Senate Judiciary Committee advances bill to expand survivor access to forensic records and allow remote testimony

The Colorado Senate Judiciary Committee on March 2 voted unanimously to advance Senate Bill 95, a package of measures supporters say will strengthen survivors’ access to forensic records and reduce retraumatization during court proceedings. Senator Weissman, who sponsored the bill, moved it to the Committee of the Whole with a favorable recommendation after adopting technical amendments.

The bill would require that survivors be provided clear information about how to obtain results and records from medical forensic examinations, strengthen anti‑SLAPP protections for victims who are sued after reporting abuse, align state arbitration statutes with recent federal law, expand modest trauma‑informed training for peace officers, and give judges discretion to allow sequestered or closed‑circuit testimony when a witness cannot safely testify in the physical presence of a defendant.

Attorney General Weiser, testifying in support, described stalking and related offenses as under‑reported and under‑enforced and said the measure implements recommendations from the state’s forensic evidence review board. “Stalking is a very serious crime. It’s dangerous. It upends people’s lives,” he told the committee, and said the bill would provide remote testimony options and improve transparency about forensic evidence for survivors.

Survivors and victim‑advocacy groups gave emotional testimony. Coles Whelan, a survivor who spoke to the U.S. Supreme Court case arising from a stalking prosecution, said in court the defendant reached out to touch her and that she later found it impossible to testify again in person. “It’s terrifying, isn’t it?” she told the committee, urging that remote testimony be available so survivors can participate without direct confrontation.

Advocates from the Colorado Coalition Against Sexual Assault, the Colorado Organization for Victim Assistance, the Rocky Mountain Victim Law Center, Violence Free Colorado and other groups supported the bill’s mix of accommodations and safeguards. They said remote testimony would not change the burden of proof or defendant rights but would reduce the trauma that can impair memory retrieval and cooperation with prosecutions.

The Office of the State Public Defender testified in an amend position about constitutional risks tied to expanding sequestered testimony. James Karbach said courts and other jurisdictions have reached differing results — noting that some states’ constitutions have been interpreted to require face‑to‑face testimony — and warned the bill could invite litigation. “I do think, as introduced, the bill would bring challenges,” Karbach said, while acknowledging the sponsor’s amendment sought to address some concerns.

During the amendment phase the committee adopted four changes: clarifying judicial‑branch‑developed language to address confrontation‑clause thresholds; removing a section the sponsor and stakeholders agreed was unnecessary; adding a state crime‑lab representative to a review board; and tightening conformity language to reflect federal arbitration law. After final remarks from the sponsor, the committee voted 7–0 to send the bill, as amended, to the Committee of the Whole and placed it on the consent calendar.

The committee’s action does not itself change law. The next procedural step is the Committee of the Whole, where the bill may receive additional floor consideration and further amendments.