Parole Revocation in Connecticut
opportunities to reduce incarceration

Samuel Jacobs Criminal Justice Clinic | Jerome N. Frank Legal Services Organization
September 2017

Parole Revocation
in Connecticut
opportunities to reduce
incarceration

The report was written by
Asli Bashir, Rachel Shur,
Theodore Torres, and
Fiona Doherty
September 2017

For more information, contact:
Samuel Jacobs Criminal Justice Clinic
Jerome N. Frank Legal Services Organization
127 Wall Street
New Haven, CT 06511
203.432.4800
www.law.yale.edu/cjc

Acknowledgments
This report is based on research conducted by students and faculty in the
Samuel Jacobs Criminal Justice Clinic (“CJC”) of the Jerome N. Frank Legal
Services Organization at Yale Law School.
The report would not have been possible without the cooperation of the many
dedicated public servants who shared information with CJC about the parole
revocation process. We are particularly grateful to the staff and members of the
Board of Pardons and Paroles, including Chairperson Carleton Giles; Executive
Director Richard Sparaco; Legislative & Administrative Advisor Leland J. Moore;
and Associate Research Analyst Vilmaris Diaz, along with the hearing examiners
and appointed members of the Board. We are also indebted to Mike Lawlor,
Under Secretary for Criminal Justice Policy and Planning; Eleanor Michael,
Associate General Counsel to the Governor; Dr. Patrick Hynes, Director of the
Best Practices Unit at the Connecticut Department of Correction; and Ivan
Kuzyk, Director of the Connecticut Statistical Analysis Center.
We want to express our gratitude to the many parolees who agreed to meet
with us as part of this research project. These men and women shared invaluable
information with us about their experiences going through the parole
revocation process.
Finally, we want to acknowledge the CJC students and faculty who were
involved, over several semesters, in the research and analysis for this report.
The hearing observations and parolee interviews were conducted by law
students Celina Aldape, Asli Bashir, Reginald Dwayne Betts, Christopher Desir,
Corey Guilmette, Rachel Shur, and Theodore Torres, as well as Fiona Doherty
(Clinical Associate Professor of Law) and Sarah Baumgartel (Senior Liman
Fellow in Residence). Asli Bashir and Reginald Dwayne Betts took the lead in
designing the parole revocation questionnaire, and Rachel Shur shepherded this
questionnaire through the Institutional Review Board at Yale. This project was
supervised by Fiona Doherty, with the assistance of Sarah Baumgartel in the
2015–2016 school year and Marisol Orihuela (Clinical Associate Professor
of Law) in the fall 2016 semester.

Table of Contents

Introduction and Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Basic Structure of Parole Revocation in Connecticut . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Assistance of Counsel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Investigations of Disputed Facts and Mitigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Opportunities to Reduce Incarceration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Appendix I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Appendix II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Introduction and Methodology
In February of 2015, Governor Dannel Malloy announced the launch of his Second Chance Society
Initiative. The goals of that initiative were straightforward: First, to reduce the number of Connecticut residents sent to prison, and second, to assist people leaving prisons in reintegrating into society.1
To those ends, the governor pushed for increased transparency across the criminal justice system and
appealed to universities to provide research support for reform efforts across the state.
As part of those efforts, the Samuel Jacobs Criminal Justice Clinic (“CJC”) agreed to undertake a
research project exploring state parole revocation procedures in the fall of 2015. The clinic’s chief task
was to identify the causes of Connecticut’s stubbornly high rate of reincarceration through the parole
revocation process.2
CJC began this research by sending teams of students and professors to observe 49 parole revocation
hearings in Connecticut during the month of November 2015. Clinic students and faculty took
detailed notes during each of these observations. Additionally, clinic members researched the
statutory, regulatory, and constitutional frameworks governing the revocation process to determine
how closely the daily practice of revocation hearings matched the requirements set by law.
In January 2016, CJC presented its initial findings at the Connecticut State Capitol to a group composed
of members of the governor’s staff, the Board of Pardons and Paroles (“BOPP”), the Department of
Correction, and the Office of Policy and Management. In the wake of this presentation, BOPP took
an important step toward reform by changing its practice on preliminary hearings.3 As of March
2016, BOPP began to hold preliminary hearings in all cases involving parolees accused of technical
violations.
After the January 2016 presentation, CJC was asked to follow up on its initial observations by
conducting interviews with the parolees whose revocation hearings it had observed in November
2015. The clinic developed a questionnaire (see Appendix II) to record parolees’ experiences in the
revocation process. CJC students and faculty then made efforts to reach all 49 of these parolees,
and were ultimately able to complete interviews with 34. The questionnaire was designed to elicit
information about the parolees’ experiences in the process by posing questions about (a) their
understanding of the procedures; (b) their knowledge of their rights; (c) their decisions to waive or
invoke rights; and (d) the personal consequences of revocation.

1 Press Release, Gov. Dannel P. Malloy, Gov. Malloy Announces “Second Chance Society Initiatives to Further Reduce Crime, Reintegrate Nonviolent Offenders
Into Society” (Feb. 3, 2015), http://portal.ct.gov/Office-of-the-Governor/Press-Room/Press-Releases/2015/02-2015/Gov-Malloy-Announces-Second-Chance-Society-Initiatives-to-Further-Reduce-Crime-ReIntegrate-Nonviolen.
2 In October 2015, for example, Connecticut’s Office of Policy and Management (“OPM”) analyzed parole revocation statistics for inmates on special
parole, the largest category of parolees in Connecticut. Special parole is a sentencing mechanism, enacted in 1998, that permits a sentencing judge to
impose a period of parole supervision that the defendant must serve after completing a prison term. The state’s analysis revealed that nearly 50% of
people discharged from prison on special parole in 2012 and 2013 were returned to prison within 12 months. Technical violations “were reported to
account for 75% of these returns.” Special Parole Update, Office of Policy and Management, Criminal Justice Policy and Planning Division, October
2015, http://www.ct.gov/opm/lib/opm/cjppd/cjcjpac/20151030_cjpac_specialparole_presentation.pdf
3 A preliminary hearing is an initial hearing to determine if there is probable cause for the alleged violation; if the act is serious enough to warrant
revocation; and if detention is appropriate pending further proceedings.

1	

samuel jacobs criminal justice clinic

In December 2016, CJC returned to the Capitol to present its findings from the questionnaire and
interview process. Members of the governor’s staff attended this presentation, along with employees
of BOPP, the Department of Correction, and the Office of Policy and Management.
Following this presentation, BOPP evaluated its preliminary hearing procedures and implemented
three key reforms, which went into effect on April 4, 2017. First, BOPP improved its data tracking
process to ensure that the deadline for scheduling a preliminary hearing is calculated based on
the actual date that a parolee is returned to custody. Second, BOPP established deadlines for the
Department of Correction to submit evidence in support of an alleged parole violation. Third, BOPP
clarified that an alleged parole violation was criminal in nature (as opposed to technical) only if the
violation was based on an arrest for a new crime or on a warrant, signed by a judge. This clarification
was particularly significant in light of BOPP’s March 2016 decision to hold preliminary hearings in all
cases involving technical violations.
In ongoing discussions over the spring 2017 semester, BOPP asked that CJC present additional
recommendations in writing. In response to this request, this report sets forth CJC’s findings from
its research beginning in November 2015 and makes recommendations to further improve the parole
revocation process in the State of Connecticut.

