Today, members of Connecticut’s Judiciary Committee debated the question of whether a pardon granted by the State’s Board of Pardons and Paroles (BOPP) is considered sufficient evidence to prove the pardoned criminal innocent of the crime they committed. If so, it would have major financial and legal implications for the Committee, which has a say in approving or denying claims for wrongful incarceration, as well as the state at large.

“​​I think it’s interesting to learn here today that an appointee of the Lamont administration is taking the position that a pardon without any additional information is akin to innocence, which puts us in a place that one could draw the line that John Roland was innocent, that the J6 [January 6] people are innocent, but that’s the determination of his appointee,” said Rep. Craig Fishbein (R-Wallingford). “If the claims commissioner is not going to do the due diligence with regard to innocence, and the claimant is not going to be pressed as to their innocence, then the AG’s office is placed in the inevitable position of having to relitigate the underlying conviction, and that is not to the benefit of the public.”

In Connecticut, wrongful incarceration claims are handled first by the Claims Commissioner, working in conjunction with the Attorney General’s Office. When someone files a claim with the Office of the Claims Commissioner, the Commissioner assesses the claim’s eligibility and, if it is deemed eligible, determines the amount owed to the claimant. If the claim pays out more than $35,000, or the claimant requests a review of a denied claim, the Judiciary Committee then gets the opportunity to vote on whether or not the claim should be paid out.

Three of the seven wrongful incarceration claims brought before the committee today spurred this debate, as Claims Commissioner Robert Shea determined them eligible on what several committee members, and even the state’s BOPP Commissioner and Deputy Attorney General, found to be insufficient grounds. The claims in question were made by Mark Stuart, who the Commissioner determined was owed $16,500, Maceo Streater, who the Commissioner determined was owed $5.75 million, and Dieter Tejada, who the Commissioner determined was owed $75,456. 

Shea sat before the Committee today to answer Committee members’ questions regarding how he made his determinations for these three claims. Stuart’s claim was first filed in 2015, reviewed by the Claims Commissioner in 2018, and was ultimately denied by Shea in 2023. Stuart appealed Shea’s determination to the legislature, and in 2024, the legislature passed a resolution demanding the claim be reconsidered by Shea, stating Stuart “was wrongfully incarcerated for a period of thirty days and is entitled to compensation.” 

Commissioner Shea found that Stuart was not entitled to compensation under 54-102uu of the General Statutes, as the legislature had determined, because he did not have his conviction vacated or reversed, nor pardoned by the BOPP. 

Fishbein asked where in the statute it states that a pardon could be the basis of finding a claimant innocent, to which Shea cited subsection (g). That subsection states that “any claimant claiming compensation under this section based on a pardon that was granted” prior to Oct. 1, 2008, must have filed their claim by Oct. 1, 2010, and if granted after Oct. 1, 2008, must do so within two years of the date their pardon was granted.

“The way I looked at it was, I start with, did the person receive the pardon?” explained Shea. “And if the answer is yes, then I go back to section A (3), which defines what ‘grounds consistent with innocence’ are, and I analyze whether or not the pardon could have been issued under a ground consistent with innocence which is defined in subdivision three, subsection (a).”

Subdivision 3, subsection (a) defines “grounds consistent with innocence” as, “a situation in which a conviction was vacated or reversed and there is substantial evidence of innocence, whether such evidence was available at the time of investigation or trial or is newly discovered.” The issue, as Fishbein goes on to ascertain, is that Shea did not undergo any additional fact-finding to determine these claimants innocence, but instead relied upon the BOPP’s pardon and the claimant’s own admission of innocence as being grounds enough.

“The job of the Board of Pardons and Paroles is not to establish innocence,” said Fishbein. “The job before the Board of Pardons and Paroles, in my experience, is contrition. I think that’s a major part of it.”

Contrition is essentially the act of the convicted person showing repentance for the crime they were found to have committed, or in cases in which they maintain their innocence, to have shown persistent proof of good behavior and personal rehabilitation while incarcerated. 

