Committee advances bill to require disclosures and a KBI database for jailhouse witnesses

March 6 — The House Committee on Judiciary amended and advanced House Bill 2131, a measure that requires prosecutors to disclose that they intend to introduce testimony from a jailhouse witness and to submit related information to a Kansas Bureau of Investigation (KBI) database for use by other prosecutors.

Jason Thompson, reviser, summarized the bill as requiring prosecutors to disclose the intent to call a jailhouse witness and to forward related information to the KBI, which would maintain a searchable database. The committee debated definitional language and several amendments before approving the bill as amended.

Representative Kevin Lewis, the bill sponsor, offered an amendment to clarify the statutory definition of “jailhouse witness.” The amendment adjusted the language to cover a person “whom the prosecutor at some point intended to call” and to clarify that the person must have been offered or could possibly receive a benefit tied to their testimony. Lewis said the change was intended to capture situations where a defendant pleads before a witness is actually called, preserving the disclosure obligation when an agreement was in place.

Representative Barrett offered a substitute amendment that would have narrowed some language; the committee voted no on that substitute and returned to Lewis’s amendment. Representative Lewis’s amendment was moved and seconded and later adopted by the committee. During debate, Representative Carmichael expressed concern that the phrase "at some point intended to call" could be broad and suggested alternate phrasing such as endorsement of a witness; Lewis said he was open to further technical refinements as the bill proceeds to the Senate.

The committee discussed implementation questions, including the fiscal note. Members heard that initial KBI setup costs were estimated in the committee materials (roughly $180,000–$250,000 in earlier materials), but proponents said the KBI believed the one-time setup and ongoing maintenance could be managed within the bureau’s systems and that existing sensitive databases are maintained in-house rather than stored on a public cloud.

Proponents argued the database would assist prosecutors and defense counsel by centralizing information about a witness’s prior use and potential benefits; opponents and some committee members raised concerns about cybersecurity risks, the burden on smaller county prosecutors to submit data, and the possibility of post-conviction litigation where a missed entry might have consequences. Lewis said the bill would create a clearer disclosure system that helps both prosecutors and defense counsel comply with constitutional disclosure obligations such as Brady and Giglio.

The committee adopted Representative Lewis’s amendment after rejecting Representative Barrett’s substitute and then moved the underlying bill. Representative Lewis moved passage; Representative Williams seconded. The committee voted to report House Bill 2131 favorably for passage as amended.