This week.

And the wheelhouse.

Gives you.

A closer look at criminal justice reform in Connecticut.

And.

In.

For Connecticut public, I'm Frankie Graziano.

This is the wheelhouse.

The show that connects politics to the people.

We got your weekly dose of politics in Connecticut and beyond right here.

In the past few months, the state has faced hefty settlements for wrongful convictions, as well as, dealing with the fallout of a death few years ago of Robbie Talbot, while he was incarcerated at New Haven Correctional Center.

This has been happening amid proposed budget cuts that could reduce both free access to public defenders and funding for electronic tablets and messaging for incarcerated people.

So will this year's legislative session see meaningful criminal justice reform or is that out of the state's price range?

That's coming up.

But first, a little breaking news here.

State lawmakers scrambling to cover communities in need as they anticipate changes at the federal level.

To find out how the state is reacting to potential cuts for funding to support children with disabilities, Medicare and more.

Capital reporter Susan Raff joins us, covering Connecticut's capital for Eyewitness News, channel three.

How are you today?

Good morning.

Doing well.

We are going into session today, the House and Senate.

And I can't wait to talk to you about it.

Folks, you want to join the conversation?

Maybe you want to throw a hard question at Susan.

I'm welcoming it today.

You could join the conversation.

8887209677I know that Susan would welcome it because you're going to be traveling from here on Asylum Avenue in Hartford down to the Capitol in just a few moments to cover the session.

You know what we've seen in the last week or so is very unusual, because Governor Lamont had vetoed a bill that would have given $43 million for special education, and the legislature did this while he was away in India.

On business trip.

He was, trying to court businesses, to come here and employees.

But, in the event that they had this, session and they approved this, Governor Lamont vetoed it, not because he doesn't think that special education is important because of the fact that we don't have the money in the budget right now, the budget is balanced.

But in the end, so it was a back and forth roller coaster.

And now there seems to be some agreement with the governor and, the House and Senate leaders, and they're going to take that money out of the state's surplus.

So instead of voting to override the governor's veto, which was supposed to happen today, they're going to appropriate that money.

But no doubt it showed a real rift between the governor and his Democratic colleagues.

Why are we talking about special education?

Is the words that, the lawmakers are using.

But why are we talking about funding for students with disabilities?

Why is this important now?

Why does it have, national ramifications?

Well, it's a huge.

Issue, for schools, obviously.

And in fact, Republicans and Democrats are on board with this.

I mean, I think Connecticut has some 43,000 teachers and educators, and it's very expensive, to provide, teaching and resources for kids with special needs.

Everyone agrees with that.

So even if you felt that it goes outside, you know, fiscal responsibility.

How do you go home as a lawmaker to your town and say, well, I didn't vote for this because it's not fiscally responsible.

So cities and towns want this because municipalities are paying for this.

So it's an important, you know, expenditure for sure.

In fact, the governor has more money in his budget in 2027.

But it's going to go forward.

And I should also point out that educators were very vocal on this.

They've been rallying and talking to lawmakers pushing for this money.

Schools need this.

Money, but some of the money that the state gets from the federal government can stand up education, or at least some block grants that they get.

Right.

And that's why I'm sure they're concerned that maybe money's going to go away soon.

Well, I think that's the elephant in the room.

I think that a lot of, states, including Connecticut, are not quite sure what they're going to get from the federal government if, President Trump, you know, gets rid of, the Board of Education.

What does that mean?

For states like Connecticut.

So I think the governor is aware of that and mentioned that, when he was talking yesterday that, you know, we need to be cognizant of that.

And Connecticut may have to hold on to its rainy day fund and its reserve fund, which is are both healthy at this time.

But they need that money in case there is a rainy day.

I want to underscore this and circle back.

You're saying that they're finding some surplus money to go back now and and fund this priority to support children, with disabilities.

Right.

There's about I think about anywhere you talk about, whose numbers are 350 to 390, 100,000 in the so close to 400,000 in the surplus.

So they're going to take 43 million of that.

And where they're going to, you know, find money throughout the year, that remains to be seen.

But they're going to do that right now because I think everyone agrees that it's important.

But it is a significant amount of money.

And it does go, you know, outside of what the budget already has in place.

The rainy day is here.

It it very well might be.

It might be.

I think there's so much uncertainty in states like Connecticut, which are feeling pretty good in the sense that we do have a surplus.

We do have a reserve fund.

You know, our budget is balanced.

But, you know, federal funding, is very important for so many things.

So if some of that money doesn't come through, I mean, recently the President Trump, President Trump said, you know, states like Connecticut could lose transportation, money if they don't make enough babies.

And I think people like what?

Or if they continue to be a safe harbor for safe harbor.

