[{"_1":2,"_88":-5,"_89":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6049948,"mediaKeyId","3506912-cb9f66d8e926dcda6b5e6fc27bd72f3a","parentId",3506912,"title","Committee considers forensic‑integrity bill after Colorado crime‑lab scandal; bill would require prompt reporting, victim notification and post‑conviction path","audioSeconds",5088,"startMs",7201000,"endMs",12289000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3506912-cb9f66d8e926dcda6b5e6fc27bd72f3a&start=7201&end=12289","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3506912-cb9f66d8e926dcda6b5e6fc27bd72f3a/thumbnail_7201000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6049948/Colorado/Committee-considers-forensicintegrity-bill-after-Colorado-crimelab-scandal-bill-would-require-prompt-reporting-victim-notification-and-postconviction-path","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6049948-1e5a55842a8d5d810190f496c9e3bbc8/orig.mp4?Expires=1771072186&Signature=S5yKeZmn-hXngeRPv1NLU6opPeugpuvju5muICappLi3XVbo7vB2U~RtDdqzjq12XoSLASSUipKoenwZGBYGvEaHSmkpHyCinKpQYengtmn5qjEnnE0vP0Syh~arD50A9w-X~BFFsROlqN1GsJYm6k9X7T0M~LVCRrEMp6DLAWKGFrg3seN5sqXf1k20afxuuqq9IzTZg0Hgx~3P4Xi~10ARarNUEc-sa8RfMR7Fa38vI-BRlX-xjfG3Vrwujtsq0vgMv5D1L91eYOzqOLSbxtch23pINZeFXreS5DlB5Wpv0LlqWb921G~im5lDZ30mRx~lTPTZuuxVu-6NyJJytA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Colorado State Legislature","date","2025-03-26T00:00:00Z","article","House Judiciary Committee members heard hours of testimony on legislation to create a statutory process for reporting, investigating and remediating deliberate forensic misconduct after revelations about an analyst at the Colorado Bureau of Investigation (CBI).

House Bill 12‑75 (Forensic Science Integrity Act), introduced by Rep. Matt Soper and co‑sponsored by Rep. Zokai, would require crime‑laboratory employees who discover \"knowing misconduct\" to report it to supervisors, require laboratory directors to investigate and notify prosecutors within seven days of an investigation opening, and — in sustained cases — provide lists of affected cases so prosecutors can notify defendants and, in certain circumstances, victims.

The bill also creates a narrow post‑conviction procedure for defendants whose convictions may have relied on evidence impacted by a sustained finding of knowing misconduct. The statute would give those defendants a right to counsel for the limited post‑conviction review, access to lab records and, when appropriate, a pathway to testing or a hearing where the defendant must show by a preponderance that the misconduct affected their case materially.

Committee testimony was divided but broad. The state public defender's office, the Colorado Innocence Project at the University of Colorado and defense attorneys supported the bill. They said defendants who were convicted based on evidence processed by the analyst implicated in the CBI scandal were effectively blocked from meaningful review because internal CBI investigative records have been held confidential and prosecutors’ disclosures have been uneven. The public defender's office requested a statutory, predictable path and the appointment of counsel so counsel could immediately begin fact‑finding and, if warranted, retesting.

\"We want a narrow, practical pathway so that defendants who may have been wrongfully convicted because of laboratory misconduct can get their cases reviewed,\" said James Karbach of the Office of the State Public Defender.

Advocates for people wrongfully convicted, including the Corey Wise Innocence Project, and forensic‑science experts said the bill is necessary to restore confidence in forensic testing. Dr. Laura Combs, a forensic DNA expert, told the committee that alleged deletions and data manipulations require independent review and that quality‑assurance records and access to original data are essential.

CBI deputy director Lance Allen testified in a soft‑amended support position. Allen said CBI had worked with sponsors but remained concerned that immediate, broad public notifications of uninvestigated allegations would risk reputational harm to laboratory staff and could impede retention of qualified forensic scientists. Allen urged the committee to preserve investigators' ability to complete an inquiry before widespread disclosure. Stuart stakeholders said the bill’s current amendment package narrows the required retrospective sweep to 11 years of electronic records and to cases where CBI’s internal investigation produced a sustained finding; that approach was intended to limit an otherwise very large retroactive workload.

Victim‑advocacy groups asked for explicit Victims' Rights Act protections in the bill so victims receive timely, direct notification and an opportunity to be heard before a case is reopened; COVA said relitigation can be deeply traumatic for victims.

The committee discussed fiscal implications. The JBC and sponsors previously appropriated funds to CBI and prosecutors to handle parts of the Missy Woods review; committee members asked whether the bill would create additional recurring costs. Sponsors and the public defender's office said many of the costs are investigative, episodic and would be incorporated into existing or one‑time appropriations, rather than driving a permanent, large FTE expansion. They urged the committee to treat the Missy Woods backlog as a one‑time remediation need while creating a procedural framework that will let the system respond quickly to any future misconduct.

