Defense Review of Tangible Object for Criminal Trial
Summary
HB25-1114 creates a new statutory right for criminal defense teams to view and inspect tangible physical evidence held by law enforcement in connection with a case. The bill requires that, after a request, the agency allow defense access at a designated location operated by or under contract with the agency as soon as practicable, and no later than 35 days before trial. A law enforcement representative must be present to document chain of custody and protect evidence integrity, while the defense must be allowed confidential conversations and work product during the inspection.
The bill also regulates any audio or video recording of evidence-viewing sessions. If law enforcement records the viewing or handling of evidence, it must notify the prosecuting authority, which must disclose that notice to the defense, and the recording generally may not be reviewed or placed in discovery unless a court orders access based on a good-faith dispute about evidence integrity. The bill expressly allows courts to issue case-specific protective orders and does not limit defense requests for testing or hearings. It excludes sexually exploitative material from its coverage and amends the body-worn camera statute to bar officers from activating body or dash cameras to capture the defense’s inspection or discussion of evidence.
Impact
The bill adds Part 8 to Article 9 of Title 16 of the Colorado Revised Statutes and creates a new defense-access framework for physical evidence in criminal cases. It also amends the peace officer incident-recording statute in Title 24 to prohibit body-worn or dash camera recording of defense evidence inspections and related discussions, clarifying that such interactions are not public encounters or law-enforcement investigations. The practical effect is to formalize defense access to tangible evidence, protect attorney work product and confidential communications, and impose new notice, recording, and court-order procedures on law enforcement and prosecutors.
Sentiment
The voting history suggests the bill was generally supported, though not unanimously. It advanced through both chambers and passed third reading in the House and Senate, with several committee votes unanimous or near-unanimous, but with meaningful opposition on some floor amendments and final passage votes. Overall, the pattern indicates broad legislative support for improving defense access to evidence, alongside some reservations about the bill’s procedural details and law-enforcement implications.
Contention
The main points of contention appear to have centered on how much access the defense should receive, how evidence-viewing should be recorded or monitored, and whether the bill could affect law-enforcement control over evidence and trial preparation. Opponents likely focused on concerns about chain of custody, evidence security, and the administrative burden of creating special viewing arrangements, while supporters emphasized fairness, confidentiality, and the defense’s ability to prepare effectively. The amendment votes and split floor votes suggest disagreement over the balance between transparency for the defense and operational safeguards for law enforcement.