Connecticut
Hilary Carpenter nomination to CT prison oversight role in jeopardy
Gov. Ned Lamont’s pick to lead Connecticut’s prison oversight effort failed to secure a favorable vote out of the legislature’s Executive and Legislative Nominations Committee on Tuesday, effectively putting the nomination in jeopardy until lawmakers and the governor decide how to proceed.
Earlier in the day, it appeared that Hilary Carpenter, a veteran public defender who Lamont recently appointed to be the state’s correctional ombudsperson, had a chance to make it out of the committee on the condition that she make immediate progress in alleviating concerns from the prison advocacy community about her appointment.
But an unusual 8-8 vote finalized Tuesday afternoon ended with a decision not to push Carpenter’s nomination forward. Three lawmakers were absent and/or did not vote, while one legislator, Senate President Pro Tem Martin Looney, D-New Haven, abstained.
“Right now, the nomination doesn’t look like it will move forward,” Senate Majority Leader Bob Duff, a co-chair of the committee, said in an interview, adding that conversations about how the legislature will proceed have yet to occur. The law governing the position does not outline steps for when lawmakers vote unfavorably on a nominee, effectively leaving the process in limbo.
Lamont’s office did not immediately respond to a request for comment. In an interview, Carpenter said she was disappointed that people in prison may have to wait longer for clarity on who will serve in the long-anticipated independent oversight role.
“I don’t know how long they’re going to have to wait before they fill the position, but it’s unfortunate that it won’t be filled soon,” Carpenter said.
If approved by the full legislature, Carpenter would have, among a bevy of responsibilities, the power to independently conduct site visits, communicate with incarcerated people, review agency records and draft a yearly report on confinement conditions in the Department of Correction.
But during the public hearing portion of the meeting, advocates relayed their concerns to legislators about Lamont bypassing Connecticut’s prison oversight committee’s recommendation to select Carpenter, whom the panel ranked last among the three finalists considered for the position.
[Lamont appoints Hilary Carpenter to DOC ombudsperson role]
“I don’t feel it’s fair given the advocacy of all the other individuals that have been nominated,” testified Cody Richard, a member of the public who was formerly incarcerated, echoing the sentiments of the handful of people who spoke, including Barbara Fair, one of the finalists.
After the rare showing of displeasure, lawmakers informed Carpenter that they wanted to see immediate progress in easing the concerns of the community, suggesting that her success in doing so would determine whether the full legislative body would approve her appointment.
“I think that hearing how those conversations go, how those fears have been allayed, how those relationships are being built will go a long ways towards bringing a majority in the House and the Senate,” said Duff, D-Norwalk.
“I felt uncomfortable throughout this entire process and will continue to do so until more conversations are had with, especially, the individuals in this room who are more experienced in this than I am,” added Rep. Julio Concepcion, D-Hartford, the House chair of the committee.
Both chairs voted in favor of her nomination, but with those caveats.
Carpenter said during her testimony and in a subsequent conversation with The Connecticut Mirror that listening to the thoughts and concerns of the public was a top priority of hers, adding that “what they say will help guide me and what I do.”
After the hearing, she spoke at length with advocates in the hallway of the Legislative Office Building, collecting their phone numbers and reassuring them that she was there to work with them and advocate for the rights of people in prison.
“They are dedicated and passionate about this,” Carpenter told lawmakers about the advocates. “So I look forward to working with them from the get-go in this position.”
Public opposition to Carpenter’s appointment was expected given the dissatisfaction of advocates and legislators over Lamont’s decision to appoint the former death penalty adversary last month, but Tuesday’s tense affair was rare for a committee that doesn’t often hear adversarial testimony from the public.
Lamont’s choice to select Carpenter, who has worked for nearly two decades in the Division of Public Defender Services, went against the guidance of the Correction Advisory Committee, which interviewed and selected finalists for the role.
After months of delays and setbacks, the committee recommended the appointment of civil rights attorney Kenneth J. Krayeske. From the three contenders, which included Fair, a longtime prison reform advocate, the group ranked Carpenter last.
Carpenter’s testimony on Tuesday was her first time speaking in front of the members of the legislature since her appointment.
In her opening remarks, she talked about her experience advocating for incarcerated and indigent clients and fostering relationships with correctional staff “to address my clients’ needs effectively and establish positive connections for future cases and clients.”
Her previous experience as president of the Connecticut Network to Abolish the Death Penalty, she said, provided her with an understanding of state politics and enabled her to collaborate with diverse stakeholders.
She said her work approach emphasizes empowering people to advocate for themselves, facilitating their access to resources and intervening directly as needed.
