Senate Judiciary [Apr 22, 2026]

Senators Carson. Doherty. Here. Hendrickson. Here. Wallace. Present. Zamora Wilson. Present. Roberts. Here. Mr. Chair. Here.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. So committee, hopefully everyone has, via Ms. Jensen, a total of five amendments, 19, 20, 21, 22, and 23. Just to frame all of this, we're all used to most of the work being done on a bill when it comes over to us, having originated in the House. When we first heard this, Senator Mabley and I acknowledged there were some issues to work out, which is why we laid it over. After testimony last week, a lot of conversations have ensued. Originally, the bill was on our calendar for Monday. Late last week, we decided a little bit more time would even be helpful for folks to see the amendments that were working toward finality. So here we are two more days later. I acknowledge that there may be some ongoing conversation to have, but all of these reflect, to the best of our ability, communications we've received in particular from the sheriffs who, as those who run the jails that we're talking about here, are probably particularly implicated. A big tension that we had to resolve previously was what cameras are going to be recording when a strip search is happening. Will it be body-worn or will it be overhead type of cameras that are physically installed somewhere in a jail facility? There were elements in the bill as it came to us from the House pulling in both directions. After a lot of conversation, and frankly not without some hesitation for reasons that probably don't need to be elaborated on, we did decide to move in the direction of allowing body-worn cameras to be used for that purpose because for reasons of other law and evolving technology, I mean, they're relatively ubiquitous. In law enforcement, there are some useful features that those technology stacks have in terms of access control and tagging of footage and whatnot. So you'll see those elements reflected in a number of the amendments that we have. We do need to route for small cash fund reasons to the Eppropes Committee and then the floor after that, so there remains time to work out details. But in order to honor everything we heard from the survivors who've testified previously, we think it's important to keep moving today. With that, I move L19 to House Bill 1123 and can proceed to talk through it a little bit, Mr. Chair.

Yikes. Members, a few different things happening in 19. One of the issues that we had was the need to reconcile how a provision of existing law, which is 16.3405, relates to some of the new language we have in the bill. That's what lines 1 and 2 in 19 are doing. We then clarify what intake means. It means coming in from without, not necessarily moving around within the jail facility. Middle of the amendment, 8 through 14, is where we start to say, okay, we're going to use BWC, body-worn footage here. We have some clarifying language. We have a disjunctive. You'll see an amendment in a minute to clean up definitions. We do want to reach both county jails and municipal jails. There's one of those now to the extent that they continue to exist. Sheriff doesn't run a municipal jail. It's sort of obvious, so we have some language to cover that disjunctive. We realized in our research that the site to the federal law, Prison Rape Elimination Act, had been updated by Congress. So we're changing that amendment at the request of the sheriffs. We have some language to tighten the nexus between what we're doing here with the GL standards statutory framework that Senator Amabile has been a big part of in the past. And then we're striking an entire part of the bill in conformity with the BWC changes because we no longer need to change that statutory section. So that's L-19.

Senator Weissman. Thank you. I move L-20 to House Bill 1123.

Senator Weissman. All right, thank you. I move L21 to 1123.

We're laying down some substantive policy, striking a provision out on page 5 that no longer makes sense, and then just providing that there should be a written policy about how this goes. that's at the bottom of the amendment. Great. Any questions? Any objection?

where we set forth one of the duties and powers of our elected sheriffs. We're adding a little bit here, sort of in conformity with all the other BWC work that's going on. We're saying The sheriff has this duty to coordinate with their vendor. We learned something useful that I think is going to be important to make this whole apparatus work in conversations with one of our sheriffs in particular. The vendors have what they call a tagging feature, which is, as a lot of BWC is getting generated, it's a way to just help sort it. So there's flexibility in how tags are defined by each agency working with their vendor. you could have a tag to say this was an officer involved shooting or this happened at night, just to make up a couple of examples. Sounds relatively simple for an LEA to be in touch with its vendor to make a tag to identify, okay, this was a strip search under this section of the law, so that's kind of what we're talking about here in L22. Any questions Any objection Seeing none L22 is adopted Senator Weissman Thank you Mr Chair Committee last amendment I move L23 to House Bill 1123

Not at this point, thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to the committee, and thank you to my co-prime who really has done a huge amount of work on this bill. I got asked to be on the bill because of the Jail Standards Commission and the work that we did to set up jail standards, and your staffer here is a huge part of that. Um, so, um, anyway, we haven't been able to meet, and it would have been great if this bill could have come through that committee, uh, because then I think, you know, it, it is supposed to be a vehicle for bringing everybody together to talk about these issues that impact our county jails. Um, but in spite of that, I think everybody has been involved in the stakeholding for this bill, and I feel like even though maybe there are some more tweaks to be had, it is in a good place. And this bill is specifically about strip searches in jail and making sure that we're handling that right. But I will also say there is, we all want to kind of look the other way around these things that happen and are happening on an ongoing basis. So just by chance, I have a friend whose daughter was in and out of the jail and had an addiction problem and did crime, stole stuff, and ended up in jail. And she talked to me in such a nonchalant way about trading sex for drugs when she was in jail. and I was so taken aback by her discussing that as if, of course, that's just a thing that happens. And then I have another friend whose daughter was also in jail and ended up pregnant. And so we have a problem. It's pretty, I think it's a bigger thing And I think this bill is shining a light on that, but we have a lot more work to do in this space. And I think, I hope you'll all be able to support this and stuff that we do in the future to rein this in.