There are many caveats and conditions.

Right.

So that is very for undocumented migrants.

Sorry.

That's what.

It comes.

It comes with strings attached.

Yeah, yeah.

About 800,000 Connecticut residents are on Medicaid and thousands more kids are covered under Husky.

The children.

I'm a former husky, folk.

Back in the day, the children's health insurance program state relies on federal funding to pay for half of those programs.

If federal funding is cut, what's the shortfall the state faces?

Well, I think everyone's paying close attention to Medicaid.

Right.

And, you know, we saw that last night unfold, with Representative Greene, who was concerned about that listening to the president's speech.

You know, if those programs are gutted, Connecticut already has a huge shortfall of Medicaid.

That's another very big expenditure for the state.

So that is a concern.

But the.

Point is that it's supposed to be Medicaid is state and federal.

It's like a joint program, right?

That's correct.

But if federal funding doesn't come through and we're already, you know, in a hole with, you know, a deficit with, Medicaid, you know, what happens.

So I think there's a lot of uncertainty going forward.

And at the end of the session, you know, the lawmakers and the governor have to agree on a two year budget, going forward.

But right now, today, they're going to appropriate more money for special education.

State has a rainy day fund, as we just mentioned.

We talked about maybe the rainy day being here, the fiscal guardrails in place to help the state put money away in the budget reserves and cover long term debts in the case that federal funding does dry up because you're talking about the uncertainty.

There's so much uncertainty.

We've spoken to people at the New York Times recently, David Farenthold, who said that a lot of that money that's being turned off, those assets aren't getting turned back on.

And I would imagine, you know, that as well.

So help me understand, what they would dip into the rainy day fund for, is it.

They're going to do that, I would imagine, for, funding, students that need this, these resources in the classroom, maybe even Medicaid.

What do you think?

Are they actually going to do it?

You know, it's hard to say.

I mean, everybody agrees that the fiscal guardrails were put in place for a very good reason.

It was bipartisan support to control spending.

And pay down debt, mainly pension debt for state workers.

And it's really worked at saving us hundreds of millions of dollars in interest money that we can use for other things.

So everyone wants to abide by that?

I think the House speaker said at the start of the session, you know, if we're going to put X amount of money, you know, down to pay off debt, you know, why not take, a couple of hundred, or a few thousand or a million or whatever and put that into something else.

That's an a long term investment, whether it be child care, whether it be, you know, special education.

So it really is a balance.

What goes forward I don't know I don't know what they're necessarily agree on.

This is what they're going to do today and how that affects them going forward.

And if their hands are tied their hands are tied.

How many do we have in surpluses in reserves?

We've got about $5 billion or something like that.

Connecticut.

Something like that.

Or maybe it's around 4 billion, but 43 million for, the special education that they're trying to come up with does seem like kind of a drop in the bucket.

So they're they're kind of wrangling over that 43 million.

Am I right to give you this ugly face that I keep making while you're talking here on this interview?

I'm almost grimacing.

I guess it's.

Going to go to every.

You know, you have to divide that.

Amongst absolutely.

Every school.

This year, something very unusual happened.

We heard from, superintendents and mayors from some of the biggest cities in Connecticut.

In addition to special needs, a lot of, students in the cities are high needs, too.

So the lights, districts, you have to write.

It's a very big expense, for schools.

And they need that funding.

And you can only go to taxpayers so much, right?

You can go to your town, you know, taxpayers, and say, okay, well, we're facing this.

You know, we need more money.

So the state has to be part of the solution if we want to help those kids succeed.

But it is an expenditure that right now, Republicans and Democrats, in fact, Republicans wanted to spend a lot more on special education.

But the key to that is they wanted to do it early on while they were crafting the budget.

Not now that the budget is already in place.

And I'm not just talking about the children that are impacted about this.

I'm talking about Medicaid, too.

And nonprofits are looking for more money.

We know traditionally higher ed is looking for more money.

So I know that there's.

So that's why I grimace a little bit to wonder if they're going to be able to find money for all these things that they need to find.

And meanwhile, state lawmakers are debating possible solutions for the high cost of energy.

We're going to have a fun conversation on this one.

Much of the discussion, as I understand it, is about how to regulate energy companies and even how to regulate the regulator.

That's the big sense.

Yeah, sure.

I think that that's a very explosive issue right now.

And there are a lot of factors that go into energy costs.

And I think the state is trying to figure out or state lawmakers, you know, how they can bring down costs and have a long term energy plan at a time when we're consuming more energy than we ever have, right?

So, you know, we're being, pushed to have electric cars and heat pumps and, you know, let's face it, our our demand for electricity.

But the key factor here is trying to figure out what role pure the Public Utilities Regulatory Authority, plays in all of this Regulator.