“My lifetime commitment to advocating for marginalized communities equips me to contribute meaningfully to Connecticut’s criminal justice reform efforts,” Carpenter said. “I am humbled by this nomination to this pivotal role, and I’m eager to begin this important work.”
But her optimism wasn’t shared by advocates like Fair, whom the governor did not appoint despite her years of advocacy work, including the creation of the legislation that reestablished the ombudsperson role after it was previously defunded.
“I don’t even know why I’ve been sitting here testifying for this position as opposed to being appointed to it,” Fair said during the public hearing, in front of a room of people vocalizing their backing of her, such as “We want you, Barbara,” and their dissatisfaction with Carpenter.
Fair also relayed disappointment with Carpenter having not yet reached out to her, despite saying she planned to prioritize outreach.
“Nothing personal against Ms. Hilary, but those people incarcerated, to me, are the most marginalized, unheard, unseen people in Connecticut,” said Fair, whom Carpenter spoke with after the hearing. “I haven’t heard of Ms. Carpenter in all these decades of doing this work, come in and step in, and working with me, and stand with me.”
Rep. Dave Yaccarino, R-North Haven, a ranking Republican on the committee, was one of the legislators who voted against advancing Carpenter’s nomination, saying he did so as a “red flag.”
“I have concerns for all of the reasons we’ve heard from the public, and I was a little concerned about not having enough staff and not hearing enough input from our inmates,” said Yaccarino, referencing points made by Carpenter about needing adequate resources to successfully launch the office. “I would like to have a bipartisan effort to move this forward eventually. But I need to have more information. I apologize. I just feel strongly about this.”
Rep. Anabel Figueroa, D-Stamford, also said she needed more information before supporting Carpenter’s appointment.
“I think we, as elected officials, do have a duty to our constituents, to our taxpayers,” Figueroa said. “I think I have to side with them and say no to this position for now.”
Jaden Edison is a reporter for The Connecticut Mirror (https://ctmirror.org/ ). Copyright 2024 © The Connecticut Mirror.
Connecticut
Sorry New York And Chicago, Connecticut Has A Pizza License Plate Now – Jalopnik
Even as a born-and-raised New Yorker, I have a relatively open mind when it comes to pizza. When I’m out on the road, I’ll eat at any pizzeria as long as I can see the oven from the counter and buy pizza by the slice. However, the idea of any place outside the Big Apple proclaiming itself “the Pizza Capital of the United States” is just sacrilege. Connecticut doubled down on its ludicrous claim last weekend by approving the rollout of a special “Pizza State” license plate. This is the worst affront to the craft since Chicagoans started shilling their crust-bowl casserole as pizza.
Let’s actually take a look at this license plate. One peek, we all know the rules. “The Pizza State” plate features a similar blue-to-white gradient as on the standard Connecticut license plate. The aforementioned self-proclaimed moniker replaces the state’s official nickname, “The Constitution State,” beneath the plate number. To the right of the number is an image of a pizza slice ripped straight from Microsoft’s ClipArt library. It’s a flat image that looks nothing like what’s served in New Haven. Connecticut drivers will be able to pick up a “Pizza State” plate for $65.
This is a pizza war for good
The only undisputedly good aspect of the “Pizza State” license plate is that its introduction will help feed Connecticut’s hungry. According to CT Insider, the $28.6 billion budget bill approved by the Connecticut General Assembly last weekend, which authorized the plate, also directly appropriated funding to Connecticut Foodshare. The sitewide food bank will also receive $50 from each $65 license plate fee, as it continues to provide millions of free meals to food-insecure people.
Back to the pizza debate at the heart of the matter. Governor Ned Lamont declared Connecticut the country’s pizza capital back in 2024 as part of a marketing campaign to promote the state. That declaration could have grounds for war in a different century, but individual states apparently don’t fight wars against each other anymore. Connecticut had better go back to being a UConn Husky-obsessed suburb before New York makes Greenwich the next Toledo.
Connecticut
Suspect in preppy booze-fueled Connecticut party stabbing death asks court to drop charges: ‘Double jeopardy’
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
The attorney for a Connecticut man who was recently acquitted of first-degree murder charges stemming from a booze-fueled brawl between prep school students is making another move to ensure his client’s freedom.
Last July, a jury found Raul Valle, now 19, not guilty of murder and intentional manslaughter in the May 14, 2022 stabbing death of James “Jimmy” McGrath. Valle was 16 at the time of the incident, and McGrath was 17.
The jury was deadlocked on lesser charges of reckless manslaughter in that trial, leading to a partial mistrial.
Valle attended St. Joseph High School in Trumbull, near Fairfield Prep, where McGrath was a junior and star lacrosse player. Prior to the stabbing that evening, both had been at a house party that involved underage drinking and a fight.