Basic Structure of Parole Revocation in Connecticut
Connecticut’s parole revocation process is divided between two distinct executive agencies: the Department of Correction Parole and Community Services Division (“DOC”) and the Board of Pardons
and Paroles (“BOPP” or the “Board”). DOC employs the parole officers responsible for supervising
parolees in the community, while BOPP makes parole release decisions, sets the terms and conditions
of parole, and administers the parole revocation process.
DOC parole officers can initiate revocation proceedings if they believe that a parolee has violated
a condition of parole. Upon review of the alleged violation(s), a DOC parole officer may decide to
return the parolee to custody by issuing a Remand to Actual Custody Order. In so doing, the DOC
parole office must also submit a parole violation report to BOPP.4 The return to custody (the remand)
formally initiates the parole revocation process, and the DOC parole violation report serves as a warrant application for BOPP’s review.
At this point, a parolee is entitled to a preliminary hearing to contest the DOC parole officer’s decision to remand.5 This proceeding requires a BOPP parole officer acting as a hearing examiner to determine: (1) “whether there is probable cause to believe the offender has committed an act in violation
of the conditions of parole;” (2) “whether the act is serious enough to warrant revocation of parole;”
and (3) “whether the offender should be detained pending further revocation proceedings.”6 If the

4 See Conn. Agencies Regs. § 54-124a(j)(1)-4.
5 Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471 (1972).
6 Conn. Agencies Regs. § 54-124a(j)(1)–5(e)(1)-(3).

parole revocation in connecticut

2

hearing examiner finds probable cause for an alleged violation that is “serious enough to warrant
revocation,” the examiner may order the parolee detained pending a final revocation hearing.7 In the
alternative, the examiner may release the parolee back into the community under supervision upon
an affirmative finding that the person is unlikely to engage in further misconduct and the release
does not jeopardize public safety.8 Unless the parolee affirmatively waives the preliminary hearing,
or it is continued for good cause, the hearing must take place within 14 business days of his or her remand.9 If the parolee is not released and returned to parole supervision after the preliminary hearing,
he or she will be provided a final revocation hearing.10 The purpose of this hearing is to “determine
contested relevant facts regarding allegations of violation of parole; to determine whether the facts as
found warrant revocation of parole; and, if so, to determine an appropriate disposition.”11
A BOPP parole officer acting as a hearing examiner conducts the final revocation hearing. First,
the hearing examiner decides whether there has been a violation of a condition of parole. In making
this decision, the examiner may “require the presence of any relevant witness” and must afford the
parolee an opportunity to contest the allegations and offer mitigating evidence.12 At the conclusion
of this stage of the hearing, if the examiner finds no violation, the hearing is over and parole is
reinstated. In the alternative, if the examiner determines that there has been a violation and that this
violation may merit revocation, the examiner hears evidence about the parolee’s background and
history for the purpose of considering the appropriate disposition. After hearing this evidence, the
examiner makes one of two recommendations: either that parole should be reinstated or that parole
should be revoked. If the examiner recommends revocation, he or she also recommends a period
of incarceration to be imposed as a sanction.13
A panel of Board Members, appointed by the governor, reviews the hearing examiner’s recommendations
and decides whether or not to revoke parole. If the panel decides to revoke parole, it also decides
what sanction should be imposed.14

7 Id.
8 Id. at § 54-124a(j)(1)–5(g).
9 Id. at § 54-124a(j)(1)–5(b).
10 I d. at § 54-124a(j)(1)–9(b). Under Connecticut regulations, the final revocation hearing must occur no later than “sixty business days from
remand unless continued for good cause.” Id. at § 54-124a(j)(1)–9(a).
11 Id. at § 54-124a(j)(1)–9(b).
12 Id.at § 54-124a(j)(1)–9(f ).
13 Id. at § 54-124a(j)(1)–9(f )-(i).
14 Id. at § 54-124a(j)(1)–9(l)-(m).

3	

samuel jacobs criminal justice clinic

Figure 1: The Parole Revocation Process in Connecticut

THE PAROLE REVOCATION PROCESS
DOC issues a "Remand to
Custody Order" and
provides a parole violation
report to BOPP

Parolee waives
right to preliminary
hearing

Parolee invokes
right to preliminary
hearing

Preliminary hearing
(Gagnon I)

Probable cause
found, and the act is
serious enough to
warrant revocation

Probable cause
found, but the act is
not serious enough
to warrant
revocation

BOPP can decide to
detain pending
revocation hearing

No probable cause
found

BOPP can decide to
release pending
revocation hearing

Final revocation hearing (Gagnon II)

Parole violation
found, and the act
is serious enough
to warrant
revocation

Parole violation
found, but the act
is not serious
enough to warrant
revocation

Parole revoked

No parole violation

Parole reinstated

parole revocation in connecticut

4

Executive Summary
After reviewing the relevant constitutional, statutory, and regulatory standards, observing preliminary
and final revocation hearings, interviewing parolees, and surveying procedures and developments
in other jurisdictions, CJC identified multiple areas of concern in the parole revocation process in
Connecticut.

Hearing Observations
CJC observed 49 parole revocation hearings in Connecticut during the month of November
2015. After those observations, CJC reported the following findings at a January 2016 meeting at
the state Capitol:
n B
 OPP’s

hearing examiners made a finding of a violation in 100 percent of the cases
CJC observed in November 2015.

5	

n

 OPP’s hearing examiners recommended that parole be revoked in 100 percent of
B
observed cases.

n

 he BOPP panel revoked parole and imposed a prison sanction in 100 percent of the
T
observed hearings, despite the panel’s broad power to reject a hearing examiner’s
recommendation and reinstate parole.

n

 o parolee appeared with appointed counsel, even though a number of parolees
N
seemed to qualify for state-provided counsel under the federal constitutional
standard.

n

 t least 94 percent of observed parolees had previously waived their right to have a
A
preliminary hearing within 14 business days of re-incarceration. These same parolees
were routinely incarcerated for at least three months awaiting their final revocation
hearings.

n

 he standard procedure at final revocation hearings made it difficult for parolees
T
to adequately contest disputed facts or to present mitigating evidence. As a result,
BOPP decisions were often made based on intuited credibility determinations rather
than verified facts, and parolees were unable to properly present mitigation arguments in favor of a reduced sanction or reinstatement.