The regulator.

And who should be on that board and should they be independent right now Pia, which regulates the utilities is part of deep right.

And that's a state agency.

And I believe that Governor Malloy did that, to try to consolidate and save money.

Some would like it to be independent.

So that it would have more you know, obviously independence and not be part of a state agency.

Some would like to see more commissioners or board members, on that.

But it is an excellent save issue.

There was a big, behind the scenes deal going on between, Republicans, mostly Democrats to figure out, well, if we put one person on state, Senator John Fonfara, Republicans can put someone, maybe Holly Cheeseman, who lost her seat in the election.

But there's so much going on there.

But they're going to have to figure that out and restore the public's trust.

That pure, who or whatever agency regulates those authorities is doing the right thing for ratepayers.

I've been having trouble trying to frame this conversation to you the right way, at least to try to fix it.

It's very complicated.

But.

To try to and I imagine it's hard for you to do this now and regurgitate it back to our to our state audience.

But just help me understand what this has to do.

Ultimately, with trying to save money on our energy bills is the idea that if you make pure a more independent and it worked for you, we can now trust them in their in their job of regulating these utility companies.

Just kind of help me understand.

Well, yes.

And some feel those who support Marissa Glad who just got, reappointed by the Executive Nominations Committee.

Although it's not over, she still has to be approved by the General Assembly.

But some feel that she's unpopular because she has pushed back against the utilities and said, you know, I you know, they were fined, for their mishandling of storms.

I believe Isaias was one, and they paid a price for that.

They've not had a rate hike, since I think 2018 or 2019.

So some feel that she's done a very good job trying to keep that down, but I think the average person doesn't understand if they haven't been approved a rate hike, how come we're paying more?

And that has to do with, you know, the public benefits, portion.

And it's not just the moratorium or the money that was put in place by the legislature.

And keep in mind, a lot of the things that are in that public benefit charge are were approved by the legislature.

Some of that money was to help people who couldn't pay their bills during the pandemic.

But a significant portion of that is a surcharge from millstone, which was part of the deal pushed by Republicans, to get that deal through the legislature, Democrats.

That's correct.

So I think everybody shares in some responsibility for that.

What's the timeline for a resolution there?

What are we looking at?

Is this going to be solved by the end of the session?

Could this go, what is it?

June 6th is the last day or something like this could have gone.

I, I really hope so.

I think that it's an important issue.

I think that she has to go through the General Assembly.

Will she get enough votes?

Possibly.

But they have to do something because that's a distraction, in a sense, from what needs to happen and a long term plan of getting rates down and increasing supply.

I mean, you hear that all the time.

And that is part of this, that Connecticut has to increase its supply.

And whether that's with, pumping out more nuclear power, whether it's fixing, what's happening with wind power, solar, we have to look at many things, but Connecticut has to increase its supply.

But our rate's going to get very, very cheap.

I'm not really sure that.

I mean, I think Connecticut also, people live in very big homes and have big cars.

And, you know, we consume a lot of electricity.

One of the things that I think, a lot of people support and I would like to see this happen, is smart meters are smart meters.

They do that in Massachusetts where you put that on the outside of your home, and you can see what you use and when you use and it's more expensive giving people more, knowledge about the power that they're using is very important.

If I'm tuning in to Eyewitness News Channel three, either tomorrow night or tonight, what else are you going to be looking out for in the Capitol to talk to, your listeners about your viewers?

Yeah, I don't know.

I think we're going to follow the session, today, and see what happens.

I mean, I don't think that's going to be any big surprise.

You know, what else are we following?

Keith Richards.

He's getting word from the governor.

The governor's always finding ways to honor these.

These?

Well, here's an interesting development that came this week.

So I told the station, I said, well, if you're going to go down to Westport and, cover Keith Richards, which is very exciting, why don't you find Jan Tucker?

Right?

She is the select woman in, Westport who has now put her hand, in the ring, for, or had in the ring for, governor.

So the race gods are we have always working.

Yes.

With that that that's what that Susan Raff always working.

Always working for.

You can find her on Eyewitness News channel three.

Thank you so much.

Chief political reporter for Wfsb.

Very nice to have you on.

Thank you.

Thank you very.

Much for all the information happening at the Capitol.

I hope so.

You can join the conversation.

88872096778887209677.

Coming up next, we're going to talk about criminal justice reform in Connecticut.

You're listening to Connecticut Public Radio.

Support comes from premiere concerts and presents, bringing Lake Street Dive and Lawrence to Westville music Bowl in New Haven on Friday, September 5th.

Lake Street dive Friday, September 5th in New Haven.

Tickets at Westville music.

Bolcom.

Rarely does one scientific idea fundamentally change our perspective on reality.