Why it matters

Colorado prosecutors and defense counsel have reported difficulty obtaining consistent disclosures about which cases were affected by the CBI analyst's alleged misconduct; defendants may be serving time without knowledge that an analyst who processed evidence in their case is under investigation. The bill creates a statutory notice and a limited post‑conviction remedy so those cases can be reviewed in court with counsel and appropriate expert assistance.

Key provisions and points of contention

- Duty to report: Crime‑lab employees would be required to report suspected knowing misconduct within seven days to supervisors; lab directors would be required to investigate.
- Prosecutor notification: Prosecutors would receive investigation notices within seven days and full investigative results within 91 days; if an investigation sustains misconduct, the lab must provide a list of affected cases.
- Notice, discovery and counsel: Defendants named on the list would receive notification, have access to lab records and a statutory right to counsel for limited post‑conviction review; defendants must establish by preponderance that the misconduct was material to their conviction to obtain relief.
- Retroactivity: The bill narrows retroactive review to two buckets: (1) cases where CBI already has sustained internal findings and can deliver lists (near‑term, with an initial deadline to provide those lists), and (2) cases identified from internal affairs sustained findings over the last 11 years of electronic records.

Votes and next steps

No final committee vote was recorded on the bill in the transcript excerpt. Sponsors and stakeholders said they had made multiple amendments to narrow scope and reduce fiscal impact and that work would continue on the bill’s fiscal assumptions and on victims’ notification language.

Ending

Lawmakers framed the bill as a narrow, targeted response to a crime‑lab scandal, not a broad new cause of action. Supporters said the immediate priority is to ensure defendants and victims receive accurate notice and that courts can review whether forensic misconduct materially affected convictions. Opponents urged care to protect laboratory staff from unchecked reputational harm and to keep accreditation and investigative processes effective.

Notes

- Sponsors: Rep. Matt Soper (prime) and Rep. Zokai (co‑prime).
- Main proponents: Office of the State Public Defender, Corey Wise Innocence Project, forensic experts, defense bar.
- Key agency: Colorado Bureau of Investigation (CBI).
- Technical tools discussed: disclosure and discovery practices; 7‑day notice and 91‑day investigative reporting target; materiality and preponderance standard for post‑conviction relief.

Ending note

Committee members asked for continued refinement of the bill’s retroactivity, notification and fiscal provisions. Supporters urged that the legislature create a statutory mechanism now so defendants with potentially compromised forensic evidence can receive counsel and a timely, adversarial review of their cases.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","House Judiciary [Mar 26, 2025]","oneSentenceSummary","House Judiciary Committee members heard multiple hours of testimony on House Bill 12‑75, which would require prompt internal reporting and prosecutor notification of deliberate forensic misconduct, create victim‑notification standards and provide a narrow post‑conviction review path for defendants affected by sustained findings of \"knowing misconduct.\"","taxTitle","Judiciary, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Committees, Legislative, Colorado","taxId",43317,"location","Colorado","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6049953,"Colorado committee advances bill to better align prison sentences with parole eligibility for low‑level felonies",7029,156000,7185000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3506912-cb9f66d8e926dcda6b5e6fc27bd72f3a&start=156&end=7185","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3506912-cb9f66d8e926dcda6b5e6fc27bd72f3a/thumbnail_156000.jpg","/articles/6049953/Colorado/Colorado-committee-advances-bill-to-better-align-prison-sentences-with-parole-eligibility-for-lowlevel-felonies","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6049953-6fef2b1ab2a47057923b06cae867d0f1/orig.mp4?Expires=1771072186&Signature=bzh8E0Jb7B-szKAYvnMmYnWSfPEcSrfRp4LW~O74rKmHa1qsI6dE3Dd1JyokGlTsZQPcDKszosjWNW9h4bcftm4m9GS1ulb35AGauJy4Bz5uXsklFtfsaLB9PPM9wDI1vdfRzElgfnKa0P~BMQO7F-tkHnGOfc7L7-u0trMV5jQfguI2yLec83P-I720Nng~bZjQHnb6QCDIG4kKdI0TMLf1xqm8SZlh4k~c7jeCFm53qIFvG8bT9WmfW2dQ3QdS1chCGbwTAuUcXFrWR~oLtlw1yko1OQstw2tp-9oMx6wlrqI2bZfOUkTJggiFHKFC1P0jOlu5yJShzpUz1gRXqw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","House Judiciary Committee members voted to advance legislation aimed at improving how prison beds are used for people convicted of lower‑level felonies, after several hours of testimony from law enforcement, victims, corrections officials and reentry advocates.

House Bill 12‑14, introduced by Rep. Rob Clifford, would require courts to be informed when someone sentenced to prison arrives at the Department of Corrections (DOC) already past or within 90 days of their parole eligibility date, and would create narrower pathways for low‑ and very‑low risk parole presumptions while adding procedural changes for community corrections and parole notifications.

Supporters, including the Colorado Criminal Justice Reform Coalition and the Office of Respondent Parents Counsel, told the committee the bill closes an information gap that can leave people sentenced to short terms — often for Class 5 and Class 6 felonies — arriving in DOC too late to receive in‑prison programming, which increases recidivism risk and hinders rehabilitation. Natalie Perez of Stand Up for Families and Maureen Kane of the Office of the State Public Defender described cases in which people were moved far from family or arrived in prison after having already served much of the effective time owed because of pretrial detention and credit rules.