samuel jacobs criminal justice clinic

Follow-up Survey of Parolees
In 2016, CJC conducted follow-up interviews with the observed parolees. We found that 68 percent
of parolees surveyed did not know what a preliminary hearing was.15 This information was
especially troubling in light of several parolees’ claims that DOC parole officers either directly or
indirectly encouraged them to waive their preliminary hearings or simply told them to initial the
waiver provisions without further explanation.
Correspondingly, interviewed parolees were generally unaware of the rights they were afforded at
their hearings. The interviews revealed that 88 percent were unaware that they could have had
their parole reinstated at a preliminary hearing, and thus be released from custody; 85 percent were
unaware of their right to question the witnesses against them at a preliminary hearing; and 56
percent did not know they could question adverse witnesses at their final revocation hearings.
Parolees also lost significant gains they had made before being remanded to prison. In Connecticut,
most alleged parole violators spend at least several months incarcerated, during which time they
cannot work or attend to responsibilities outside of prison. Accordingly, among the interviewed
parolees, 79 percent lost employment and 47 percent lost housing after undergoing the revocation
process.
The high rate of job and housing loss may be due to the standard incarceration periods that accompany revocation proceedings in Connecticut. DOC automatically incarcerates a parolee awaiting revocation proceedings regardless of the nature of the alleged violation(s). And parolees are incarcerated for
up to two weeks before BOPP makes a probable cause determination for the alleged violation.
Parolees whose alleged violation is based on a new criminal charge have been affected by Connecticut’s
revocation process in a number of distinctive ways. In Connecticut, an alleged parole violator with
a new criminal charge has traditionally been detained under a DOC “parole hold” (or “detainer”)
without regard to the seriousness of the underlying charge. Because the alleged parole violator is
expected to resolve the criminal case before being granted a parole revocation hearing, the parolee
remains incarcerated during the pendency of that criminal case, even if the charge is of a kind that
would normally result in bail being set by a court. In interviews, parolees reported feeling pressure
to plead guilty to criminal charges in order to be allowed to start BOPP’s parole revocation process
and attempt to get out of jail.

15 C
 JC began asking this question after an interviewee made clear that he did not know what a preliminary hearing was. At this point, several
interviews had already been conducted without specifically confirming the interviewee’s basic familiarity with the concept of a preliminary hearing.
In the interviews, when shown the forms in which they had waived their right to a preliminary hearing, 20 out of 34 respondents reported waiving
their rights because a DOC parole officer either advised them to waive or told them to initial in the area indicating waiver.

parole revocation in connecticut

6

Key Recommendations
1

2

3

4

 JC recommends that BOPP conduct trainings for its members and employees to ensure that
C
its policies regarding the appointment of counsel comply with the relevant regulatory and constitutional standards. In that same vein, the Board should seek opportunities to partner with
public defender offices, law school clinics, and the pro bono defense bar to provide counsel to
parolees. The Board should also work with lawyers and law students to design a pro se guide
for parolees explaining the revocation process.
 JC recommends setting up procedures to ascertain the existence of disputed facts prior to
C
the final revocation hearing­­­—potentially at the preliminary hearing—and to ensure that a
parolee has the chance to develop and present mitigating evidence at the final revocation
hearing. Parolees in revocation proceedings should be provided information about their rights
to present evidence and call into question the state’s evidence, and they should not face barriers
to exercising those rights.
 JC identified several opportunities to reduce the high rate of incarceration caused by the
C
revocation process so that it might be less disruptive for parolees and preserve state resources
at the same time. Beginning in January 2016, CJC recommended that BOPP exercise its power
to release parolees at preliminary hearings if there was no probable cause to support the violation,
or if the alleged violation was relatively minor. In March 2016, BOPP took a significant step
toward implementing this recommendation when it began holding preliminary hearings in all
cases involving parolees accused of technical violations. In April 2017, BOPP improved the
procedures surrounding these preliminary hearings with several key reforms. To further
reduce incarceration, BOPP should explore the possibility of conducting at least some
preliminary hearings in the community. This potential reform would require the cooperation
of DOC, which currently uses its remand authority under C.G.S.A. § 54-127 to return
parolees to custody in every case in which it initiates revocation proceedings. BOPP should
also work with DOC to encourage the use of sensible graduated sanctions to keep parolees in
the community. BOPP has the statutory authority to establish a graduated sanction system
under C.G.S.A. § 54-124a(l)(2).
 OPP should review DOC parole holds in revocation proceedings that involve low-level
B
criminal charges that would otherwise result in bail. Under the regulations, BOPP has the
authority to evaluate a new criminal charge at a preliminary hearing to determine if the
circumstances are sufficiently serious to justify continued detention.16 Developing standards
on the release of DOC parole holds could reduce incarceration rates and help limit the pressure
on parolees to plead guilty to disputed charges.

16 Conn. Agencies Regs. § 54-124a(j)(1)-4 & (1)-5.

7	

samuel jacobs criminal justice clinic

5

 inally, the state’s Office of Policy and Management (“OPM”) should include monthly statistics
F
in its Monthly Indicators Report aimed at increasing the transparency of the parole revocation
process. In particular, OPM should include monthly statistics on: (1) the number of remands by
DOC; (2) the percentage of cases in which BOPP held a preliminary hearing and the results of
those hearings; (3) the percentage of cases in which the remanded parolee received appointed
counsel for the preliminary hearing; (4) the number of final revocation hearings and the results
of those hearings (including the length of the sanctions imposed); and (5) the percentage
of cases in which the remanded parolee received appointed counsel for the final revocation
hearing. In each of these five categories, OPM should report the data in a manner that allows
for a separate analysis regarding the handling of criminal versus technical violations.
B
 oth DOC and BOPP should work closely with OPM to facilitate the reporting of this data.
To increase BOPP’s own research capacities, DOC should permit BOPP to extract data
(including aggregated data) from the CaseNotes system so that BOPP can generate its own
analytic reports.

Assistance of Counsel
Forty-six of the 49 parolees facing revocation in
November 2015 represented themselves in their
revocation hearings. While parole was ultimately
revoked in all 49 cases, the only person whom
the Board acquitted on any count was among
the three parolees with private retained counsel.
Though both state regulations and the federal
constitution promise access to appointed counsel
for certain parolees, not one indigent person we
observed ever obtained the assistance of a lawyer.

November 2015 Counsel Status
6%

94%
No Counsel (94%)

Retained Counsel (6%)

BOPP procedure on the appointment of counsel falls short of federal constitutional
requirements.
In certain cases, particularly where the probationers or parolees allege “substantial reasons” that
justify or mitigate the alleged violation, “fundamental fairness—the touchstone of due process—
will require that the State provide at its expense counsel for indigent probationers or parolees.”17

17 Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778, 790 (1973).

parole revocation in connecticut

8

An indigent parolee has a presumptive federal constitutional right to counsel at both the preliminary
and final revocation hearing when he or she makes:
[a] colorable claim (i) that he has not committed the alleged violation of the conditions
upon which he is at liberty; or (ii) that, even if the violation is a matter of public record
or is uncontested, there are substantial reasons which justified or mitigated the violation
and make revocation inappropriate, and that the reasons are complex or otherwise
difficult to develop or present.18