But that's what happened 100 years ago when quantum mechanics took shape in 1925.

How was it being used today?

Why is the key to all of our futures?

And how many of us truly understand what it is?

We put your quantum questions to the experts next time on Wednesday.

Coming up this morning at 11 on Friday, December 5th, the Dukes of Funny Town tour, starring Steve Martin and Martin Short comes to the Toyota Oakdale Theater in Wallingford to win tickets and for contest rules.

Go to CT public.org/contest.

Entries must be received by end of day Friday.

In New England.

The weather is always changing.

Listen for forecast for meteorologist Garrett Georgianna during Morning Edition and all Things Considered.

Support comes from the Wadsworth Atheneum Museum of Art.

Support for Connecticut Public Radio comes from live well.

Redefine life with dementia your way.

Come explore what Live Well can offer during the next open house March 15th, from 11 to 1 for details and to register, visit Live well.org.

This is the wheelhouse from Connecticut Public Radio.

I'm Frankie Graziano.

Right now, Connecticut is grappling with massive payouts for wrongful convictions.

Racial disparities in jury selection, long wait times in criminal courts, and more.

So how just is Connecticut's criminal justice system?

With me this hour to explore this question is Jacqueline Rabe Thomas, investigative reporter for Hearst Connecticut Media, my former colleague.

Hi, Jackie.

Hey.

Hey.

How's it going?

It's going well.

Good to see it.

Mark pass Newark is Capital bureau chief and co-founder of the Connecticut Mirror.

Good to see you this morning.

Good to see you.

Nice to have you on.

We're going to have a nice criminal justice conversation, and we're going to be joined by Mercy Kay, founder and president at the Narrative Project.

She is with us via zoom, I believe.

How are you?

Mercy.

Can you hear me?

Mercy.

Yo, Frankie.

How's it going?

Yeah.

You just wanted to wait.

You're doing great.

You're in here, Frankie.

You're.

You're respecting.

You're respecting the distance that we have between one another right now.

But I believe we're matching as well.

Yes, exactly.

Okay, there you are.

I just wanted to make sure that you could hear me.

Mercy.

Great to have you here.

You're from the Narrative Project.

Thank you for the work that you do there.

I believe that you also sponsor Connecticut Public.

So I just want to make sure Narrative Project does.

So I want to make sure I make that note of transparency there.

And you can join the conversation.

88872096778 and 87209677.

Before we get into the specifics, I want to look at the full picture.

I'm going to do this with Mercy Connecticut making efforts to improve the criminal justice system in previous years, what were some of those key improvements and are they ongoing efforts or have they stalled?

What do you think?

You know, I think they're ongoing efforts.

I think overall, you know, I would I would look at the state and I would say that the grade, our partners, the narrative project may give the state is a c-plus at best.

Let's talk about things like, reducing recidivism and improving other outcomes from young adults.

I think this is a big, big, effort happening in Connecticut and with advocates throughout the state.

I think organizations, doing reentry work, are to to credit for a lot of this work.

But overall, I also see efforts like in 2010, Larissa Asia, for removing the responsibility of criminality or criminal responsibility, rather from 16 to 18 was a big move.

And then again in 2020, reformers were asking that the next thing we need to do to raise the ages, move to protect children under 12 from arrests altogether.

So there are these, movements happening throughout the state.

I would say advocates and reformers are a great deal of that credit, or take a great deal of that credit, for sure.

I believe the grade that you gave them was on a scale of the work that they're doing.

But now let's try to figure out, as, as compared to the rest of the country, are we particularly just in that regard?

Should we even look at it that way?

I think we can look at it that way.

And, you know, to some degree, our national landscape requires us to see our neighbors and see how we're doing.

There's the tale of two states here in Connecticut, though, and I think that's a big piece, no matter what is happening on the criminal justice side, if we are not, really taking a look at the root cause of crime for young people and for people experiencing poverty, we're not actually going to see, the, the results that we want to see, there's large disparities in income or disparities in education.

And until we look at those root causes, we're actually not, going to see those effects pan out for the people who need it most.

And so will I say, Connecticut is, particularly just state perceptions around, black and brown people and low income people are really impacting that assessment.

For me.

Recent years, Connecticut sometimes been held up as a model for criminal justice reform.

But the racial disparities remain.

And you kind of just hinted at that, especially in jury pools, as I understand it, the Connecticut Mirror recently reported on a case where an all white jury acquitted a white police detective who shot and killed a black teenager in the north end of Hartford.

How are we doing?

I guess in regards to jury disparities, racial disparities in jury selection as compared to other states.

And that's for Marc, because you're on screen now because I believe you wrote that story.

Thought sorry, I thought that was for mercy I apologize.