DEADLOCKED JURORS IN PREP SCHOOL LACROSSE PLAYER’S KILLING A ‘GREAT SIGN’ FOR DEFENSE: EXPERT
Split image of Jimmy McGrath showing him in a collared shirt and tie and in his Fairfield College Preparatory School lacrosse uniform. (The McGrath Family)
After heading to another location to continue partying, tempers flared again and about 25 people engaged in another brawl on the front lawn of the second home, whose owners were present at the time, witnesses told police. It was during that fight that the stabbing death occurred.
Valle admitted to the stabbing, but said it was committed in self-defense and in defense of a friend.
The day after Valle’s July 9, 2025, acquittal on the most serious charges, the state filed new reckless manslaughter and reckless assault charges.
Raul Valle speaks during his second day of testimony at his murder trial in state Superior Court in Milford, Conn., on July 1, 2025. (Ned Gerard/Connecticut Post)
TEXAS JURY RETURNS VERDICT IN 2022 STABBING DEATH OF HIGH SCHOOL CLASSMATE: REPORT
Now, Valle’s attorney, Darnell Crosland, has filed a motion claiming that the reckless manslaughter and reckless assault charges constitute double jeopardy, which is unconstitutional, according to The Connecticut Post.
Crosland’s motion says the only explanation for the initial jury’s decision to acquit on the first-degree murder charge was that his client acted in self-defense.
“No other theory explains the acquittals,” he wrote in the motion.
KAREN READ LOSES DOUBLE JEOPARDY APPEAL IN BOSTON COP SLAYING CASE, WILL RECEIVE NEW TRIAL
Defense attorney Kevin Smith delivers his closing arguments to the jury during Raul Valle’s murder trial in state Superior Court in Milford, Conn., on July 3, 2025. (Ned Gerard/Connecticut Post)
“The jury has spoken,” he continued. “The law is clear. The court must dismiss these charges with prejudice — immediately.”
The Connecticut Post reported that in an interview after Valle’s acquittal, the jury foreperson said self-defense was not discussed.
In their own filing, prosecutors disagreed with Crosland’s reasoning, according to the report.
ACCUSED AUSTIN METCALF KILLER WON’T FACE DEATH PENALTY OR LIFE WITHOUT PAROLE: DA
They described self-defense as a “justification defense,” not one that is central to the elements of the charges Valle still faces, and thus, cannot be used as an argument to have the current charges dismissed.
Kevin McGrath, father of slain prep school lacrosse player Jimmy McGrath, speaks to reporters outside the state Superior Court in Milford, Connecticut, following Raul Valle’s acquittal on July 9, 2025. He is accompanied by family attorney Michael Rosnick. (Fox News)
“The fact that the jury acquitted the defendant of murder, intentional manslaughter and intentional assaults, but could not reach a unanimous verdict as to the reckless charges, demonstrates only that the jury must have reached the conclusion that the defendant lacked the specific intent to either kill or to cause serious physical injury,” the filing reportedly said.
McGrath’s family was shocked by the results of the 2025 trial.
“I’m astonished at the results, but, you know, it’s due process,” a stoic Kevin McGrath said outside the state Superior Court in Milford, Connecticut, later describing his son as a “wonderful person.”
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
“He’s entitled to it,” said McGrath. “And at the end of the day, the jury made their verdict. I’m not sure if, you know, they were in the same courtroom as we all were together, but that’s the verdict. And we’ll live with it.”
Fox News Digital reached out to Crosland for comment.
Connecticut
Access Restricted – New England Business Media
Thank you for your interest in New England Business Media.
Access to our website is currently restricted in your region as part of our regional access policy. If you believe this is an error or have a business-related inquiry, feel free to contact us at info@nebusinessmedia.com.
We appreciate your understanding and look forward to connecting where possible.
-
Mississippi6 minutes agoAuburn baseball evens series with Mississippi State on Friday: Recap
-
Missouri12 minutes agoKansas City, Missouri, police investigate deadly shooting at 4th and Holmes
-
Montana18 minutes agoMontana Vista residents confront ‘Pecos West’ developers in tense meeting
-
Nebraska24 minutes agoWhere Are Nebraska Fan’s Heads – CarrikerChronicles.com
-
Nevada30 minutes agoBillionaire Tax Refugees Flock to Ritzy Nevada Lake Town
-
New Hampshire36 minutes agoNew Hampshire mothers’ labor force participation rate – Valley News
-
New Jersey42 minutes agoNJ ex-fireman ‘ready for war’ when he launched into violent rampage triggered by breakup: prosecutors
-
New Mexico48 minutes agoPhoebe Bridgers Debuts New Music at First Show in Three Years