Furthermore, when deciding on a request to appoint counsel, “the responsible agency also should
consider, especially in doubtful cases, whether the [parolee] appears to be capable of speaking
effectively for himself.”19
Connecticut regulations incorporate the Gagnon standard into revocation proceedings. The remanding
authority is required to “advise the offender of the right to counsel at personal expense and a limited
right to counsel appointed by the State to represent him.”20 Yet, in revocation hearings that CJC
observed, parolees often denied the accusations levied against them and disputed key facts alleged
in the violation report. These parolees were all incarcerated, and were severely limited in their ability
to build a case to defend themselves and present mitigation evidence on their own. Absent counsel,
it appeared that there was no real avenue for these parolees to gather evidence and corroborate
their claims.
When asked in November 2015, the Board informed CJC that it was using a strict competency standard
to assess whether a person was entitled to counsel, rather than the presumptive standard pronounced
by the Gagnon Court. The Board indicated that it only considered parolees eligible for appointed
counsel when they were wholly incapable of speaking for themselves. This policy may have been
based on confusing regulatory language in § 54-124a(j)(1)-12.21 Nevertheless, as CJC communicated
in the January 2016 presentation, the broader constitutional standard governs, and must be applied
by the Board. Additionally, even observed parolees who appeared to meet the strict competency
standard described by the Board went unrepresented, as in the case of Mr. A described below.
The November 5, 2015 final revocation hearing of one parolee, Mr. A,22 illustrates the
problems created by the current policies on appointed counsel. Mr. A’s revocation hearing focused on the fact that his sponsor had lost his home and could not house Mr. A,
and that the Residential Parole Unit and REACH (a program for individuals with cognitive
and developmental disabilities) had denied Mr. A treatment because of his significant
psychiatric and medical needs.23 A DOC nursing home had also denied him placement.

18 Id.
19 Id. at 790–91.
20 Conn. Agencies Regs. § 54-124a(j)(1)-4(d)(2).
21 Due to confusing grammar, the current language of § 54-124a(j)(1)-12 appears to suggest that the state must provide counsel only when parolees are
“incapable of speaking for themselves.” State officials should revise the language of § 54-124a(j)(1)-12 to clear up the confusion and ensure that the
regulatory language aligns properly with Gagnon.
22 All names have been altered to preserve confidentiality.
23 Background details were provided by the parole violation report attached to Mr. A’s file.

9	

samuel jacobs criminal justice clinic

At the revocation hearing, Mr. A struggled to communicate basic facts and details, and
his responses indicated that he did not understand questions posed by the Board. For
instance, Mr. A repeatedly said that he was scheduled to leave prison on March 12, 2012
—even though the hearing was taking place in November 2015. Mr. A was ordered held
until the end of his sentence. He could have benefited greatly from legal representation.

In devising the survey instrument, CJC made sure to ask questions directed at the counsel issue.
Specifically, CJC asked parolees why they had waived their right to ask for counsel. The results of
that inquiry indicate that a plurality of parolees recall being encouraged to waive their right to counsel by a DOC parole officer. More troublingly, a substantial number reported being encouraged to
sign waivers without being informed of the actual rights they were waiving.
ϭϭ͘tŚLJĚŝĚLJŽƵǁĂŝǀĞLJŽƵƌƌŝŐŚƚƚŽĐŽƵŶƐĞů͍
11. Why
did you waive your right to request counsel?
ϵ
ϴ

ϴ
ϳ

ϲ

ϲ

ϱ

ϱ
ϰ

ϰ

ϰ

ϰ

ϯ

ϯ
Ϯ

ϭ
Ϭ

ŝĚŶΖƚŬŶŽǁŝƚǁĂƐĂŶ
ŽƉƚŝŽŶ

ĂŶΖƚƌĞŵĞŵďĞƌ

WKĂĚǀŝƐĞĚŵĞƚŽ

WKũƵƐƚƚŽůĚŵĞƚŽƐŝŐŶ

ŝĚŶΖƚƚŚŝŶŬĂŶ
ĂƚƚŽƌŶĞLJǁŽƵůĚďĞ
ŚĞůƉĨƵů

KƚŚĞƌ

EŽĂŶƐǁĞƌ

BOPP’s procedure for appointing counsel contravenes the state’s federal constitutional duty articulated in Gagnon. The Board does not appear to have any standards for considering what constitutes a
satisfactorily “colorable” claim of innocence or when mitigating circumstances are “substantial” and
“complex” enough for appointment purposes. Furthermore, beyond presenting a request in writing to
the Chairperson, there appears to be scant guidance for the parolee seeking appointed counsel, who
must present this information to satisfy his or her burden.
Parolees we observed were ill-positioned
to defend themselves.
Most parolees facing revocation are indigent and
lack adequate information and resources needed to
understand and navigate the complicated revocation
process. Given the significant hurdles to attaining
appointed counsel, it appears that indigent parolees
are at a significant disadvantage in these proceedings.
In practice, only those wealthy enough to hire their
own lawyers have access to counsel.

Best Practices in Other Jurisdictions

In the District of Columbia, all indigent parolees are entitled to appointed
counsel through the Public Defender
Service for both preliminary hearings and revocation hearings. Source:
www.pdsdc.org

parole revocation in connecticut

10

Parolees who are mentally ill or low-functioning are at an even greater disadvantage. BOPP will
only consider appointing counsel if a parolee first requests counsel. This practice poses a risk for
vulnerable parolees who may obviously need appointed counsel but for whatever reason do not act
affirmatively to request an attorney.
In CJC observations, parolees often seemed unaware of elements of the revocation process or how best
to respond to Board questions. In general, parolees seemed to think that it was in their best interests to
admit to violations upfront, even if they did not believe they were guilty of those violations. The clinic
observed hearings, for example, in which a parolee admitted to a violation at the beginning of the
revocation hearing, but then went on to provide evidence that rebutted that supposed violation. The
BOPP hearing examiner often used the fact of the admission to support the finding of a violation.
Lawyers could provide valuable guidance to parolees to ensure that they understand their rights and
the implications of admissions. Attorneys could also be critical in developing evidence for the Board
to consider when facts are in dispute. This kind of assistance could contribute to both the efficiency
and equity of the proceedings by ensuring that BOPP’s decision-making process is based on more
complete and accurate information.

Recommendations
Ensure that all relevant officials know and apply the constitutional standards
on the appointment of counsel in parole revocation cases.
The regulations governing appointment of counsel should be revised to clarify the parolee’s
presumptive right to counsel in circumstances that meet the standards outlined in Gagnon v.
Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778 (1973).
Educate parolees and their representatives on the standards governing parole
revocation proceedings.
Design and publish training guides for parolees and for appointed and retained counsel. Publish
the guides for parolees in multiple formats and languages to make them accessible. Ensure that the
guides clearly communicate the standards, best practices, and procedures of the parole revocation
process in Connecticut. Consider partnering with public defenders or law school clinics for the
production of these guides.
Partner with local lawyers and law clinics.
BOPP should seek opportunities to partner with the Connecticut Bar Association, the Connecticut
Criminal Defense Lawyers Association, public defender offices, and law school clinics to provide
legal representation to parolees in the revocation process.
Train DOC parole officers to ensure they are not advising or pressuring parolees
to waive the right to request appointed counsel.
BOPP should collaborate with DOC officials to ensure that all parole officers and parole managers
are trained thoroughly on the Gagnon standards for appointing counsel and on best practices for
properly informing parolees of their right to request counsel. The rights of parolees should be made
clear from the beginning of the revocation process through the final revocation hearing.
11	