You go ahead.

I did not write that story.

One of my colleagues wrote that story.

Jenna.

Carla's so, yeah, yeah, she looked at the data and that, it's still an issue in Connecticut.

I, I don't have a lot of analysis to give you right now, but yes, it's a continuing issue.

Connecticut, still has individual voir dire, which means prosecutors and defense lawyers can individually question, folks.

So, I don't know that how common it is, but there is an effort.

There's a bill in to try to, guard against that and to encourage greater participation.

Connecticut cast a pretty broad net about who is going to be in a jury pool.

You know, if you are a registered voter, if you are a taxpayer, if you have a driver's license, you can be, summoned.

One of my daughters, when she was, I don't know, ten years old because she had a tax number, because we had opened up a bank account.

She got a jury summons when she was ten, which she thought was cool.

She was she was willing to serve, but they they thought it was not a good idea.

The point of doing that, though, is that supposed to be so that everybody can participate in the criminal justice system or we.

So getting so far afoul of that.

Yeah.

No, absolutely.

And you know, I covered courts for eight years.

And I will say that you tended to see diversity, in the juries, and the, the one time I served on a jury, it was a very diverse, group of folks.

We're seeing it less now.

I mean, that was I was surprised, quite frankly, by our story that that that was still the case.

That was I will I will admit that was not my impression of our jury system.

This is where I was going.

In February, you reported on state data showing that Connecticut's crime rate fell during the first three quarters of 2024.

We know this kind of significant well, what we're seeing with national crime numbers as well.

I mean, excuse me, consistent with what we're seeing with national crime data as well, was this drop significant?

And could this be a sign that maybe the state's moving in a more safe direction, or what advocates might say is safer?

I think some of what we saw was a return to the trend that was in place prior to Covid.

Covid, you know, was a two year anomaly on crime statistics.

Crime did go up.

Incarcerations went down because of, the court system was moving slowly.

They set a lot of trials aside.

So you have to keep that in mind.

But what the Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection is trying to do is don't wait to the fall and then issue a report that gives you a statistical snapshot that's a year old.

And so that was the new thing, this month, I last month, when they put out those partial figures and, and the ones for the third quarter of last year may ultimately be revised.

I mean, these were preliminary, but yeah, the trend line, it looks like we've returned to where we were prior to Covid.

Connecticut has its own data scientists.

Now, can you tell me who Michael Mascara is?

And, what this has to do with what we're talking about here today?

His background was public health.

He was kind of an epidemiological, epidemiologist, data guy for the city of Hartford.

He says there are, parallels, you know, tracking crime and tracking disease.

You know, you're looking for trends, you're looking for hotspots, you're looking for data that can inform public policy and and direct people to take certain actions.

You know, we certainly learned a lot about that during Covid.

About where the hotspots were.

Get a sense of what's working, what's not working.

You know, I think they oversold what they're doing a little bit as far as how it's going to inform local police departments, as well as the Connecticut State Police.

The bigger police departments have been tracking crime trends, really, on a real time basis for a while.

I mean, this goes back to what New York Police Department began doing in, I think it's 93, 94 under William Bratton, their, their police commissioner, and they called the CompStat.

And the idea is again having on a weekly basis, looking at where the problems are occurring.

Can you redeploy your officers, you know, should you be, setting up undercovers in a certain neighborhood?

You know, so having these quarterly numbers come out, I'm not sure really how that's going to inform actual police work, but it does give the public a more up to date view of what's going on.

Jackie, this is prevention.

We're talking about preventing crime, which is something that's obviously always buzzy, when we're talking about criminal justice, it's not essentially why we brought you here today.

We want to talk about people that are already entangled in the system.

And the recent report you did on wait times in courts, how long are people waiting for their courses or their cases to be heard in court?

Yeah.

So over the last five years, the wait for a case to go through the criminal justice system, the judicial branch, in the courts has increased by 50%.

It is now taking for the average felony conviction one year and five months.

But if you look at some of the more serious crimes, Class-A felonies, it for a conviction, it takes over three years.

And for someone to be acquitted, it takes over four years on average.

And so what that means are dozens of court appearances where people have to go to court, to hear their cases being continued.

I talked to several people and witnessed several people, sitting in court communicating their frustration with whether they're going to be able to pick up their kids from the bus stop on time because courts starting, you know, 2 or 3 hours late or, paying their attorney to sit there in court or, or, missing their job, another time.

And so the courts really are, not equipped to, to quickly process, these cases.

And, you know, there is, due process concerns by, some criminal defense attorneys.

But also by victim advocates who say the longer a case takes to cross the finish line, you have witnesses who aren't willing to participate or want to move on with their lives.

