Found Deceased CO - Suzanne Morphew, 49, Chaffee Co, 10 May 2020 *Case dismissed w/o prejudice* *found in 2023* #114

[Waxahachie1]

LS’s attorney is a former prosecutor, and supports her. This all stinks anyhow. Barry should be the one on trial.
JMO

Stanley’s lawyer, former prosecutor Steven Jensen, told the three-member panel considering the case in Denver that rural district attorney offices like Stanley’s do not have as many resources to handle high-profile cases as larger, urban ones.
[…]
The state will not be able to show “clear and convincing” evidence that Stanley violated ethical rules, Jensen said.

Colorado district attorney who prosecuted Barry Morphew faces disciplinary hearing

A lawyer for Colorado’s Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel described 11th Judicial District Attorney Linda Stanley during opening statements of the two-week hearing as an absent leader who failed to steer the case and let it crash

coloradosun.com

I take you point but with respect, I am compelled to point out that Jensen's statements as Stanley's representative and advocate can't be taken as unbiased support for what she did. And his argument that the evidence will fall short of the highest civil burden of proof (clear and convincing) is hardly a ringing, "My client did nothing wrong!"

I totally agree that Morphew should be defending himself right now. Stanley's lapses are a major reason he is not in prison. They have complicated an already difficult case, notwithstanding the discovery of Suzanne's remains - and THAT stinks.

MOO.

 

[Lyanna]

Yes, this. IE is fierce and she is aggressive and she is intelligent and no matter how much people might find her repugnant I don't think she is going to jeopardize her career being stupid about ethical violations. In my opinion lawyers should be aggressive, intelligent and fierce. LS ended up where she is from her own doing.

Don't find her repugnant for being fierce, assertive or intelligent. Found her put downs of Suzanne repugnant along with the games she played with Lama. Genuinely think she sorted out ShoSho with an attorney that caused conflict of interest so Ramsey had to recuse and think she used Dru there and that's why they parted ways.

JmO

 

[Waxahachie1]

As yes but that is because the FBI were running scared and confidentially paid BM millions!

MOO

Then Morphew went and blew the proceeds on his Arizona palace!

 

[steeltowngirl]

I take you point but with respect, I am compelled to point out that Jensen's statements as Stanley's representative and advocate can't be taken as unbiased support for what she did. And his argument that the evidence will fall short of the highest civil burden of proof (clear and convincing) is hardly a ringing, "My client did nothing wrong!"

I totally agree that Morphew should be defending himself right now. Stanley's lapses are a major reason he is not in prison. They have complicated an already difficult case, notwithstanding the discovery of Suzanne's remains - and THAT stinks.

MOO.

Understood. Just wanted to point out that she does have supporters. Grosgebauer is another.

It does stink. While everyone is drooling over the investigation into LS, she’s not the one who ultimately failed and betrayed Suzanne. That would be Barry.

While all eyes are on LS, Suzanne Morphew gets lost in the dust.

I will just have to wait for the right Felony Friday to start talking again about justice for Suzanne. Actually, any day that ends in Y works for me.

jmo

 

[Boxer]

MOO IE is a nightmare, LS incompetent.

 

[Waxahachie1]

Understood. Just wanted to point out that she does have supporters. Grosgebauer is another.

It does stink. While everyone is drooling over the investigation into LS, she’s not the one who ultimately failed and betrayed Suzanne. That would be Barry.

While all eyes are on LS, Suzanne Morphew gets lost in the dust.

I will just have to wait for the right Felony Friday to start talking again about justice for Suzanne. Actually, any day that ends in Y works for me.

jmo

I appreciate your comment. Stanley certainly has her share of supporters, including many articulate ones on this forum.

To clarify, when I pointed to lack of support among Stanley's peers, I was referring to people who hold or have held the elected office of District Attorney. Both attorney Jensen and attorney Grosgebauer have never held that office, which carries a different level of responsibility from deputy level prosecutors.

I believe DA Kelly and AG Weiser have not lost focus on justice for Suzanne, and I am grateful for the extensive mentions of Suzanne's case in the proceeding. It reminds the public that justice remains to be done. I am more than ready to see that, any day that ends in Y

 

[steeltowngirl]

MOO IE is a nightmare, LS incompetent.