samuel jacobs criminal justice clinic

Establish procedures to ensure early appointment of counsel.
BOPP should establish a streamlined process to appoint counsel early and quickly. The current
appointment process discourages parolees from requesting counsel because it leads to lengthier
incarceration periods and delayed hearings. These delays could be reduced by establishing smooth
partnerships with members of the bar and with law school clinics. A swifter appointment system
will help ensure that parolees who are entitled to attorneys can be effectively represented.
BOPP should consider moving to a system that provides for the default appointment of counsel
in revocation proceedings involving indigent parolees, particularly parolees who are incarcerated.
If BOPP moves to a default system, counsel should be appointed shortly after remand to allow for
representation at the preliminary hearing. Parolees should be permitted to opt out of a default
appointment system on a case-by-case basis.
Publish monthly statistics on the appointment of counsel.
To increase transparency, OPM should work with BOPP to track monthly statistics on the appointment of counsel for preliminary hearings and final revocation hearings. OPM should include these
statistics in its Monthly Indicators Reports, and BOPP should publish them on its website.

Investigations of Disputed Facts and Mitigation
BOPP procedures do not provide for adequate investigation of disputed
facts or presentation of mitigation evidence as required by Connecticut
regulations and due process principles.
Investigation of Disputed Facts
As CJC observed final parole revocation hearings in the month of November 2015, the clinic found
that the proceedings were not structured to enable parolees to adequately contest disputed facts or
present evidence in mitigation of their alleged violations.
Both Connecticut regulations and the United States Supreme Court provide a framework that establishes the structure and purpose of parole revocation hearings. According to Connecticut regulations,
“[t]he purpose of a revocation hearing is to determine contested relevant facts regarding allegations
of violation of parole.” 24 The United States Constitution also requires that parole revocation hearings
conform with certain principles of due process, namely that a parole revocation hearing be “structured
to assure that the finding of a parole violation will be based on verified facts and that the exercise of
discretion will be informed by an accurate knowledge of the parolee’s behavior.” 25
However, in the final revocation hearings CJC observed, there was no real opportunity for investigation of the validity of any disputed facts underlying the alleged violation. This lack of opportunity for
investigation stems in large part from the fact that most parolees are incarcerated prior to the final revocation hearing. Without lawyers on the outside, they have severely restricted opportunities to carry
24 Conn. Agencies Regs. § 54-124a(j)(1)–9(b).
25 Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 484 (1972).

parole revocation in connecticut

12

out investigations and produce evidence in support of
their claims. In line with this observation, CJC found
that 85 percent of the parolee-respondents to its questionnaire reported that they did not contact potential
witnesses in advance of their final revocation hearings, and 91 percent did not collect exculpatory evidence. In the final revocation hearings CJC observed,
BOPP’s response to disputed facts was to adopt the
allegations made by the DOC parole officer, without
conducting an independent investigation. BOPP staff
emphasized to CJC that BOPP is responsible for the
adjudication process, not the investigation process.

Did you contact potential witnesses?

“The fact is that some parole officers
are good at what they do, and some
are not. We have to believe what they
tell us is true.”
– A Board Member deliberating contested facts
on November 17, 2015.

“If the parole officer says something,
you have to believe the parole officer.”
– A Board Member deliberating contested facts
on November 19, 2015.

Did you collect exculpatory evidence?
9%

15%

85%

91%

Yes (15%)

No (85%)

Yes (9%)

No (91%)

During a November 17, 2015 final revocation hear“I’m concerned about the HIV medicaing, a parolee was given a seven-month sanction
tion. I am. I’m concerned about that.
for leaving his halfway house and testing positive
I do know he’s right about the medicafor drugs. At his hearing, the parolee testified
tion. It does give you a false positive.”
that he had been kicked out of the halfway house
– A Board Member discussing this parolee’s claim on
when the house manager rejected his money
November 17, 2015.
order and demanded that he pay his rent in cash.
The parolee claimed that the manager had been fired the next week from the halfway house
for taking money. The parolee further testified that a medication he was prescribed for HIV
causes false positives on drug tests. Although one Board Member noted that he knew some
such medication did cause false positives, no investigation was made into either of these
issues. The parolee was found to have violated on both charges.

13	

samuel jacobs criminal justice clinic

Mitigation
A second area of concern was the lack of opportunity for parolees to present mitigation evidence.
While such evidence does not negate a finding of a violation, it might still be dispositive for the Board
when determining whether to revoke parole or to sanction a parolee.
Both Connecticut regulations and U.S. Supreme Court precedent require that parolees be permitted
to present evidence in mitigation of their alleged violations at parole revocation hearings. According
to Connecticut regulations, a parolee accused of violating the conditions of his or her parole has a
right to be heard and to present evidence demonstrating that the “circumstances in mitigation show
that the violation does not warrant revocation.” 26 Moreover, if the hearing examiner concludes that
the accused violated a condition of parole that may warrant revocation, “the Hearing Examiner shall
hear from both the attending parole officer and the offender regarding the offender’s background and
history for the purpose of considering the appropriate disposition.”27 In addition, the U.S. Supreme
Court has held that in a parole revocation hearing, “[t]he parolee must have an opportunity to be
heard and to show, if he can, that he did not violate the conditions, or, if he did, that circumstances in
mitigation suggest that the violation does not warrant revocation.”28
Despite these legal requirements, parolees were generally not given the opportunity to present mitigation evidence in the final revocation hearings we observed in November 2015. The rare case in which
the parolee mounted a serious mitigation effort was met with impatience and confusion:
On November 5, 2015, a parolee’s retained lawyer attempted to present mitigation
evidence during his final revocation hearing to explain the parolee’s actions and make
the case for a more lenient sanction. Throughout his presentation of mitigation evidence, the attorney was interrupted by both the hearing examiner and the Board
panel members, who told him to focus on the violation allegations. The attorney was
allowed to continue presenting mitigation, but only after he insisted that this mitigation evidence was relevant to the case.

Recommendations
Develop procedures to thoroughly investigate potential disputes of fact prior to
the final revocation hearing.
BOPP hearing examiners should use a preliminary hearing as an opportunity to ascertain whether there
are any disputed facts, rather than waiting for the final revocation hearing. Once on notice that material
disputes exist, a hearing examiner should encourage the parolee to develop his or her own corroborating
evidence and provide the parolee with an opportunity to request the appointment of counsel.
Under the current system, nobody is assigned the role of helping indigent and incarcerated parolees
gather the necessary evidence to support their claims. Appointed counsel, law students, or volunteer
attorneys could conduct pre-hearing investigations to verify facts and develop mitigation evidence.

