On Friday, Connecticut’s Judiciary Committee heard testimony on a proposed bill that would give victims the right to provide impact statements in nolled cases, or cases in which prosecutors decide to drop charges. The bill would also update outdated statutory language regarding how victims can be notified for sentencing or plea acceptance hearings.

“The entry of a nolle prosequi or dismissal is a disposition and therefore crime victims should be heard prior to the entry of the nolle prosequi or dismissal,” said Natasha Pierre, the state’s Victim Advocate. “The Office of the Victim Advocate (OVA) has received numerous complaints over the years from victims who understand the reasoning for the nolle/dismissal, but simply want the opportunity to be heard after receiving notice of such.”

While proponents of the bill said it would adequately provide victims with the voice they have thus far been denied in such proceedings, both the state’s Division of Criminal Justice (DCJ) and the Judicial Branch questioned whether the bill would place undue stress on a legal system that nolles nearly half of its cases. According to data from Connecticut’s Office of Policy and Management, in 2024, state courts nolled 44,044 of the 93,354 criminal and motor vehicle cases that came before them, a statistic cited by Patrick Griffin, DCJ’s Chief State’s Attorney, in written testimony he submitted for the bill.

Article 29 of Connecticut’s State Constitution proclaims that victims have the right to notification of court proceedings, to reasonable protections from the accused, to notification of court proceedings, to attend any trial or court hearing the defendant can, so long as their presence would not “materially affect” testimony, and to receive information about the arrest, conviction, sentencing, imprisonment and release of the accused. It also provides victims the right to “make a statement to the court” before any defendant accepts a plea deal or is sentenced, a right that is not currently provided in cases that are nolled.

Keith Wortz, a Victim Services Advocate for the State’s Judicial Branch who wrote the bill’s proposed language, shared the story of his daughter’s treatment by the judicial system to drive home the bill’s necessity. Wortz, who previously shared his daughter’s story with Inside Investigator, recounted how nearly every constitutional protection afforded to victims was violated in his daughter’s rape case.

“This is not theoretical,” said Wortz. “On a scheduled court date for the offender who raped my daughter, we discovered that the case had been moved weeks earlier and nolled, without ever notifying us beforehand. The prosecutor had never met with my daughter, never heard her account, and never provided notice that the case had been rescheduled or nolled. We were deprived of an opportunity to be present, to be heard, and to provide information that may have impacted the outcome.”

Wortz said that the failure to properly notify him and his family of court proceedings, and the denial of his daughter’s right to provide a statement or even be present when the defendant was nolled, was “not an oversight.”

“It was a failure to include the one person most affected by this crime,” said Wortz. “The message to my daughter, a rape victim, was clear: she did not matter.”

Wortz acknowledged that the bill’s provisions “already happen,” but argued that it’s necessary nonetheless for the purpose of ensuring those rights are applied consistently. Wortz asserted that under the current system, victims’ rights to information often “can depend on where they live, who’s handling the case, or whether best practices are actually followed,” and said that “respect for victims should not be discretionary.”

“This bill ensures victims across Connecticut are treated with dignity and given a meaningful voice every time,” said Wortz. “Cases are sometimes dismissed or nolled based on incomplete information. When victims are informed and given the opportunity to speak, those outcomes can be prevented because courts are making decisions with a fuller understanding of the facts.”

In Griffin’s testimony in opposition to the bill, he said that while DCJ “recognizes and appreciates the well-placed intent of the bill,” he argued that it “undermines public policy favoring judicial efficiency.”

“The creation of a statutory right for victims to appear and make a statement at any proceeding involving a dismissal or the entry of a nolle has the potential to extend the length of approximately 63,000 nolle and dismissal proceedings occurring each year,” wrote Griffin. “The impact of this requirement creates unknown and potentially enormous, if not insurmountable, time and resource concerns for the Division.”

Furthermore, Griffin said that “while it is often appropriate and necessary” to “consider victim input” before issuing a nolle, there are “many instances” in which nolles are essential, especially in cases nolled “due to the absence of adequate proof.” He also said that many nolles are issued in response to the defendants’ completion of a pre-trial diversionary program, such as accelerated rehabilitation or family violence education programs, situations in which “victim input has been obtained and considered as part of the court’s initial decision to grant the program.”

