Today, the State’s Judiciary Committee voted in favor of accepting the $3.75 million settlement reached earlier this week by the State’s Attorney General’s Office (AGO) and the family of Carl Talbot, a man suffering from addiction and mental illness, who died in custody at the New Haven Correctional Center as a result of staff misconduct in 2019.

Prior to the vote, committee members questioned DOC Commissioner Angel Quiros and Deputy Attorney General Eileen Meskill. Committee members asked questions regarding the various policies broken by DOC officers on the day of Talbot’s death, the reasons for the repeated lack of accountability for DOC staff, the falsification of documents related to the incident, and controversial inclusion of Officer Carlos Padro in the settlement’s release of liability.

Padro makes the distinction of being the only one out of the sixteen originally named defendants in the lawsuit who was not defended by the AGO, and as the only officer to be criminally charged for the incident. Pedro was recorded kicking Talbot in the upper torso while he was being held down on the ground and pepper sprayed. He was convicted of third-degree assault and given a one-year sentence that was commuted down to three months probation.

Despite the vote to agree to the settlement, the frustration of the Committee was palpable.

“You want this committee to review this matter and say, $3.75 million taxpayer dollars, and according to my information, some upgraded policies, and we’re just going to move along?,” asked Sen. John Kissel (R- Enfield). “Scary. It’s really scary. I’d like to believe that I live in a state that is progressive enough that we don’t have to worry about people getting killed when they’re in a lock up.”

Per Quiros’ answers to various members’ questions, there was a litany of policies broken on the day of Talbot’s death; Quiros admitted that the officers’ use of chemical spray on Talbot was unnecessary and excessive, that they failed to properly account for Talbot’s poor health condition before using the spray, that they failed to properly decontaminate Talbot and his cell after using it, and that the falsification of Talbot’s incident report, use of force, and critical incident report were major issues. Quiros, who was appointed as commissioner in 2020 after the incident occurred, maintains that he didn’t receive notice of the falsified documents until he was recently made aware of the AGO’s intent to settle.

“You were unaware for close to two years that there’s a falsification by folks under your supervision, is that correct?,” asked Co-Chair Sen. Gary Winfield (D-New Haven). “How is that possible? Why is that possible?”

Quiros said that the investigation didn’t reach his desk until recently because, at the time, the internal disciplinary process for Padro had only deemed low-level punishment necessary. As a result, it had not arisen to a level in which it was mandated to be reviewed by Quiros, who insisted that, had the investigation reached his office back in 2021, “the discipline would have been much harsher.” Quiros said that he has since changed DOC’s policies in response to the incident so that all investigations, regardless of discipline level, must be brought to the commissioner’s attention.

“I don’t even know what to say to that,” responded Winfield. “That seems almost unbelievable that something like this can occur. I’m not blaming you, necessarily. I don’t know where to put blame for, that something like this can occur, and you would be completely in the dark on it.”

Another frequently asked question was the reasoning behind the AGO’s controversial decision to include a release of liability for Padro in the settlement. Winfield said that he understood why the state would include indemnification clauses for itself and the other defendants in the lawsuit, but that he didn’t understand why Padro himself would be protected from further legal recourse when the AGO deemed his actions too careless to defend in the first place. Winfield said that the inclusion of this clause would signal to the public that the state will protect its own, no matter what.

“It affects the people’s ability to look at the system and trust it,” said Winfield. “They just cover these guys, and these guys never have responsibility. So what makes them feel like they need to be careful? What makes them think like they have something on the line? Why do we do it the way that we do it?”

Heskill cited statute 5-141d, saying that it requires the state to defend employees unless they exhibit “wanton, willful, or reckless” behavior. Heskill said the AGO takes these determinations “very seriously,” but then struggled to answer why Padro’s indemnification would be included in the settlement given that the AGO’s office did find his behavior to meet such criteria. Eventually, after being questioned in the same vein by Sen. Sujata Gadkar-Wilcox (D-Bridgeport), Heskill said that it was to provide the maximum amount of protection to the state’s own financial liability going forward.

“We chose not to represent him, and we did cut him loose,” said Heskill. “What we do is we assess what our remaining liability is after we cut an individual loose, and look at what a jury potentially would do.”

Heskill said that even if the state’s settlement was accepted by the family, they could pursue separate legal action against Padro if his liability release was not included, and that Padro could then turn to the state and ask for indemnification afterwards. As a result, Heskill said the AGO looked to pursue the “broadest” language possible to protect the state from any future liability.

“There’s a possibility that he would come back to us for indemnification if the case had proceeded against him,” said Heskill. “In fact, he did. He has tried to require us to represent him through a different lawsuit, which you know, we have declined to do on a couple of different occasions.”

This answer, while ultimately accepted by the majority of the committee, was not popular. Rep. Craig Fishbein (R-Middlefield) insisted that Padro alone should be held responsible and liable for his actions, not the state’s taxpayers.

“The question is, should the taxpayer be solely responsible for this number?,” said Fishbein. “My answer is no, it can’t be. The number is a large number, and I think if we were all writing the check ourself, we would be looking at this a little bit differently.”

Ultimately, despite the feelings of dissatisfaction vocalized by the committee, the House and Senate resolutions for accepting the settlement were voted favorably by the committee, with a total vote count of 29-4, with eight members absent. Senator Rob Sampson (R-Wolcott), and Representatives Fishbein, Doug Dubitsky (R-Canterbury) and Cara Pavalock-D’Amato (R-Bristol) were the only ones to vote against it. Rep. Tom O’Dea (R-New Canaan) explained that his yes vote was done out of his faith in the ability of the AGO to do “the best you could.”

“I understand my colleagues’ concerns, questions and apprehensions, but we’re between a rock and a hard place as you are, and I appreciate your efforts on behalf of the state in navigating this” said O’Dea.

Co-Chair Rep. Steven Stafstrom (D-Bridgeport) agreed with O’Dea.

“As much as none us want to sign this check, as much as none of us never want this to ever, ever happen again, I think our determination has to be, ‘Is this settlement in the best interest of the state?,'” said Stafstrom. “If we’re worried that a jury will return a significantly worse verdict, then unfortunately we have no choice but to accept the settlement.”

Now that the two resolutions have been passed out of committee, they will need to pass a vote on the House and Senate floors for the settlement to be accepted by the State.

Republish This Story

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