And so, this idea that you will it takes just so long for the courts to really handle cases, is problematic on both sides for both victims and defendants.

When when you talk about how cases are being processed, you know, there's about 100,000 cases, people who are charged every single year.

There's only 130 trials each year in the state of Connecticut.

So, almost all cases that are handled in the state of Connecticut, are adjudicated through plea deals.

And so, a lot of people who come in through the system leave the system with a criminal conviction because of that reason, because, due process of getting cases to trial.

There's a lot of research that shows when cases go to trial.

It questions the evidence that prosecutors have, whether it is adequate, whether the the police descriptions of what they saw, is adequate.

Use it to look at the body camera footage, through the the story that I wrote, it showed that, motions to dismiss evidence, things like that are all being held for the most part, until time of trial or until a case gets on a trial list.

And so, people are having to make plea deals at the same time.

What the they don't know if the evidence against them is substantial or with will be upheld.

And the issue with due process is they might be in the situation in the first place just because, not because of innocence or guilt, but mostly because they just can't afford to pay bail and they're being stuck in the system.

Yeah.

So, data indicates and, and experts that I interviewed shows that there's about 400 people in any given month who, go to court and don't return.

And the the explanation that was given to me was that, they go to court from a correctional facility, sorry.

And they don't return because they're taking a plea deal.

So, they're literally pleading.

Taking a plea deal in order to leave prison.

You know, a lot of people have communicated that the bail system is in need of reform.

There have been efforts to do that.

And there has been some progress on that front at, in the state.

But but by and large, there's still a large population who is being incarcerated.

About one out of every three people who are incarcerated in the state are there pretrial?

Well, mercy, can you dive into why we might need reform for the bail system and who's most impacted by the situation we talk about with long criminal court wait times?

Yeah, I think what is important to know here and I want to I want to side note and say, I'm often the friend who, you know, five minutes into a conversation, I go into talking about how capitalism is killing us all.

I think we need to really, consider the fact that crime is a natural consequence of capitalism.

And, going back to the conversation on root causes, you know, of course, our bail system needs to be reformed.

Of course, you know, we can look at the data and see that Connecticut is doing better.

Considering crime rate is down in a number of ways.

But I think one of the biggest issues that we see with the bail system is that black and brown and folks from historically underserved and low income communities are being most impacted by the, cash bail system and specifically for nonviolent offenses as well.

What we need to be doing in our state as the advocates that we work with, say a great deal, is we need to be eliminating cash bail for nonviolent offenses and expanding pretrial services altogether.

I think when we think about those nonviolent offenses, people sit in jail simply just because they can't afford it.

They can't afford to get out of jail.

Right.

It turns out that the game of monopoly that we were all playing as kids is just a real game.

It's just the game of life, right?

And, if you can't afford to get out of jail free card, you stay there.

And what that means is that, you know, families who might have someone, maybe their, their primary, primary breadwinner has been, arrested for a crime they may or may not have, committed.

But it doesn't matter because it's pretrial.

So in our state and country, everyone is, innocent until proven guilty.

But here in our state, we are seeing more and more of that.

You are imprisoned until you can afford not to be.

And these individuals who can't afford not to be.

Let's talk about the perception that that ends up having on the, on the jury.

Right.

And the perception of, for, for that individual who is sitting in prison pretrial every time they are in a, jury appearance or appearance before a jury, if they are sitting in prison and they, are escorted out by, officers and guards, that just changes the perception of criminality for that individual.

So a lot of the issues that we are seeing here, are compounded.

Just because I can't afford to leave this cell.

It might be hard for some of you to hear mercy say that, you're imprisoned until you can't afford, until you can no longer.

You can afford not to be.

But Jackie's reporting, certainly, backs that up.

And a lot of people that, mercy meets through the, through the narrative project backs that up.

Mark.

Go ahead.

Do you want to jump in?

You're going to happen.

Well, I mean, I just want to expand on something Jackie said.

So one of the reasons you see these plea deals, people quite often the deal is if you plead guilty, we'll agree to a sentence for time served.

So that's really a temptation, an understandable temptation of here's the door will open and let you go.

Today if you plead guilty, as opposed to fighting this through trial and, and that, you know, even prosecutors will acknowledge that's a very real dynamic in our court system.

I wanted to talk to you about the story you recently did.

You can find it at CT mirror.org.

Regarding, the five there was, there was a, there was, these wrongful convictions that Connecticut paid out.

There was, I think, $37 million or something like that.

You give me the figure, but five out of the eight, men that were paid out, I believe, were black men.

So Connecticut has a long history of of, taking a very deliberate approach to how to compensate wrongfully convicted people.

And it's evolved over the years.

But we have, actually the the General Assembly today is expected to give final approval to eight wrongful conviction claims.

