Bridgeport’s attempt to withhold records related to a murder from the 1990s was handed another defeat following a superior court ruling finding that the city’s claim that releasing the records would harm the safety of witnesses lacked evidence.

At issue in the case is a July 2022 request made by Evan Parzych, an attorney with the Connecticut Innocence Project/Post-Conviction Unit, for all records the Bridgeport Police Department has related to its investigation of the 1994 murder of Erica Corbett.

The Freedom of Information Commission (FOIC) previously found that the city had improperly withheld a number of responsive records for various reasons, including because releasing them would allegedly harm the safety of witnesses.

Due to the roughly thirty years between Bridgeport police’s investigation and Parzych’s request, an attorney for the city testified during a hearing on the complaint that they had received court records and conducted Google searches but were unable to use public records to determine whether some individuals were publicly known. FOIA allows police to withhold records that identify witnesses or informants whose identities are not publicly known.

But the FOIC found that Bridgeport’s attorney did not adequately prove that releasing the names of the individuals they could not locate would jeopardize their safety and that they had not met the statutory requirements to withhold that information.

Bridgeport appealed the FOIC’s order that it release records it had withheld under that exemption. On January 15, 2025, the Superior Court for the Judicial District of New Britain’s Tax and Administrative Appeals Session found in favor of the FOIC.

The court found there was no evidence to suggest anyone from the city had attempted to locate or contact any witnesses and found there was no direct evidence to suggest any of the witnesses were or ever had been subject to threats.

On May 6, 2025, the court released another decision finding “substantial evidence in the record” supporting the FOIC’s decision that Bridgeport had improperly applied the FOIA exemption for witness safety.

The court’s analysis on witness safety was nearly identical to its previous ruling.

Bridgeport has been the focus of a number of FOIC complaints and court cases in recent years, losing not only multiple court cases but also receiving multiple fines from the FOIC for its failure to properly handle FOIA requests.

The court found Bridgeport did not meet its burden of demonstrating the exemption it was claiming applied and reiterated its finding that there was no direct evidence in the record that the witnesses at issue were unknown when the investigation occurred and have remained so since then.

“Bridgeport simply assumed that if [city attorney Dina Scalo] could find no record of the disclosure of a witness’ name some 30 years later, primarily, internet searches, that such must be the case. Such evidence is little more than supposition and the commission is permitted not to credit the evidence.” the court wrote in its decision.

The court also dismissed Bridgeport’s claim that the records should be exempt because there are references in the investigation files to some witnesses fearing retaliation, again finding there was no evidence in the record to support the idea that those fears still exist.

“Again, Bridgeport offered no direct, specific evidence that any witness remained fearful of the disclosure of their identities today, 30 years after the original investigation.” the court found.

This is the fourth decision in this case to find against Bridgeport. The city has also been the focus of a number of other FOIC complaints and court cases in recent years and has received multiple fines from the FOIC for its failure to properly handle FOIA requests.

Republish This Story

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