“H.B. 5564’s proposed revised language creates a hollow process in that it invites victims to participate in certain proceedings where their input can have no legal consequence,” wrote Griffin.

Both Wortz and Rep. Craig Fishbein (R-Wallingford) said during the hearing that, whether a victim’s statement will have any impact on legal proceedings, many victims still wish to be heard before the court, regardless. Fishbein, an attorney, shared the story of a client he had two years ago, who had a gun placed in his mouth by an arresting police officer. The officer was arrested two years later, and Fishbein said that while “the disposition of that case was not to our satisfaction,” his client still wished to provide a statement, and was denied the ability to do so.

“From my perspective, a lot of the importance of the court process is closure,” said Fishbein. “Closure, not only for the individual who is charged, but closure for the victim also. Some people just want to be heard — some people are OK with the disposition, but they want to know that the judge heard how it affected them.”

The state Judicial Branch’s written testimony opposed the bill on similar grounds to the DCJ, acknowledging that while the bill’s passage would “be a significant, and meaningful,” expansion to victims’ rights, it would “cause a resource issue” for the Office of Victim Services (OVS) due to the number of cases that end in a nolle. The Judicial Branch noted that in 2025, Victim Services Advocates assisted 7,065 victims with drafting impact statements.

“Support given to victims at this crucial time goes beyond simply assisting in the drafting of the statement; before and afterwards, VSAs provide significant support to the crime victim because of the potential re-traumatization that may occur from appearing in court before the individual who harmed them and recounting the experience,” wrote the Judicial Branch. “Should the Committee look favorably upon this aspect of the bill, we would respectfully request that consideration be given to OVS’ staffing needs.”

Rep. Steven Stafstrom (D-Bridgeport) noted the Judicial Branch’s testimony, stating that “it seems like this would require some additional financial resources,” if passed. Wortz addressed this concern by first acknowledging the problem of “significant underfunding” at OVS, saying there are “numerous courts in the state that do not even have a Victim Services Advocate.” However, he disagreed with the Judicial Branch’s assertion that it needs “financial increases in order to make this bill possible,” and called it “concerning.”

“As somebody with 40 years as a practitioner in this judicial process, I can tell you that the victim advocates are there; whether or not they assist victims with victim impact statements, whether they get read into court or they don’t,” said Wortz. “So, the belief that permitting victims to speak at a nollie or dismissal is going to somehow put the wheels of justice to a screaming halt is not really accurate.”

Another concern presented by Stafstrom was the fact that the bill, as currently written, would apply to nolles issued in any case, not “just related to, sort of, sexual offenses, or crimes involving bodily harm.” Stafstrom, who is also a lawyer, said he’s seen examples of trivial cases brought before criminal courts, such as one in which a client of his was arrested on criminal mischief for planting trees on a neighbor’s property. When the case was taken to court, the judge nolled the charges. Stafstrom said he would want to ensure that, if passed, the bill doesn’t “lump these two scenarios together,” referring to the case he got thrown out for his client, and the case pursuant to the alleged rape of Wortz’s daughter.

Rep. Liz Linehan (D-Cheshire), who drafted the bill alongside Wortz and offered him her time slot as a speaker before the committee, responded by saying they were “open to language changes,” but noted that she would like any proposed changes to include serious crimes beyond just violent or sexual crimes.

“Just yesterday, I was afforded the opportunity to write a letter in support of the adjudication of the case against a woman who had stolen $26,000 from a veteran — I’m pretty sure she was a home health aide,” said Linehan. “The judge had made mention that the letter that I wrote, and that the other letters of victims, standing up for their victims’ rights, and having a full courtroom — all of those things really made a difference. If we’re going to change the language, it’s absolutely super important that we keep the victim language about the sexual crimes, the violent crimes, but I also want to ask if we can discuss keeping even more serious felonies.”

Stafstrom said that he understands the intent, it’s just a “question of where that line is being made, for the efficient administration” of the judicial process.

Republish This Story

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