And it's, I don't want to mislead people.

The fact that we're getting a bunch at one time.

This also reflects there was a backlog at the, claims commissioner's office.

Connecticut has a new claims commissioner named Bob Shea, who everybody gives rave reviews to for moving through the black backlog.

But one of the consequences of that is, you know, on one agenda, we're going to have, $37.6 million in settlements for eight different case claimants.

Five of them happened to be black men, all convicted, for crimes committed in New Haven.

The police chief of New Haven, Carl Jacobson.

You know, says this obviously is something they take note of.

But these convictions, you know, they're they're all pretty much 20 years ago.

So the question is, is this reflected in New Haven police today or 20 years ago, or a mix of the other mix of the two?

Connecticut has, you know, this this began during the age of DNA testing, right?

The first the first one was a man named James Tillman.

And Connecticut had no system.

This was in 2007.

And this was somebody who was convicted of a rape based on, a lineup and identification or a photo array identification, and there was no corroborating physical evidence.

He later was exonerated, based on DNA testing, and another man was convicted, the second wrongful conviction that was overturned and they made a big payout was a guy named Ken Ireland, who was convicted of a rape and a murder.

Same thing.

He was exonerated by DNA evidence and another man was convicted.

So those were two easy cases in the sense that there was no doubt of actual innocence.

These things now have evolved.

For what do we owe somebody who was convicted on the basis of perhaps prosecutorial misconduct, police misconduct?

That's the case with some of these claims that are going forward today.

And that became a more difficult decision.

You know, are they actually innocent or are they victims of prosecutorial misconduct?

And Connecticut has changed its standard in that case.

To, really tilt in favor of people who were deemed to have been wrongfully convicted.

We only got, about ten or so minutes left in the show.

We're gonna try to squeeze in a quick break right now, you're listening to the Wheelhouse on Connecticut Public.

Back with Jackie, Mark and mercy.

Right after these words.

This is the wheelhouse from Connecticut Public Radio I'm Frankie Graziano.

There's a number of criminal justice initiatives being considered this legislative session in Connecticut, from reducing free access to public defenders to funding cuts for the electronic tablets and messaging incarcerated people used to communicate with friends and family on the outside.

Here to help me break it down, Jackie Rabe Thomas, investigative reporter at Hearst Connecticut Media Group.

Mark Passage is Capitol bureau chief and founder, a co-founder of the Connecticut Mirror.

And Mercy Grace, she's on zoom.

Joining us right now, with the Narrative Project.

You could join the conversation.

(888)720-9677 Connecticut Governor Jackie Ned Lamont recently announced this two year budget proposal, his plan touching on defendants access to public defenders.

What changes are being proposed?

So this past January, more people were able to access free attorneys in the public defender's office if they were facing criminal charges.

The amount was raised from 200% of the federal poverty level to 250%.

And Governor Lamont is proposing ending that and taking it back to that 200% of the federal poverty level.

Just to sort of put that in perspective, what that means is, if somewhat a single person, if they're facing a criminal charge, they were able to are currently able to get access to a free public defender.

If they're making under $39,000, the governor's proposal would scale that back to about $30,000.

And so that would save the state about $6.3 million a year.

And so back to what I was talking about earlier.

I heard from several people who were able to afford, an attorney for their criminal matter in criminal court, in the Superior Court.

But if they wanted to appeal, they now qualify for a public defender because it costs so much money.

I talked to one individual who spent $300,000 just to pay for attorneys to get through that four year process to be acquitted.

And so you're talking about people who, by any means.

I don't think $39,000 is is a lot of money.

And so those people would now need to pay for their own private attorney if they're facing criminal charges.

Why are we talking about electronic tablets and messaging for incarcerated people?

Again, a savings, for the state when the budget, the governor's budget secretary came before the Appropriations Committee, he said it's a nice to have, not a necessity.

Necessity?

I think.

You're in that.

Your, your advocates and those incarcerated will say it's a lifeline to the outside.

Most people will leave prison who are in prison again.

One third of the people are there pretrial.

And so recidivism rates show that building those connections and research shows are how they're building those connections with their community, helps them transition back into the community.

That would save about $3.5 million a year for the state.

And because essentially the cost is for the state to have correction officers monitor those communications for safety concerns.

The you have to remember that the co-chair of the Appropriations Committee is a former correction officer.

Kathy Austin was a correction officer for 21 years.

She is outraged by this cut.

As Jackie, said, it's so important to have these folks still in touch with families because the vast majority will get out.

It's also disciplinary tool.

If if people are acting out in prison, this is one of the privileges that privileges that's taken away.

So there are not many privileges like that that that can be used for disciplinary reasons.

So the correction professionals really think this is a bad decision for many reasons.

