Connecticut pardons majority of applicants in June 9 Board of Pardons and Paroles session

The Connecticut Board of Pardons and Paroles met via Zoom on June 9, 2026, and granted full and absolute pardons to the majority of the applicants who appeared at the hearing. Chair Rafaro Barry opened the session by reminding attendees that “the people of the state of Connecticut have vested the board of pardons and paroles with extraordinary power to grant pardons,” and that any pardon is tentative until state police record checks are complete.

Why this matters: an absolute pardon can remove a conviction from public state records and, if finalized, may clear barriers to employment or licensing. The board said it will issue certificates by mail once the Connecticut State Police Bureau of Identification confirms a record has been erased; it may take up to 10 weeks, and results are posted to the board website within 48 hours.

Most cases were routine: applicants described post‑conviction treatment, steady employment and family support, and board members repeatedly cited long periods without new arrests and evidence of rehabilitation as grounds to grant relief. For example, Jordan Julius, who said he was 18 at the time of his offenses and described substance‑use‑related conduct, asked the panel for a chance to advance his career; after questioning about his treatment and sobriety the panel voted to grant the pardon. Julius told the board, “I just want to thank you for taking the time,” and the panel’s motion was approved.

Several decisions drew more scrutiny. Panel member Joy Chance publicly opposed one grant, telling applicant Alexi Rodriguez, “for me today, Mr. Rodriguez, I will not vote for pardon for you,” after probing discrepancies in dates and the scope of past firearm charges; the board nevertheless approved Rodriguez’s pardon by majority vote. Dean (Deand) Kendrick, who has multiple domestic‑violence convictions across two decades, acknowledged his history and described sobriety and new business ownership; the board debated whether repeated domestic‑violence incidents and the number of prior program completions could be outweighed by recent rehabilitation and approved the pardon by majority with one dissent noted.

The board also handled a sensitive matter in executive session. Counsel for Jessica Harper Davis asked the panel to review confidential treatment records under Connecticut law; the board entered executive session pursuant to Connecticut General Statute 1‑231 to consider information exempt from public disclosure, then reconvened and granted her pardon after members confirmed her ongoing mental‑health and substance‑use treatment since 2018.

Votes at a glance (outcomes announced at the hearing):
- Jordan Julius — granted (motion carried after panel questions)
- Enrique Medina Del Valet — granted
- Louise Agnes Pugliesi — granted (restitution noted, approx. $65,000)
- Alexi Rodriguez — granted (one recorded dissent)
- Rory D. Weaver Sr. — granted
- Daniel George Valentine — granted
- Jessica Harper Davis — granted (executive session review; one recorded dissent)
- Wayne Johnson — granted
- Lewis Angel Ramirez — granted
- Maurice W. Scott Jr. — granted
- Christopher Robert Shepard — granted
- Scott William Bonner Jr. — granted
- Antonio Luis Cecilio — granted
- Michael Antonio Edwards — granted
- Edens Gabriel — granted
- Gregory Joseph Kowski — granted
- Dean (Deand) Hashim Kendrick — granted (majority; dissent recorded)
- Neil Patrick Kennedy — granted
- Tony Jean Morosei — granted
- Maris Miller — granted
- Miguel Rodriguez — granted
- Hector J. Sanchez — granted
- Jean Willie Stton — continued (one‑time continuance; not present)
- Jacob Steven Thomas — granted
- Aurora T. Wright — granted

What board members said: Chair Rafaro Barry repeatedly emphasized the board’s role and procedural safeguards. Members cited specific factors they weigh: seriousness of the original offense, victim impact, time elapsed, restitution and evidence of rehabilitation such as steady employment, therapy participation and community service. As an example of board scrutiny, panel member Joy Chance asked multiple applicants detailed questions about sobriety plans, treatment providers and relapse prevention strategies.

Legal and administrative context: board staff reminded petitioners that a tentative grant is conditional on a successful record clearance by the Connecticut State Police Bureau of Identification and that the board cannot control information that remains on third‑party internet sites. The panel also relied on Connecticut General Statute 1‑231 when moving into executive session to review confidential treatment and medical records.

What happens next: the board’s tentative grants will be finalized only after record checks. When a certificate of pardon is issued, the board will mail it to the petitioner; the board cautioned petitioners not to state they are pardoned until they have received the certificate. The board also noted that it will post hearing results to its website within 48 hours of the session.

Context and takeaways: The June 9 docket covered many longtime cases in which petitioners presented evidence of rehabilitation, but the board’s questions and recorded dissents show members balancing community safety and second‑chance goals. Several pardons involved applicants who had completed treatment programs, sustained employment and family support; a smaller set raised concerns about repeated domestic violence or serious firearm histories that prompted close questioning and one or more dissenting votes.

No further action was taken on the continued case; the session was adjourned at 1:24 p.m.