\"If someone comes into DOC already past their parole eligibility date, the court did not have the DOC time‑computation information when it imposed sentence,\" Rep. Clifford said. He and witnesses said the change would only apply to people who arrive at DOC after their parole eligibility date or within 90 days of it, and would not automatically release people from custody.

Opponents included the Colorado Association of Chiefs of Police and the Colorado Organization for Victim Assistance (COVA). Law‑enforcement witnesses warned that expanding presumptions of parole — or creating procedural shortcuts — could increase risk to victims and first responders. Chief Chris Noler of the Pueblo Police Department and Mark Rees of the Colorado Association of Chiefs of Police said earlier release or broadened parole presumptions could lead to higher recidivism and make supervision more difficult.

Victim witnesses and advocates described personal assaults and domestic violence cases they said should not be labeled \"low risk\" simply because an offender has employment, housing or community ties — characteristics that can lower some risk‑assessment scores. Courtney Sutton of COVA said risk instruments such as CARES and the LSI can systematically undercount the lethality posed by certain intimate‑partner offenders because those tools weigh criminal history, housing and employment.

Sponsors amended the bill during the hearing. Amendment L1 removed an \"exhaustion of alternatives\" sentencing requirement and clarified that the Victims' Rights Act notifications apply to both court reconsideration hearings and parole proceedings. L002 removed a DOC requirement to generate and send the parole‑eligibility list to the parole board — an item that drove a large portion of DOC's initial fiscal estimate. The committee adopted L1 by roll call and L002 without objection, and later voted 7‑4 to refer the bill, as amended, to the finance committee.

Supporters said the changes respond to staffing and programming realities inside DOC and to situations where people serve most or all of short sentences before any meaningful programming can be provided. Rep. Clifford and witnesses repeatedly said the policy target is a small subset of people — the \"short timers\" — estimated during testimony at roughly 18 to 96 people in year one under different models, not wholesale early release for violent offenders.

Opponents said the changes still risk public safety. Rep. Rob Kelty and others objected that moving some programming and supervision to the community without demonstrated funding or clear measures could create more victims. DOC and prosecutors told the committee they had opposed the bill in initial form but engaged in stakeholding and negotiated changes during the hearing.

What happened

- The committee adopted amendment L1 (mover: Rep. Rob Clifford; second: Vice Chair Carter), which removed the exhaustion‑of‑alternatives requirement, clarified victim‑notification requirements and exempted certain stipulated sentences from reconsideration. The roll call passed 7‑3 with one excused. The clerk's roll call showed mixed support among committee members.
- The committee adopted amendment L002 (mover: Rep. Rob Clifford; second: Vice Chair Carter) removing DOC’s earlier duty to generate a comprehensive list for parole presumption hearings; L002 was adopted without objection.
- The committee voted to refer the bill, as amended, to the finance committee on a favorable recommendation (motion passed 7‑4).

Why it matters

Witnesses on both sides agreed the state faces a resource constraint inside DOC and in courts. Proponents said the bill provides procedural tools so courts can make better‑informed sentencing choices when someone arrives at DOC already at or near parole eligibility; opponents warned the bill could still expand parole eligibility for people who pose a safety risk unless safeguards are tightened.

What to watch next

The bill will go to the finance committee, where members expect additional review of any fiscal impacts tied to DOC, the judicial branch and public‑defender resources. Sponsors and stakeholders signaled they will continue to adjust language and work on funding paths, and victims' groups requested explicit Victims' Rights Act language on second reading.

Notes

- Sponsor: Rep. Rob Clifford.
- Main proponents: Colorado Criminal Justice Reform Coalition, Office of Respondent Parents Counsel, Colorado Providers Association, recovery‑housing advocates.
- Opponents: Colorado Association of Chiefs of Police, Colorado Organization for Victim Assistance, some local law enforcement chiefs and DOC leadership.
- Estimated programmatic figures discussed in testimony: roughly $60,000 (approx.) annual cost to house someone in DOC used as context; testimony estimated potential state savings of millions in later years if targeted diversion is effective; first‑year estimates for program scale discussed ranged from ~18 to ~96 people in various scenarios.

Ending

The House Judiciary Committee moved House Bill 12‑14, as amended, to the finance committee after hours of testimony and multiple stakeholder amendments. Lawmakers said they will continue negotiating technical language and fiscal details before it reaches the floor.","Lawmakers heard hours of testimony for House Bill 12‑14 on using prison beds for lower‑level felons, focused on giving courts and counsel more information when a person arrives at DOC past their parole eligibility date; sponsors amended the bill and the committee voted to send it to finance.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Committee considers forensic‑integrity bill after Colorado crime‑lab scandal; bill would require prompt reporting, victim notification and post‑conviction path

Colorado committee advances bill to better align prison sentences with parole eligibility for low‑level felonies