And Commissioner Carol's made clear at the public hearing that he is more sympathetic to Senator Austin's view of this and the advocates, as opposed to Jeff back on the budget, the secretary.

In the last couple of minutes of the show here, I want to have you describe who, Robbie Talbott is to us.

Car.

Carl.

Robbie Talbott.

And, why his mother, Colleen Lord has been speaking to lawmakers in recent years.

And then I want mercy to have a chance to respond to that.

But give us an idea of why lawmakers are expressing horror over what's happened to Robbie.

Robbie Talbott was somebody who had diagnosed mental illnesses at a criminal record.

That was all, you know, misdemeanors.

It was criminal trespass, petty theft, that kind of thing.

But because of his illness, he did not abide by, conditions of of probation.

And he was violated.

He was jailed at Whaley Avenue, then Haven Correctional Center.

He refused.

One day to leave a shower.

He had he had had, he had had a bit of a breakdown.

He had smeared his cell with feces and was taken for a shower.

And he lay down, refused to get up, and, he was sprayed with pepper spray twice in the shower, again in an elevator and again finally in his cell.

And he also was physically restrained and he he died.

And, there's a settlement on the table that's probably going to be approved today of $3.75 million, but it raises broader questions about, you know, the intersection of mental illness and criminal behavior.

And this is a longstanding story, a longstanding problem of the ability of police and corrections officials to recognize when you need to de-escalate and went to step away.

And in this case, you know, a young man died and his mother, Colleen Lord, who sued and is about to get a big settlement, but she wants to use that for to help similarly situated people.

She also part of the settlement is interesting.

She wants to be part of the training for correction officers.

So that's that's a fascinating thing.

The smearing of the feces thing is such a is such a visual that you hear a lot about.

Actually, if you have conversations with people that work in these fields.

But again, then the question remains, that's an image that people want you to see.

But what about the image of somebody dying and, suffocating from fumes and the whole thing that happened to Robbie Talbott?

That's something that should also stay with me.

There was the supervisor who sprayed him four times, was immediately suspended.

And he he retired.

He had his 20 plus years, and he retired with 100 grand.

Pension.

Mercy.

You get the last minute or so here to tell us.

I know there's a lot of pressure to put on you now, but what could lawmakers be doing to prevent something like that from happening again?

What should they be doing at least?

You know, I think, you know, narrative we talk a lot about the the ratio or the combination of, perception and policy, like what needs to be changed first, public opinion or policy.

And I think it's a combination of a few things.

This segment is not unlike the previous segment.

I think that the reality is there is a public opinion that trickles up and down our systems everywhere, from the governor's assessment that telecommunication with the outside world is an important down to the way that, correctional officers treat individuals who are incarcerated.

It is this perception that once you are in those handcuffs at any part of the, process, right once are in those handcuffs, you are deemed and perceived as guilty.

And that changes the way that people, interact with those folks that they consider to be guilty.

If if we're talking about whether something like this is rare, it is absolutely not.

I'm, I'm led to think about Aaron Freeman, the, Waterbury resident who was shot, and killed by New Haven police officers not too long ago.

Mubarak Solomon here in New Haven.

Randy Cox, the 36 year old who was paralyzed in police custody.

This is not a rare thing.

And I think, if we're talking about how do we fix this in our state, it is things like having Talbot's mother involved in police training, as well as ensuring that public opinion and policy are are there to support the system.

That's mercy.

Okay.

You've also heard from Mark pass.

New York is capital bureau chief and co-founder of the Connecticut Mirror.

Thank you mercy.

She's from the Narrative Project.

We also work with the Narrative Project.

Just wanted to make that out there for transparency.

And Jackie Rabe Thomas who works at CT insider.

Thank you so much.

Thank you so much for your stories, guys.

Thanks, Frankie.

Before we go, an update on an important person in our state's history.

In 2008, Tracie Wilson and Beth BI were the first two women to marry in Connecticut after the state's highest court ruled in favor of same sex marriage.

Wilson died on February 23rd.

She had been living with metastatic melanoma for nearly a decade.

Tracy was a champion of Lgbtq+ rights and a longtime educator in West Hartford.

Important to that West Hartford community, teaching kids at Conrad High, she taught the town two.

She was its historian, publishing a compilation of essays called Life in West Hartford.

I reached out to Wilson's wife, Beth BI, recently.

The former state senator recently took a leave from her job at the Lamont administration as the commissioner of the State Office of Early Childhood.

To be with Wilson of her wife, Beth said, quote, she really was such a force, yet she was so calm.

I'm the luckiest person I know to have had her choose to marry me.

Tracy Wilson was 70.

That's it for the wheelhouse this week.

Thank you so much.