A Connecticut Republican running for the 5th Congressional District nomination is at the center of an unusual legal dispute that has turned a political campaign into a courtroom fight over free speech, criminal history, and the legal limits of a state pardon.
The Lawsuit
Jonathan De Barros, 47, filed a defamation lawsuit against four Connecticut Republicans who called him “a murderer” — both on social media and during the GOP nominating convention. De Barros is seeking monetary damages and a gag order against the defendants.
The defendants have pushed back with a counterclaim, arguing that De Barros is weaponizing the court system to silence critics engaged in protected political speech. They also contend that calling him a murderer meets the legal standard of “substantial truth.”
What Happened in 1996
The underlying incident is not in dispute. In October 1996, an 18-year-old De Barros shot and killed one young man and wounded another outside a recreation center in Waterbury. He was convicted of murder, attempted murder, and assault with a firearm and sentenced to life in prison.
The Connecticut State Appellate Court overturned that conviction in July 2000 and ordered a new trial. That second trial ended in a hung jury. De Barros subsequently pleaded guilty to manslaughter under the Alford Doctrine — an arrangement that allows a defendant to accept a plea without admitting factual guilt — and was released from prison in 2015 after nearly 19 years of incarceration.
The Pardon
In March 2022, the state Board of Pardons and Paroles granted De Barros an absolute pardon, expunging his arrest record. The practical effect was significant: a parole supervisor notified De Barros in writing that he could “truthfully state you have never been arrested or convicted of a crime in the state of Connecticut as it relates to any of the convictions pardoned.”
That pardon now sits at the heart of the legal dispute. De Barros argues the pardon entitles him to be treated as though the convictions never occurred. His political opponents argue that the underlying facts — a man died — remain undeniably true regardless of what the state record reflects.
The Candidate’s Argument
De Barros has acknowledged the events of nearly 30 years ago while arguing that his record since then speaks for itself. “Most people are not the same they were 30 years ago,” he said.
The defamation case raises a question that courts have rarely had to answer in a political context: whether a legally pardoned individual can use civil litigation to prevent opponents from referencing conduct that the state has officially expunged but that demonstrably occurred.
The race for the 5th Congressional District Republican nomination has drawn attention well beyond typical primary politics. Connecticut’s political landscape is already in motion heading into the 2026 election cycle, with new state laws taking effect this summer on voting, zoning, and technology policy. The De Barros case adds a layer of legal complexity rarely seen in congressional primary contests.
No trial date has been publicly announced in the defamation proceeding. The outcome could set a notable precedent for how pardoned candidates navigate public scrutiny of their past — and how far political opponents may go in raising it.