Thank you. I appreciate working on this with Senator Amabile, who does have years of work in the GL standards space. And although we're not arising out of the posture of the interim committee, this is, in a way, about standards of conduct and practice in jails, and we're just seeking to codify it here. These are environments that are part of our carceral system. They're necessary. They are environments of great sensitivity and vulnerability and power imbalance. and just heard some pretty shocking things about how that can go sometimes. I've heard DOC directors here in years past say, just being inside is the punishment. You've been adjudicated, something has happened, you are remanded there for reasons, and it's supposed to stop there. He was talking about prison. I think the same thing is true of jail. Whether you are pretrial or serving a sentence, You have been put there for presumably legal bases, and that's it. You still have rights. You still have basic human dignity that should be upheld. And I think most of the time it is. But let's remember the witness testimony. There was one glaring, I was going to say example. It was really a chain of examples over time where people were hideously violated. and that is the set of experiences that motivates the bill, including the amendments that are before the committee today. So we're asking for your support to keep moving on in the legislative process to try to turn that hideous violation into some justice and hopefully a little bit better guarantee it never happens again in our state. So with that, Mr. Chair, I move 1123 as amended to the Appropriations Committee and ask for a yes vote.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I agree with you. The example of why this bill is being brought forward is absolutely disgusting, hideous, and we do need to resolve it. I do have some... I would like to thoroughly go over the amendments. I do have concerns. So I am going to be a no for the moment. I'm sure this is going to pass, and I can assess it even more. But I agree with you, and the stories that we heard in the testimony, absolutely disgusting. And I appreciate those people coming forward with their stories. and yeah, I hope that we can mitigate these disgusting behaviors and it is a very invasive procedure and I think some of us have no people that have gone through it but for right now I'm going to have to be a respectful no. Thank you.

I'll just offer my thanks to the bill sponsors and Mr. Chair for all of the work on this. I know as it's come over from the House, there were a lot of conversations that happened which resulted in the amendments before us today. I only started hearing about any possible concerns or logistical issues from some sheriffs in my district this morning. I know that over the course of the day, some of those conversations have been had. So I hope that conversations will continue between now and the appropriate time to make further amendments. I am appreciative that law enforcement has never been opposed to this bill, and just working out the technical implementation of it is their concern. So I hope that that can all get resolved. Of course, this is something that I support, and I hope that we can both support the principle of it and the practical implication of it with some further changes as it goes on in the process. So thank you for continuing that work.

No.

Oh, it's us.

I'll join them anyways, me and the gentlemen of the committee.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Colleagues, this is the annual revisors bill, which is brought every year to help make any obsolete or make changes or repeals to any obsolete, unclear, or conflicting laws. The good senator and I, along with the chair, serve on the Committee on Legal Services, and so this is something that we work with our OLS staff on every year and then bring forward. I just want to thank Ms. Love for her work in drafting this and going through our statutes with a fine-tooth comb to make any necessary technical changes that we need. So happy to take any questions on any specifics of the bill, but that is the summary for now.

I don't have anything to add to that.

No.

Exacting work of detail, and we appreciate your attention, Ms. Love and others.

I will move the adoption of Senate Bill 169 into referral to the Committee of the Whole and ask for a favorable vote.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Aye.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, colleagues. Glad to be here with Senator Wallace to present House Bill 1288. This is a bill concerning modernizing and improving the way that we do jury selection in Colorado. By way of background, many of you know that our justice system is built on the promise that a person who walks into a Colorado courtroom is entitled to a fair and impartial jury. And that promise depends on the critical process of voir dire, in which attorneys for both sides of the case get to question and ultimately select a jury for the trial. Under our current system, however, that promise of a fair and impartial jury is often compromised by time constraints and inconsistency that vary across the state and even courtroom by courtroom. In many courtrooms, attorneys have less than 45 seconds per prospective juror to determine whether that individual can fairly decide a case, 45 seconds to uncover life experiences, personal beliefs, or implicit biases that could shape the outcome of someone's liberty, livelihood, or safety. And we believe that 45 seconds or any rushed situation like that is not enough. As amended, House Bill 1288 that comes before you today will begin a critical conversation in our state on how to reform voir dire in both civil and criminal cases to strengthen fairness, transparency, and efficiency in our court system. So with that, I'll pass it over to my colleague, Senator Wallace, who can explain the strike below that they did in the House.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and committee members. It is indeed wonderful to be joining my co-prime today to ensure our legal system remains fair. As amended, this bill sets up a working group within the Judicial Department, as my colleague mentioned, to make recommendations regarding jury selection reform. The working group will be composed of key stakeholders, including attorneys and judges, to ensure that there is buy-in for the recommendations that come forward. Importantly, the bill now requires the working group to issue a progress report by December 1, 2026. The report will help this committee and the legislature as a whole understand what kind of progress has been made. If we believe that we're not getting the progress that we're looking for, we can then pull a bill title to address it there. Additionally, we are requiring that our Supreme Court make a decision on the recommendations by June 15th of next year. This bill reflects thoughtful input from trial practitioners, judicial stakeholders, and advocates committed to strengthening public trust in our courts. It is informed by peer-reviewed research and best practices implemented in other states. We therefore ask for your support today and are happy to answer any questions.