BM is a murderer.

jmo

 

[Seattle1]

Moreover, no present or former prosecutors have made any public comments supporting Stanley.

^^rsbm

I can't recall any former prosecutor (or a current prosecutor for that matter) making public comments in support of any colleague called before the disciplinary Court, Supreme Court of Colorado. Anybody?

I think it might have something to do with the fact that COBAR/OARC Complaints and hearings generally don't make local and/or national news before the Opinions are published.

But I've also never seen a fellow attorney call a press conference to announce that she hand delivered 80+pages of alleged ethical violations against an elected DA and six additional prosecutors, and hand out copies of her Complaint. And another press event to announce she served as a witness to the OARC during their investigation of the same respondents!

Nonetheless, I think December's written support of Stanley by the Colorado District Attorney's Council, the Colorado Attorney General's Office, and especially Supreme Court Justices Samour, Boatright, and Marquez, when it really mattered, speaks volumes.

The Colorado District Attorneys' Council and Colorado Attorney General's Office also wrote in support of Stanley's office, arguing a judge's order about which charges a prosecutor can file was an infringement on the separation of powers between the executive and judicial branches.
[..]

"The prosecution is not entitled to disregard its discovery obligations because it believes it has a strong case," Berkenkotter wrote.

Justice Carlos A. Samour Jr., writing in dissent, claimed the majority was leaving out "the rest of the story." Namely, he believed Stanley's office was not on notice that Turner would order a reduction in the murder charge after it handed over more than 1,000 pieces of evidence belatedly.

"The sense I get from reviewing this record (especially the transcripts of the hearings) is that the judicial officers in question were at their wits’ end with this District Attorney’s Office and wanted to send a message that would finally be effective," Samour wrote for himself, Chief Justice Brian D. Boatright and Justice Monica M. Márquez.

"They were looking for an opportunity to impose a severe sanction. Having sat on a trial court for many years, I understand their frustration," he elaborated. "But that doesn’t justify the severe sanction handed out here, which seems capricious and forced."

Samour concluded that Tippet should not "get a freebie," meaning face a lesser murder charge, just because the prosecution took weeks to fulfill its obligations.

 

[fcavanaugh]

I want to preface this post with IANAL, and the following is MOO as a case follower since day one:

I’m not sure what or who to believe was responsible for the failings of the 11th JD in the 1st attempt at prosecution of BM. On one hand we have LS, elected into office by district voters, whom didn’t have previous experience prosecuting homicide cases, and a member of her staff, Attorney Jeff Lindsey, who was/is experienced in prosecuting homicide cases, seeming word against each other. I do believe the 11th JD were understaffed and overwhelmed with the voluminous evidence and complexities of this high profile case and Lindsey eventually left mid case, sometime during the Preliminary Hearings decided to jump ship. We must remember too, that they are a small district and working on other cases at the time as well AND that this was also during the height of the COVID pandemic when judiciaries across the country were having to deal with all sorts of hold/ups and delays.

Fast forward to present day, we are hearing from Lindsey in part (paraphrased) he attempted to voice his concerns to LS about the workload and being overwhelmed/overworked and felt he wasn’t being heard/his concerns fell on deaf ears.
And LS saying in part (paraphrased) she didn’t find it necessary to assign a lead prosecutor because they (Lindsey and other staff on the team) knew what their jobs were.
I also remember LS having made a statement shortly after Lindsey jumped ship mid case something to the effect (paraphrased) she wished he had said something/voiced his concerns before leaving so they could’ve worked on it/worked it out.
So whom to believe? Idk.

At any rate, what is clear to me is balls were definitely dropped in the 11th JD during the 1st attempt at prosecution of BM. I believe this was partly due to the 11th JD office being overwhelmed while working on this complex high profile case and working on other cases in the district as well.

Having said all that, I’ve concluded that more than one person/DA/attorney in that office was responsible for the 1st attempts missteps, a group failing so to speak. But at the end of the day, LS as the DA/head of the office should have been aware and on top of seeing to it that certain things were done and followed up on in such an important high profile case as this one is, especially. I don’t have the answers as to why it appears she didn’t nip things in the bud so to speak but I do suspect politics and possible personality conflicts and different work ethics might have come into play as well.

