A new state law is being sought to demand better notification to defendants of potential wrongful convictions following the scandal at the Colorado Bureau of Investigation involving tainted DNA tests in hundreds of cases going back decades.

The Office of the Colorado State Public Defender confirmed to the Denver Gazette on Monday that it is working on legislation to be introduced in next year’s Colorado General Assembly that would seek to ensure more transparency from CBI about cases affected by the scandal, including notifying those defendants currently in prison.

It also would make sure defendants receive adequate access to post-conviction legal counsel to potentially reopen their cases.

The new law, if approved, would be retroactive for past cases and convictions, as well as those going forward, said a spokesperson for the public defender’s office on Monday.

It is the latest development in the vast scandal involving the state’s once go-to forensic expert who was found to have deleted or manipulated DNA findings along with skipping crucial steps when testing evidence in criminal cases dating back to 1994.

The fall-out remains unclear for the state’s judicial system that has been rocked to its core. So far, CBI has acknowledged it has found 809 “anomalies,” or irregularities, in the work Yvonne Woods, also known as Missy.

But some defense attorneys said that is likely a “massive undercount,” as the full scope remains unknown because complete disclosure from the agency has been guarded, if not elusive.

When the scandal first broke, CBI said it notified Colorado’s district attorneys about possible affected cases but then left it up to the prosecutors to notify defendants.

On Friday, Colorado Gov. Jared Polis signed an executive order creating a 14-member committee to provide oversight for the CBI and which will review “quality incidents,” propose improvement and foster cooperation between “members of the criminal justice system and the scientific community.”

While not yet named, committee members will include a representative of the Colorado Association of Chiefs of Police; the County Sheriffs of Colorado; an academic in criminal justice and/or forensic science; a criminal defense attorney; an attorney with post-conviction expertise; a representative of the Colorado Laboratory Directors group; a current or retired state laboratory director; the director of the Colorado District Attorneys’ Council; a representative of the state public defender’s office; a representative from the Colorado Attorney General’s Office; and, a person selected by the executive director of the Colorado Department of Public Safety.

In addition, CBI’s deputy director will chair the committee, that agency’s forensic laboratory system director will serve as vice-chair, and the forensic science unit’s quality director will be secretary of the committee.

The governor’s office did not immediately answer questions.

Still, some defense attorneys remain skeptical of the committee’s value in correcting the problems that led to the scandal, especially because it is heavily weighted in favor of law enforcement and CBI itself.

 “This is just more of the fox guarding the henhouse,” said Mary Claire Mulligan, a Boulder criminal defense attorney. “It’s just politics. It’s a way of saying we’re doing something.”

“But nothing about it references helping people who have been the victim of CBI’s lack of oversight,” she said. “And it does nothing to restore the public’s trust in a failed forensic agency.”

A spokesperson for the CBI on Monday said the agency has no comment on the proposed legislation or the governor’s committee. In the past, CBI has said it remains committed to transparency and accountability, as the agency and other entities continue their investigations.

A year ago, the South Dakota Division of Criminal Investigation began an inquiry to determine if Woods or others could face criminal charges in the scandal. So far, that investigation remains incomplete.

Still, reverberations are starting to be felt.

In June, Boulder County prosecutors offered a plea deal with a lighter sentence to a man previously sentenced to life without parole for a triple homicide after learning that forensic data needed in the case had been compromised by Woods.

Garrett Coughlin had been found guilty in 2019 of first-degree murder of three people but was granted a new trial because of juror misconduct. Before he could be retried, though, he was offered a deal of 42 years on the lesser charge of second-degree murder. Prosecutors said they could no longer rely on Woods to testify and did not want to take the chance of an acquittal or dismissal in a re-trial.

With credit for time served, Coughlin could be released in about 24 years.

On Friday in Weld County, James Herman Dye, who has been jailed since 2021 awaiting trial for murder and rape, was freed from custody after a DNA retest excluded rather than implicated him.

Previously, Woods had concluded Dye’s DNA was on the coat belt used to strangle Evelyn Kay Day, which led to his arrest. After the CBI scandal broke last November, Weld County District Attorney Michael Rourke asked that the evidence in the case be retested. That retest showed that the DNA on the belt did not match Dye nor the victim’s deceased husband, who also was once considered a suspect.

Similarly, earlier this month, the Boulder County District Attorney asked that evidence in the Michael Clark murder case be retested. Clark has served 12 years after being sentenced to life without parole for the 1994 murder of Marty Grisham. He has long insisted he was innocent. But a small container of Carmex lip balm found at the crime scene was tested by Woods in 2011 and she concluded it was a partial match to Clark’s DNA.

He was convicted largely on the strength of her testimony at his trial but her conclusions in that case are now under scrutiny. A hearing in the case is scheduled for Jan. 30.

Adam Frank, Clark’s post-conviction defense attorney, said he is “reserving judgement” on the governor’s committee but that he is skeptical that any meaningful change will come from it.

“More people examining CBI is a good thing,” he said.

He added, though, “a group of insiders making recommendations to the leadership of CBI does not seem like a recipe for an actual overhaul.”