Ms. Mercer, please go ahead. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, members of the committee. My name is Rachel Mercer. I'm a lawyer at the Denver Office of the Municipal Public Defender, and I'm also a member of the Colorado Criminal Defense Bar, and I serve on its Legislative Policy Committee. I'd like to start by thanking Senator Roberts and Senator Wallace for their partnership and leadership on this important issue because CCDB is in strong support of House Bill 261288. As noted this bill will create a jury selection working group that will be made up of knowledgeable members of our legal community who will work to identify the best practices for jury selection This bill is important and necessary because jury selection practices do vary widely across our state depending on which jurisdiction a case is in and which judge is presiding over it. This bill will help to ensure that the procedure for jury selection is more consistent, so lawyers on all sides know what to expect when they appear for trial. I work in Denver Municipal Court, and the amount of time a lawyer gets to question a panel of jurors depends on which judge is handling the case. That means we don't know how much time we're going to have for jury selection before the day of trial, and the time we're given is usually very short. We usually get only about 10 minutes to question a group of 12 people to ensure they can be fair and are the right people to sit on a case. And these same restrictions apply to the prosecutor. The amount of time an attorney is given to question a panel of jurors should not depend on which judge is on the bench. It should be standardized based on the type of case. And this is a question this working group will consider. Courts in Colorado are also not making full use of all the tools available to them to help jury selection run efficiently and pick the best jury. And one example of this is jury questionnaires, which are not used consistently across the state. A jury questionnaire is just a list of written questions that a potential juror can answer in writing before selection begins, providing attorneys and judges with basic information about the jurors. This is a more efficient way to weed out jurors who are not qualified to serve or are biased against one side or the other. Ultimately, all courtroom litigators in civil and criminal court want and need juries for their cases that are fair and impartial. They also want the jury selection process to be as efficient as possible. This bill will help achieve both of these goals. And finally, I'd like to say how much CCDB appreciates our partnership with the teams at CTLA and State Judicial. We're grateful for the opportunity to collaborate with them on this balanced solution. Thank you, and I'm happy to answer any questions you have.

Mr. Chair, members of the committee, my name is Terry Scanlon. I'm the legislative liaison here on behalf of Colorado Courts. We're here today in support of 1288. We were initially not engaged on the legislation prior to introduction. In reviewing the bill, we talked to the stakeholders and expressed an interest in having these issues discussed in a more deliberative format where we could have resolution that would lead to rules changes and criminal and civil rules. we had really robust and open dialogue with both stakeholders who are here today grateful for their engagement we support the strike below it creates a process that will allow judges and attorneys to come together to discuss and explore these issues the conversations we've had have been enlightening for us at the courts to hear from the stakeholders and we're really optimistic that the process that will unfold as a result of this strike blow will lead to helpful, meaningful improvements in the jury selection process. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. My name is Kevin Cheney, and I'm here on behalf of the Colorado Trial Lawyers Association in support of House Bill 1288 and as amended. At its core, this bill is about protecting one of the most fundamental rights in our justice system, the right to a fair and impartial jury. As it stands right now, that right is often greatly impacted by the jurisdiction in which you're practicing or even to the judge that is hearing the case. And too often, people are not having an opportunity to select the most fair juries possible. As amended, this bill takes a very thoughtful and collaborative approach by creating a jury selection working group within the Judicial Department to study and improve WADIR practices across Colorado. For CTLA, this is a critical step forward. We know that bias in jury selection is real, often hidden, and can directly impact case outcomes. We know that practices vary widely across courtrooms in Colorado. This bill acknowledges that reality and creates a path towards greater consistency, transparency, and fairness statewide. Rather than imposing a one-size-fits-all mandate, this approach allows Colorado to develop data-driven, evidence-based reforms grounded in real-world experience and research. For victims, for Coloradans, and for every person who relies on our civil or criminal justice system, the fairness of a jury is everything. I'd like to especially thank Mr. Scanlon. Obviously, in the beginning, they weren't fully in line with what we were trying to do. And there was a little bit of, I think, mistrust on both sides. He really helped came to us in a very collaborative way and really persuaded us that this was a better way to do it. And I'm really forward looking forward to this working group and the recommendations that will be presented to the Supreme Court. Thank you.

Just gratitude.

Gratitude to all the stakeholders. As you can tell from the way the bill's evolved, it was a bigger conversation at the start, but I think ultimately this will be a really good way to come to some meaningful reforms for jury selection. So thank you to everybody for getting to a good place. Thank you.

The bill vote yes.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move House Bill 1288 to the Committee of the Whole with a favorable recommendation.

No.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Respectfully, no.

Aye.