26 Conn. Agencies Regs. § 54-124a (j)(1)–9(g).
27 Id. § 54-124a (j)(1)–9(h).
28 Morrissey, 408 U.S. at 488.

parole revocation in connecticut

14

Give parolees the opportunity to develop mitigation evidence and present this
evidence at the final revocation hearing.
In order to ensure that the final revocation hearing provides the opportunity for the parolee to
present mitigation evidence, the function and purpose of mitigation evidence should be explained to
the parolee (and/or his or her counsel) immediately after a parole violation is initiated. At the final
revocation hearing, the parolee should be encouraged to present mitigation evidence if he or she so
chooses. If the parolee presents mitigation evidence, BOPP should consider it in making a determination as to what, if any, sanction is warranted for the violation, with the understanding that the
regulations authorize the release and reinstatement of a parolee even if a violation is found.
Train hearing examiners and Parole Board Members on the due process standards
underlying the revocation process.
To bring final revocation hearing practices in line with regulations and due process requirements,
we recommend trainings with hearing examiners and Board Members that highlight the purpose of
revocation hearings, with particular emphasis on the need to rely on verified facts and to permit the
introduction of mitigation evidence.
Train BOPP and DOC employees on the importance of BOPP exercising independent
oversight over the parole revocation process.
BOPP and DOC employees should both be trained on the importance of the BOPP maintaining its
independence from DOC parole officers. BOPP hearing examiners and panel members must be free
to exercise independent review power over decisions made by DOC parole officers for the integrity
of the adjudication process.
Publish monthly statistics on the outcomes of preliminary hearings and final
revocation hearings.
To increase transparency, OPM should work in conjunction with BOPP and DOC to track and publish
monthly statistics on: (1) the number of remands by DOC; (2) the percentage of cases in which the
BOPP held a preliminary hearing and the results of those hearings; and (3) the number of final
revocation hearings and the results of those hearings (including the length of the sanctions imposed
for criminal v. technical violations). OPM should include these statistics in its Monthly Indicators
Reports, and BOPP should publish them on its website.

15	

samuel jacobs criminal justice clinic

Opportunities to Reduce Incarceration
The Board can make use of already-existing procedures to prevent
unnecessary incarceration.
On average, parolees accused of technical violations spent 12 weeks in custody awaiting their final
revocation hearing. Parolees accused of criminal violations29 spent an average of 15 weeks in custody
awaiting their revocation hearing.
Each parolee in the final revocation hearings CJC observed in November 2015 spent additional time
incarcerated after the hearing, given the 100 percent finding of violation and the 100 percent revocation rate. However, it is important to note that 75 percent of these parolees did receive re-parole dates.
In other words, 75 percent of the observed parolees were returned to parole supervision after completing the sanction imposed on them.
More attention should be paid to the negative effects of remand and incarceration.
The parolees we interviewed reported significant hardships as a result of being remanded to custody.
Seventy-nine percent of parolees lost employment as a result of being remanded, and 47 percent lost
their housing. Employment and housing provide stability for parolees when they are out in the community. Losing these support systems hinders rehabilitation and reintegration into the community.
As such, reincarceration of parolees should be employed as sparingly as possible.
One parolee whose final revocation hearing
“I think the parole officer was the
CJC observed in November 2015 explained
catalyst for the problem.”
that after being reassigned to a new DOC pa– A Board Member evaluating the accused
role officer, communication issues resulted in
absconder’s case on November 19, 2015.
him being returned to prison based on a claim
that he had not reported. At his revocation hearing, a Board Member concluded that
the new DOC parole officer was the catalyst for the problem. Nevertheless, the Board
revoked parole in the case. The Board did consider the possibility of releasing the parolee immediately, but one of the Board Members then asked: “Do you really want to
slap the parole officer in the face like that? Give him at least a week.” In the end, concern about the reaction of the DOC parole officer appeared to control the punishment
decision in the case. The parolee lost his job as a result of the revocation process.

The current process for notification and waiver of hearing rights is unreliable.
Properly-conducted preliminary hearings can help address serious deficiencies in the notification
stage of the revocation process. For instance, 68 percent of parolees surveyed by CJC did not even
know what a preliminary hearing was, even after they had already gone through the revocation
process. One parolee said he had been through the revocation process three times in two years without ever being told about his right to a preliminary hearing. Like several other interviewed parolees,

29 A
 t the time of our 2015 observations and 2016 interviews, this designation did not necessarily mean that the parolee was arrested or charged with
a new crime. As of April 4, 2017, however, BOPP started applying a new standard, which narrowed the definition of “criminal violation.”

parole revocation in connecticut

16

this parolee recalled that his remanding DOC parole
officer told him to mark off the waiver provisions
without explanation. Other parolees also reported
that officers encouraged them to waive their right to
a preliminary hearing.

“This is the third time they’ve put
me back in the last two years, and
they never gave me that option.
They always said, ‘check this box.’”
– A parolee who did not know what a preliminary
hearing was describing his remand experience in a
2016 interview.

Although CJC was unable to observe and confirm
such reports first-hand, both the 94 percent preliminary hearing waiver rate observed in November 2015 and the subsequent interview results strongly
suggest that parolees were not being properly informed of the rights they were waiving away. Additionally, while reviewing documents provided during the course of this study, clinic members noticed
markings on waiver forms handled by certain remanding DOC parole officers who happened to have
served multiple parolees. Seven of these multiple-remand officers appeared to have placed ✗s or✓s
(or other such markings) beside the place where a parolee would initial in order to waive a preliminary
hearing, decide to represent him or herself (thus waiving counsel), or both.

There were no similar markings beside the lines in which a parolee could request a preliminary hearing or request appointed counsel. This pattern was observed by the clinic only because the markings,
which varied by parole officer, were consistent for specific officers across multiple parolees. These
observations were shared with state officials at the December 2016 presentation, and a spreadsheet of
the waiver forms containing markings by parole officer is shown in Appendix I. CJC cannot confirm
when precisely these markings were made—or clarify the context in which they were made—but the
clinic believes the markings underscore the need for DOC training on this issue.
BOPP should continue to reform its practices on preliminary hearings.
In March 2016, in response to CJC’s finding that nearly all observed parolees waived their preliminary hearings, BOPP began to hold automatic preliminary hearings for all technical parole violators.
After CJC’s December 2016 presentation, BOPP further evaluated its practices and announced three
significant amendments to its preliminary hearing procedures in April 2017. First, it changed its data
tracking system to ensure that the deadline for scheduling a preliminary hearing is calculated based
on the actual date that a parolee is returned to custody. Second, it established deadlines for DOC to

17	

samuel jacobs criminal justice clinic

submit evidence in support of an alleged parole violation. Third, BOPP clarified that an alleged
parole violation should only be considered criminal in nature (as opposed to technical) if the violation
is at least partially based on an arrest for a new crime or on a warrant, signed by a judge.
The chart below reflects the outcomes of the preliminary hearings that BOPP held between March
2016 and July 2017. This chart, which is based on data provided by BOPP, shows the number of
parolees who were released after a preliminary hearing either because no probable cause was found;
or because the alleged violation was considered insufficiently serious to justify revocation, despite
a finding of probable cause.30