Fishbein not only questioned Shea’s methodology in determining innocence, but also questioned whether or not Shea had the statutory authority to both overrule the legislature’s review of his determinations and shift claims from one of category to another. Shea said that because Stuart was neither pardoned nor had his sentence vacated or overturned, that he was not eligible for compensation via a wrongful incarceration claim, but that because the legislature expressly overruled him and stated that they did believe he was eligible, that he “sort of split the apple,” by deeming him eligible to receive compensation via a negligence claim. Fishbein asserted that Shea does not have the statutory authority to overrule the legislature’s determination and then shift the claim’s eligibility, to which Shea admitted “that’s fair.”

Fishbein then moved on to Streater’s claim. Streater, who was released in 2017 and elected as a New Haven alderman in 2023, was convicted in the 90’s on murder and illegal weapons charges, largely due to the investigative efforts of Detectives Anthony DiLullo and Joseph Greene, two New Haven detectives who later became mired in allegations of coercing and bribing witnesses for false testimony and suppressing and fabricating evidence in several cases. At least three convictions based on investigations conducted by these two officers, including Streater’s, have since been overturned. Fishbein asked Shea how he determined Streater to be innocent or to have had “grounds consistent with innocence” when deciding to approve his claim.

“He [Streater] stated on his application that he did not commit this crime,” said Shea. “He testified before the Board of Pardons and Paroles that they did not commit this crime, and the Board of Pardons and Paroles did not comment one way or the other regarding his statements in his application, or his verbal testimony regarding his claim that he did not commit this crime, and they issued Mr. Streater a full pardon.”

Shea went on to say he “respectfully decided” Streater was eligible “based upon the events that occurred at the Board of Pardons and Parole.”

“That was strictly the reason for my decision,” said Shea.

Fishbein asked him whether he did any independent fact-finding of his own to determine Streater’s innocence, to which Shea noted he only reviewed the record of events and Streater’s case and watched his BOPP hearing in which he was issued a pardon. Shea further admitted that the BOPP did not go into the underlying facts, evidence or circumstances of the case before granting Streater his pardon. Shea referred back to the fact that Streater himself insisted on his innocence.

“I’m gonna tell you, 80% of the people behind bars say that,” said Fishbein, who is himself a practicing attorney. “The first person to lie to me in my office is my client. So, I’m just trying to wrestle with the fact that if the Board of Pardons and Paroles didn’t look at the facts, the evidence in the underlying case, how one can reasonably make a presumption based upon that record, says the person didn’t commit the murder.”

Shea said he was unaware of what information the BOPP makes its pardon determinations off of, and said he was not aware whether it’s within his authority to question courts’ previous rulings. To the best of Shea’s knowledge, he said he is only tasked with determining whether or not a claimant has been presumed innocent or has “grounds consistent with innocence,” which he determined Streater had.

In the case of Tejada, who was convicted of assault in 2009 and pardoned in 2023, Shea said he used the same methodology to approve the claim; he based the presumption of innocence upon the BOPP’s pardon and Tejada’s insistence of his own innocence. Fishbein quoted a statement made by the BOPP at Tejada’s pardon hearing to highlight the issue he has with Shea’s methodology.

“The granting of a pardon is neither a finding of innocence or an exoneration of your crime,” quoted Fishbein. “Similarly, the granting of a pardon is not an indication that an applicant has been wrongly convicted.”

Shea acknowledged this statement, and said he still decided to approve Tejada’s claim because “Mr. Tejada did not know that when he applied for his pardon.” Fishbein said that shouldn’t matter, to which Shea said he understood.

“When Mr. Tijada and Mr. Streater applied for their pardons, they didn’t — there was not a statement from the board stating, ‘We are not making a determination relating to innocence or grounds consistent with innocence,’” continued Shea.

