Committee hears bill to require prosecutors to disclose and track jailhouse‑witness benefits
Loading...
Summary
Senate Bill 116 would require prosecuting attorneys to disclose when they plan to use a jailhouse witness, provide the witness’s criminal history and any cooperation agreements, and forward the information to a confidential KBI registry.
Senate Bill 116 would require a prosecuting attorney to disclose to defense counsel when the prosecutor intends to introduce testimony from a jailhouse witness and to supply related materials, including the witness’s criminal history, any cooperation agreement or requested benefit, the contents of statements the witness attributes to the defendant, and any recantations. The bill also directs prosecuting attorneys to maintain a central file on such witnesses and to forward the information to the Kansas Bureau of Investigation (KBI), which would maintain a statewide database accessible to prosecutors and otherwise confidential.
Supporters described the bill as a narrowly tailored, constitutionally informed reform to reduce wrongful convictions based on jailhouse informants. Tricia Rojo Bushnell of the Midwest Innocence Project and Mark Zimmerman of Miracle of Innocence told the committee that jailhouse informant testimony has been a leading cause of wrongful convictions and that formal disclosure requirements and a centralized record would allow defense counsel to assess credibility and impeachment material. Exonerees and organizations urged passage in honor of Pete Coombs, who was exonerated after years in prison following testimony from a jailhouse informant.
Proponents pointed to similar legislation enacted in several states and said the bill does not prohibit use of jailhouse witnesses but requires transparent documentation of benefits and prior testimony. They said the requirement to disclose requested benefits is consistent with U.S. Supreme Court precedent on disclosure of impeachment and favorable evidence (Brady and Giglio line of cases).
Opponents — including senior prosecutors and county‑and‑district attorneys’ associations — raised implementation and public‑safety concerns. Megan Assens, first assistant attorney general, and multiple county prosecutors said Kansas discovery law already obliges prosecutors to disclose exculpatory or impeachment material and that the bill duplicates existing duties. They argued the bill’s definitions are vague and could sweep in routine intake notes or any inmate who ever mentioned information, thereby creating a burdensome central registry and deterring incarcerated witnesses from talking to prosecutors. Several prosecutors warned a public or long‑term registry could expose informants and chill cooperation in violent‑crime and cold‑case investigations.
Rural prosecutors emphasized limited local resources and case‑management systems and said maintaining or forwarding a centralized record to the KBI could pose an unfunded operational burden. Proponents responded that the bill targets only witnesses intended to be used at trial and that many jurisdictions already document requests and benefits in case files; advocates said explicit statutory language would level expectations for disclosure statewide.
Committee members asked whether existing U.S. Supreme Court and Kansas discovery law already require disclosure; proponents said case law requires disclosure of impeachment or favorable evidence but leaves room for divergent interpretation by prosecutors and defense counsel, which the bill is intended to eliminate by specifying particular categories of information.
The committee heard several hours of proponent and opponent testimony and received written testimony from additional prosecutors and law‑enforcement organizations. The hearing record does not show a committee vote on SB 116 during the session.