PRELIMINARY HEARING STATUS
Preliminary2016-2017
Hearing Status 2016 – 2017

MAR 16
APR 16
MAY 16
JUN 16
JUL 16
AUG 16
SEPT16
OCT 16
NOV 16

31

42

26

28

05 02 05
38

23

29
03 00 06

03 00 02
25

31

22

25
02 00 04

01 00 02
40

35

30

28

03 01 06
27

02 02 03
26

19
05

47

10 09

01 02
32

36

03 03 05
37

35

25

04 00 09
30

22

02 04 06
26

23
01 00

01 05

21

04 02 05
48

DEC 16
JAN 17
FEB 17
MAR17
APR 17
MAY 17
JUN 17
JUL 17

30

02 00 03

15
04 02 05

06

15
03 01 03

Total Preliminary Hearings

Finding of Probable Cause,
Continued for Revocation Hearing

No Finding of Probable Cause,
Parole Reinstated

Finding of Probable Cause,
Parole Reinstated
Continued for more Information
Inmate Waived

30 C
 JC is grateful to Vilmaris Diaz, Associate Research Analyst at BOPP, for ensuring that data on preliminary hearings is collected on an ongoing
basis and for providing the data to CJC for inclusion in this report.

parole revocation in connecticut

18

CJC observed some preliminary hearings on March 7th and March 21st of 2017, one year after BOPP
announced its policy change. In the course of those observations, CJC found that not all BOPP hearing examiners were making use of the full range of options included in the Connecticut regulations.
According to those regulations, preliminary hearings are conducted in order to (1) “determine whether there is probable cause to believe the offender has committed an act in violation of the conditions
of parole;” (2) “whether the act is serious enough to warrant revocation of parole;” and (3) “whether
detention pending further proceedings is warranted.”31 Accordingly, the hearing examiner is empowered to release a parolee under three circumstances: (1) if the examiner finds no probable cause to
support the alleged violation, (2) if the examiner finds that the violation does not warrant revocation,
notwithstanding a finding of probable cause or (3) if the examiner determines that the parolee should
not be detained pending the final revocation hearing, notwithstanding a finding of probable cause.32
However, the scripted statement that CJC observed some BOPP hearing examiners read to unrepresented parolees at the outset of preliminary hearings in March 2017 did not acknowledge the
possibility of a parolee being released in a case in which probable cause was found:
“If I find probable cause that you have violated one or more of the conditions of your
release, you will be held in custody pending a final revocation hearing. If I do not
find probable cause to believe that you violated one or more of the conditions of your
release, then your parole will be reinstated.”

Based on the clinic’s March 2017 observations, it appeared that not all hearing examiners considered
the other available grounds for release at preliminary hearings in which they did make a finding of
probable cause.

Recommendations
Exercise the full range of release powers at preliminary hearings.
To effectuate the regulations, BOPP hearing examiners should be affirmatively trained that they can
choose to release people at preliminary hearings even if they make a finding of probable cause. Hearing
examiners should utilize all of the regulatory provisions at their disposal when they encounter relatively
minor violations that may not merit continued incarceration.
Consider conducting preliminary hearings in the community and/or reducing the time
lapse between remand and the preliminary hearing.
Connecticut should consider altering its preliminary hearing practices in order to conduct preliminary
hearings in the community in appropriate cases. Summoning parolees to report to their local parole
office (or other location) for a preliminary hearing could decrease the disruptive nature of revocation
proceedings for individuals with relatively minor alleged violations.

31 Conn. Agencies Regs. § 54-124a(j)(1)–1(11).
32 Id. at § 54-124a(j)(1)–5(g).

19	

samuel jacobs criminal justice clinic

DOC and BOPP should jointly consider this proposed reform. In order to make it possible for BOPP
to conduct preliminary hearings in the community, DOC would have to cooperate by not issuing a
Remand to Actual Custody Order in those cases.
For cases in which DOC does remand a parolee for an alleged violation, the state should consider
amending its regulations to reduce the time lapse between remand and the preliminary hearing. The
regulations currently require that the preliminary hearing be held within 14 business days of remand,
unless continued for good cause.
Reduce time between remand and final revocation hearing.
In addition, incarceration rates could be reduced—and collateral consequences lessened—if the time
between remand and the final revocation hearing were to be shortened. Connecticut parole regulations require that a revocation hearing take place no later than 60 business days from remand, unless
continued for good cause. It is standard for parolees to be held in custody for three months or more
before the final revocation hearing. In 2016, for instance, parolees remanded on alleged technical violations spent an average of 12 weeks in custody awaiting their final revocation hearings—at a rough
cost to the state of $11,500 for each parolee during this period. Those remanded on alleged criminal
violations waited an average of 15 weeks in custody at an approximate cost of $14,500.
If the time between remand and the final revocation hearing were reduced, it could save the state
money and lessen the destabilizing impact of consequences such as joblessness and lack of housing.
The state should consider amending its regulations to shorten the time-period between remand and
the final revocation hearing.
Consider parole hold waivers for parolees with pending criminal proceedings in
appropriate cases.
BOPP should institute a process for lifting DOC parole holds for parolees with relatively minor
criminal charges. Lifting the parole hold would allow bail to be set on those charges. At present,
all parolees charged with new crimes are incarcerated for the duration of the time between remand
and the disposition of the criminal charges, even if bail would otherwise be set for those charges.
The final revocation hearing is not scheduled until the criminal charges are resolved, further
prolonging the period of detention.
Institute graduated sanctions as well as policies that set limits on incarceration
for first-time violations of parole and/or technical violations of parole.
Under the current system, Connecticut parolees spend lengthy periods incarcerated even when they
are first-time parole violators and even when they have committed minor technical violations.
BOPP should work with DOC to encourage the use of graduated sanctions to keep parolees in the
community. Under C.G.S.A. § 54-124a(l)(2), BOPP has the authority to establish a graduated
sanction system that includes non-incarcerative sanctions. BOPP should also consider implementing
policies that cap the prison terms that can be imposed on first-time parole violators and/or on
parolees who have been accused of exclusively technical violations.

parole revocation in connecticut

20

Conclusion
CJC undertook this study in support of Connecticut’s efforts to reduce the high rate of incarceration
attributable to the parole revocation process. This study has benefited from the input of parolees
who experienced the process first-hand, as well as from the commitment of BOPP’s leadership to
an open and transparent evaluation of BOPP policies and practices. While this study was ongoing,
BOPP began implementing reforms to its parole revocation procedures, particularly in the context
of preliminary hearings.
There are several key steps BOPP should now take to further improve the parole revocation process
and protect the rights of those on parole. The Board should focus on addressing parolee due process
rights in final revocation proceedings by establishing an adequate counsel appointment system and
improving procedures for ascertaining and evaluating disputes of fact and mitigating evidence. Additionally, BOPP should ensure that it is exercising the full range of its release powers at preliminary
hearings. BOPP should also explore the possibility of conducting preliminary hearings in the community, and it should establish a process for lifting DOC parole holds for parolees with appropriately
minor pending criminal cases.
This report is based on a study of BOPP parole revocation proceedings, and the recommendations
focus primarily on BOPP procedures for that reason. Connecticut’s parole revocation process is jointly administered by BOPP and DOC, however, and many of the recommended reforms in this report
require the cooperation of both agencies.
Additionally, interviews, observations, and documents submitted to CJC raised significant questions
(which are outside the scope of this research project) that should be addressed by a future study of
the DOC Division of Parole and Community Services. Such a study could examine unit policies and
practices regarding supervision strategies and the use of graduated sanctions. The study could also
investigate the way that DOC uses its remand authority in the parole revocation context by analyzing
patterns of remand across parole units and individual officers.