“But isn’t that the tail wagging the dog?” asked Fishbein. “Because then it’s almost like presuming that the only reason why these gentlemen filed for a pardon is so they can get a wrongful incarceration award to run congruent. They run side by side, but they are distinctly different. It is irrelevant what their knowledge was, what their thought was about the pardon process, and whether or not it would afford them millions of dollars.”

Fishbein was not the only one to take issue with Shea’s methodology in his approval of these claims. Sen. Steven Stafstrom (D-Bridgeport), Deputy Attorney General Eileen Meskill, and Jennifer Zaccagnini, BOPP Chairman, all took the time to raise their own issues with Shea’s determinations as well as the precedent they may set moving forward.

“In my 18 years of experience, the Board has not granted pardons based on actual innocence,” said Zaccagnini. “And in these two men’s matters, the board unequivocally states that it does not grant pardon based on actual innocence. The pardon hearing record reflects what the board considered in granting these individuals pardons. The panel, as it always does, focuses on the applicant’s rehabilitation, education, community service and contributions since their convictions.”

Zaccagnini complemented Streater’s “meaningful contributions to his community” upon release, and Tejada’s “substantial personal and professional growth, including graduating from a highly respected law school,” but went on to clarify that pardons are issued solely based on “rehabilitation and character” and are “not a determination of innocence.” Zaccagnini later said that the only reason the BOPP even began to directly state that fact at their pardon hearings is because they were previously unaware of the fact that their pardons were being used as grounds to determine recipients’ innocence.

“So as a board member, I spent 15 years doing pardon hearings, and when I when I became the Chair almost three years ago, I had been working under the assumption that it was a given, that everyone knew we didn’t determine innocence as a pardon board, and when I discovered that our intent was in question, maybe a year or two ago, I decided to add the language to make it clear to all,” said Zaccagnini.

Stafstrom went on to state that he feared whether or not setting such a precedent would potentially lead to the BOPP “second guessing” granting a pardon to someone whom they otherwise believe is worthy of clemency, simply because they want to avoid “a floodgate of wrongful incarceration payments being made.” Zaccagnini said she shared the same fear.

“I have similar concerns that if we set this precedent, that board members may think they have to deny anyone who claims their innocence,” said Zaccagnini. “Of course, we don’t want that. If we were tasked with trying to determine innocence, oftentimes, cases are old, we couldn’t possibly go back and review all the documents that were used during the court proceedings.”

Meskill said she took issue with Shea’s methodology for Streater’s and Tejada’s claims, because it essentially presumed a pardon recipient’s innocence based upon the BOPP’s “silence” in response to a recipient stating they were innocent at the hearing. Meskill said that while a pardon may be used as the basis upon which a wrongful incarceration claim is initiated, the granting of a pardon by itself does not meet the statutory standard for presuming a pardon recipient’s innocence.

“There is no presumption in 54-102uu, nor in any of the statutes that govern parole hearings, that a claimant assertion of innocence is accepted simply because the board did not rebut it on the record,” said Meskill. “Our issue with these two particular decisions is that it was simply based on silence, and that each claimant testified they were innocent.”

Stafstrom agreed with Meskill’s statement that he thought pardons could be the basis for a wrongful incarceration claim, he thought there ought to be more fact-finding done by Shea’s office to determine a claimant’s innocence beyond just presuming it on their reception of a pardon.

“I think somebody could receive a pardon and then make a claim that they were wrongfully convicted,” said Stafstrom. “But I think it would seem to me, there needs to be sort of a second step after the pardon is granted, that the person does have to present evidence at the hearing before you of grounds consistent with evidence above and beyond what is presented at the pardon level, that they would have to say, ‘Look, you know, I was convicted, but I wasn’t there that day,’ or ‘DNA evidence cleared me,’ or ‘Somebody else copped to the to the crime’, you know, whatever that may be.”

Ultimately, since today’s meeting was only a public hearing, the Judicial Committee did not hold a vote on whether to approve any of the claims brought before it today.

Republish This Story

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