At a Feb. 14 Judiciary Committee hearing, legislators pressed the state claims commissioner and the attorney general’s office for clearer documentation of how eligibility decisions are made in wrongful‑incarceration awards under the law enacted in 2024.

The claims commissioner’s office described the formula created last year in Public Act 24‑106 and how it has been applied in the handful of claims handled so far. Commissioner Shea said the statute starts by asking whether a claimant is eligible under Conn. Gen. Stat. §54‑102uu and then applies a per‑year calculation based on 200% of median family income, with a statutory discretionary upward or downward adjustment of up to 25%.

“That statute works very well and works very fairly,” Commissioner Shea said, adding the office has used the formula in hearings and in negotiated resolutions. Shea also introduced paralegal specialists Tara DuPont and Janae Carter and paralegal intern Bridal Ledgwood, and praised the staff’s work on complex files.

Why it matters: the committee was told the awards at issue represent large sums of taxpayer money and, committee members said, the legislature needs a clearer record that awards meet the statute’s eligibility threshold before money is paid.

Details of calculations and examples
The commissioner described the two‑step approach required by the statute: first determine eligibility under Conn. Gen. Stat. §54‑102uu (vacatur/reversal on grounds of innocence or grounds consistent with innocence, or misconduct by a state actor); then apply the formula. Under the statutory rubric, a claimant would receive a per‑year award approximating 200% of median family income; the statute permits the commissioner’s office to increase or decrease the total award by up to 25% to reflect individual circumstances. Commissioner Shea gave a numerical example, saying the Connecticut median family income in February 2018 was about $96,300 and that the statute starts from 200% of that figure for the per‑year calculation.

What lawmakers pressed on
Representative Fishbein and other legislators focused on cases on the committee’s agenda that were resolved by stipulation without a full claims hearing. Fishbein asked whether the claims commissioner's office had made independent eligibility findings in those settlements or had simply reviewed proposed settlements drafted by the attorney general and the claimant’s counsel.

“I accepted the resolution from the parties on that matter. We did not make a finding, we did not make a formal finding on eligibility,” Commissioner Shea said in reference to several stipulations the office reviewed, adding that the office had participated directly in three full hearings (the Jackson, Horn and Morant claims) but had not made formal eligibility findings for every resolution presented to the committee.

Shea told the committee the office had reviewed files and told the parties whether a proposed settlement appeared reasonable; in some cases the commissioner's office did conduct a full evidentiary hearing and made an award upward of the formula following testimony.

Attorney general’s office response
Deputy Attorney General Eileen Meskell told the committee the attorney general’s office does evaluate eligibility and risk before agreeing to stipulations. “We do take a hard look at, obviously, eligibility under the statute,” she said, and offered to provide documentation explaining the office’s reasoning in the stipulations that the committee questioned.

Human impact and collateral issues
Paralegal Janae Carter, who said she sat through a long hearing for the Stephon Morant claim, described the human consequences of decades of incarceration. “It was very tough to hear the testimony of their families,” she said.

Committee members also raised a related consumer issue: loans made to exonerees while they awaited settlement. Commissioner Shea acknowledged the concern, saying the claims office had encountered cases in which claimants had taken loans with heavy repayment terms, and said the office would work with the committee on whether statutory or administrative remedies were appropriate.

Disputed examples on the record
Committee members reviewed several named matters during the hearing and debated whether the record showed statutory eligibility or only a stipulation. Representative Fishbein singled out the “Carmen” matter and the “Gould/Glass” file (listed on the agenda as Edwin Glass), saying in at least one record the trial judge explicitly noted there were no findings of innocence. The claims commissioner acknowledged in several cases the office relied on the parties’ agreements rather than making a formal eligibility finding after a hearing.

A numeric inconsistency recorded in the transcript illustrates the difficulty of relying only on oral testimony: committee members and the commissioner discussed that an award calculation in the Morant case was $5.1 million before adjustment and that the parties agreed to an upward adjustment of 12.5%. The transcript records a post‑adjustment figure of $6,646,000, which does not match a 12.5% increase on $5.1 million; the committee did not reconcile that arithmetic during the hearing.

Next steps
Committee members said they expect follow‑up documentation from the attorney general’s office explaining the basis for stipulations the committee reviewed and discussed possible statutory changes to require parties to state the factual basis for eligibility in any settlement presented to the legislature. Commissioner Shea said the office will consider how to more explicitly document eligibility determinations going forward.

The hearing concluded with the panel moving three awards forward for legislative action and remanding five other resolutions back to the claims commissioner for further eligibility determinations, and the committee approved a recommended $50,000 payment to claimant Heather Robillard for review by the full legislature.