21	

samuel jacobs criminal justice clinic

Appendix I: Waiver Marking Patterns
This Appendix presents the waiver forms that CJC identified as bearing marks consistent
across certain DOC parole officers. The first parolee's documents are displayed in their
entirety to provide context for the presented portion of the other forms, which have been
excerpted to simply show the marked portions.

parole revocation in connecticut

22

Appendix I: Waiver Marking Patterns

23	

samuel jacobs criminal justice clinic

Appendix I: Waiver Marking PatternsParole

#

Marking Image

#

Marking Image			

Officer

Type of Hearing

Parole Officer

Type of Hearing

1

PO1

Revocation
Hearing

2

PO1

Other

3

PO1

Revocation
Hearing

4

PO1

Revocation
Hearing

5

PO2

Other

6

PO2

Other

7

PO3

Revocation
Hearing

8

PO3

Revocation
Hearing

9

PO4

Revocation
Hearing

10

PO4 in connecticut
Other
parole revocation

24

8

PO3

Revocation
Hearing

Appendix I: Waiver Marking Patterns
#

Parole Officer

Type of Hearing

9

PO4

Revocation
Hearing

10

PO4

Other

11

PO4

Revocation
Hearing

12

PO5

Revocation
Hearing

13

PO5

Revocation
Hearing

14

PO6

Revocation
Hearing

15

PO6

Other

16

PO7

Other

17

PO7

Other

18

PO8

Other

19

PO9 (remand
only)

Revocation
Hearing

20

PO10

Revocation
Hearing

PO11

Revocation

25	

21

Marking Image			

samuel jacobs criminal justice clinic

19

PO9 (remand
only)

Revocation
Hearing

Parole Officer

Type of Hearing

20

PO10

Revocation
Hearing

21

PO11

Revocation
Hearing

22

PO12

Other

23

PO13

Revocation
Hearing

24

PO14

Other

25

PO15

Revocation
Hearing

Appendix I: Waiver Marking Patterns
#

Marking Image			

Revocation hearings were among the 49 observed by CJC in the month of November 2015 in which
parolees appeared. Other hearings include expedited hearings, waived hearings, continued hearings,
and hearings for which parolees did not appear.

parole revocation in connecticut

26

Appendix II: Parolee Revocation Questionnaire
PAROLE REVOCATION QUESTIONNAIRE
PLEASE READ: The following questions refer to the events surrounding your November 2015 parole revocation hearing.
Unless otherwise noted, "parole officer" refers to the officer who ordered you sent back to prison for alleged violations of your
parole conditions.
1. D
 id you suffer any of the following consequences as a result of being returned to prison for allegedly violating your
parole conditions? Please check each of the following you experienced.
❑ Lost your job
❑ Lost your housing
❑ Lost your bed in a halfway house
❑ Lost your placement in a treatment program
❑ Lost your benefits (please specify what kind: ___________________________________________)
❑ Other (please describe: ____________________________________________________________)
2. Did a parole officer explain why you were being charged with violating your parole conditions?
❑ Yes
❑ No
3. Within three days (minus weekends) were you given any documents related to your alleged parole violations?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ I received them, but not within three days.
❑ I received them, but I do not remember when.
4. Were these documents explained to you?
❑ Yes
❑ No
5. Did a parole officer explain the purpose of the preliminary hearing to you?
❑ Yes
❑ No
6. The list below includes things that could happen at a preliminary hearing. Please answer "yes" or "no" if you were aware
of each possibility.
You could testify on your own behalf ❑ Yes

❑ No

You could present written materials and witnesses to challenge or explain the violation allegations ❑ Yes

❑ No

You could present evidence that excused or explained the alleged violation and helped your case ❑ Yes

❑ No

You could question witnesses who supported the allegations against you ❑ Yes

❑ No

You could have your parole reinstated and be released from custody at the Hearing Examiner Hearing examiner’s discretion ❑ Yes

27	

samuel jacobs criminal justice clinic

❑ No

Appendix II: Parolee Revocation Questionnaire
7. According to your records, you waived your right to a preliminary hearing. Why?

8. Did a parole officer advise you of your right to retain or request an appointed attorney to represent you at the hearing?
❑ Yes
❑ No
9. Did a parole officer say anything about how long the revocation process would take if you requested an appointed attorney?
❑ Yes
❑ No
10. If yes, how would requesting an appointed attorney affect the revocation process, according to the parole officer?
❑ It would take more time
❑ It would take less time
❑ It would take the same amount of time
11. According to your records, you waived your right to ask for an appointed attorney. Why?

12. What did you expect would happen at your revocation hearing?
❑ I expected to be found innocent of the violation
❑ I expected to be found guilty of the violation and released
❑ I expected to be found guilty and given less than six months (from the time of remand)
❑ I expected to be found guilty and given more than six months (from the time of remand)
❑ Other, please explain: _______________________________________________________________________________________
13. At the time you were returned to prison, how long did you think you would wait before your revocation hearing?
❑ Less than 3 months
❑ 3 to 6 months
❑ I don’t know

parole revocation in connecticut

28

Appendix II: Parolee Revocation Questionnaire
14. Did you prepare for your revocation hearing?
❑ Yes
❑ No
15. If yes, how did you prepare for your hearing?
❑ I contacted potential witnesses
❑ I asked my employer for a reference letter
❑ I collected letters from friends and family
❑ I collected evidence to prove my innocence
❑ I prepared a statement on why I should be released from custody
❑ Other, please explain:
16. T
 he list below includes ways you were allowed to present your case at your revocation hearing.
Please answer "yes" or "no" if you were aware of each right:
Present written materials to show you were innocent of the violation(s) ❑ Yes
Present witnesses to show you were innocent of the violation(s) ❑ Yes

❑ No

Present written materials that excused or explained the violation(s) ❑ Yes
Present witnesses that excused or explained the alleged violation(s) ❑ Yes
Ask to question witnesses against you ❑ Yes

❑ No

❑ No
❑ No

❑ No

17. Do you understand why the Board made its decision in your case?
❑ Understand very much
❑ Mostly understand
❑ Understand a little
❑ Do not understand
18. Is there anything you would do differently in the revocation process if you could go back and redo it?
Answer all that apply.
❑ I would have requested a preliminary hearing
❑ I would have requested an appointed attorney
❑ would have presented mitigating evidence (including witnesses)
❑ I would have questioned witnesses who supported the allegations against me
❑ Other, please explain: _____________________________________________________________________________________

29	

samuel jacobs criminal justice clinic

Appendix II: Parolee Revocation Questionnaire
19. Based on your experience, do you think the revocation process you went through was fair?
❑ Very fair
❑ Somewhat fair
❑ A little fair
❑ Not at all fair
20. Is there anything you would want people to know about the parole revocation process?

parole revocation in connecticut

30