pictures showing Johnson’s viewpoint of the crime scene—and the patio wall blocking his view of the crime scene.

A written statement from Johnson says Silva exited the bar with a beer and Johnson asked it to put it down. “[S]o I took the beer and he commenced walking to Javon’s car. I saw Javon get up and I think he let Cordaryl into the car.” In the same statement, Johnson says he saw or heard someone jump over the patio fence and hear the first “pop” of a gunshot. He then said he saw Cordaryl run from the side of Zimmerman’s car and shoot him again. He also described Silva as wearing a white t-shirt and grey sweatpants and carrying a black nine-millimeter gun. Johnson first wrote that Silva was wearing a different color shirt but later crossed it out.

Another key contention is the car Zimmerman was in, which was moved from the crime scene without the police’s knowledge and was only located because Ansonia police had installed a GPS tracker on it as part of their narcotics investigation.

The car, according to police documents, was originally moved from the crime scene at the request of police officers so that an ambulance could get through and tend to Zimmerman. But the car was later driven off, without police knowledge. According to GPS tracker information contained in police documents, the car was taken to Cottage Street in Derby, where police records indicate one of Zimmerman’s associates lived, then to two addresses in Ansonia, and finally to a diner in Waterbury where police recovered it hours later. Quayshaun Rhodes, one of Zimmerman’s associates, had been driving it.

Silva’s mother has argued from the beginning that this weakens the case against her son and other of Silva’s supporters have noted that the car’s disappearance and movements broke the police’s chain of custody. While the car was not in police possession, it is possible evidence incriminating someone else of Zimmerman’s murder could have been disposed of.

Silva has compiled meticulous notes cataloging various discrepancies in witness statements and evidence. Silva also obtained the medical examiner’s postmortem on Zimmerman, which notes that both bullets that struck him traveled from left to right, back to front and downward. According to Silva, this makes it impossible for him to have committed the murder, since eyewitnesses say Silva shot Zimmerman as he was walking toward him. Silva alleges that the bullet trajectory means Zimmerman’s killer could not have been facing him.

And these are far from the only discrepancies Silva has catalogued. He also claims Stanko perjured himself at his habeas trial by making a statement about his clock in time, relevant to the time officers arrived at the crime scene and the truth of various police officers’ statements. But when Silva attempted to FOIA those documents, Derby police said they don’t exist.

Despite the evidence Silva has collected, his attempts to have his conviction reviewed have so far been unsuccessful. In 2022, the Conviction Integrity Unit declined to investigate his case.

“Respectfully, I find that your claim of police conspiracy fails to meet our Basic Qualifications #4 because while it is plausible that the police conspired against you, it is not sufficiently verifiable for purposes of our review and investigation.” deputy assistant state’s attorney Thai Chhay wrote in a letter notifying Silva of their rejection.

The unit’s qualifications for reviewing a case require “plausible and verifiable evidence that, if true, would cause a reasonable person to lose confidence in the conviction including but not limited to issues of official misconduct, discredit forensic or eyewitness evidence, the misapplication of forensic science, or due process violations.”

Silva’s challenges have gone as far as the Supreme Court without success. But Silva is still trying. Silva’s next habeas trial is set for April 1, 2026. He also has a habeas trial in federal court that is awaiting a decision. The Conviction Integrity Unit is again reviewing his conviction, and he recently filed a motion for a new trial.

At the center of those efforts is FOIA. Silva’s goal with the numerous requests he’s filed has been to “gather all the evidence that has been actively hidden” from him in order to either prove his innocence or show a conspiracy led by police, with the goal of a new trial being ordered.

Despite Silva’s frequent need to go to the FOIC in order to get records, he told Inside Investigator making FOIA requests while incarcerated was “very easy to manage.” Due to his issues with Hopkins, Silva called FOIA a “life saver,” stating he would not have otherwise been able to gather evidence in his case.

But while FOIA is a crucial tool to help incarcerated individuals gather evidence to challenge their convictions, it’s not always easy navigate.

“Public records are an essential tool in the fight against wrongful convictions.  State and federal agency documents hold critical information necessary to understanding a defendant’s case, with the potential to uncover exculpatory evidence, including details about alternate perpetrators and government misconduct.” Said Laura Carey, a staff attorney with the New England Innocence Project (NEIP), which reviews and works to clear wrongful convictions.

Carey said that when NEIP begins investigating a case, their first step is a comprehensive document collection.

“When informal and cooperative requests fail, we rely heavily on public records requests. However, these requests can be arduous, demanding persistent follow-up, administrative appeals, and even litigation to secure vital documents. For instance, our recent two-year effort to obtain records from a Connecticut police department regarding a 1989 conviction involved numerous obstacles, including non-responses, unwarranted and excessive redactions, and administrative hearings. These hurdles would be particularly challenging, if not impossible to surmount, for incarcerated individuals without legal representation.” Carey added.

Republish This Story

Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.