Basically, in a nutshell- the 11th JD, thanks to the exceptional hard work of the combined LE agency task force and their very thorough investigation, had the right man and they botched the case. Judge RL didn’t help matters by ruling to eliminate 14 of 16 expert witnesses being able to testify. But In hindsight, I think it was almost a blessing in disguise because now since SM’s body has been found and with BAM in her bone marrow, less chance for acquittal at future trial.

For me, sad and unfortunate as it all is, it’s in the past and chips will now fall where they may after OARC rules.

No matter what happened in the 11th JD in the past or what the OARC eventually rules, none of it changes the voluminous mountains of evidence against BM, and I’ll continue to wait patiently for his rearrest/recharged and for a new prosecution team to bring him down once and for all.

Again, all of the above is MOO.

#JusticeForSuzanne

ETA-clarity

 

[Waxahachie1]

^^rsbm

I can't recall any former prosecutor (or a current prosecutor for that matter) making public comments in support of any colleague called before the disciplinary Court, Supreme Court of Colorado. Anybody?

I think it might have something to do with the fact that COBAR/OARC Complaints and hearings generally don't make local and/or national news before the Opinions are published.

But I've also never seen a fellow attorney call a press conference to announce that she hand delivered 80+pages of alleged ethical violations against an elected DA and six additional prosecutors, and hand out copies of her Complaint. And another press event to announce she served as a witness to the OARC during their investigation of the same respondents!

Nonetheless, I think December's written support of Stanley by the Colorado District Attorney's Council, the Colorado Attorney General's Office, and especially Supreme Court Justices Samour, Boatright, and Marquez, when it really mattered, speaks volumes.

Again, People v. Tippet addressed different issues than Stanley's alleged violations of ethical standards, so you are not comparing similar things. In particular, discovery issues are not per se the subject of the disciplinary complaint.

CDAC and the AG routinely support appeals by fellow prosecutors in criminal cases, there is nothing special or personal about such support. It is certainly understandable that prosecutors would not want to see a precedent upholding the reduction of charges because of a pattern of discovery violations: anxiety levels among Colorado prosecutors jumped with Judge Turner's decision to do so. However, notwithstanding the blatant speculation of the minority justices as to her motives, the decision did not favor Stanley's office:

"In this original proceeding, we consider whether the district court abused its discretion by (1) granting Joseph James Tippet's motion seeking discovery sanctions against the Eleventh Judicial District Attorney's Office based on a pattern of neglect, and (2) reducing the charge against Tippet from first degree murder to second degree murder. We granted the People's petition to review that order by issuing a rule to show cause. We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion by determining that the District Attorney's Office engaged in an ongoing, significant pattern of discovery violations across multiple cases, or, in light of the specific circumstances of this case, by reducing the charge against Tippet as a deterrent sanction."

I see no reason why a sitting DA or ESPECIALLY a former DA would not rise to the defense of a colleague unjustly accused of unprofessional conduct. In fact, since they are all at the same risk it would seem especially important to protect their own professional careers by protecting hers - IF they believed she was being unfairly accused and unjustly prosecuted. To me, the absence of any defenders among the DAs speaks volumes and the scathing public condemnation of Stanley by highly respected former DAs carries great weight.

MOO

 

[Cindizzi]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1804248197918785615

 

[MassGuy]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1804289363200635349

This reminds me of Michael hitting Meredith with his car in the Office.

Michael: Well, I ran down Meredith in my car.
Ryan: Ohhhh. Did you do this on purpose?
Michael: No. I was being negligent.

 

[Waxahachie1]

I've also never seen a fellow attorney call a press conference to announce that she hand delivered 80+pages of alleged ethical violations against an elected DA and six additional prosecutors, and hand out copies of her Complaint. And another press event to announce she served as a witness to the OARC during their investigation of the same respondents!

For years, many defense attorneys including Eytan have worked quietly to correct the fundamentally unfair, totally unconstitutional, and blatantly unethical practice by prosecutors, of withholding evidence in violation of discovery rules. But raising the issue case by case and working quietly with policymakers did not bring about substantial change in prosecutorial habits. To me, this explains Eytan's sudden explosion of public criticism and scorched earth legal challenge to the problems she encountered in the Morphew case.

Subsequent to her campaign, the public defender took up the challenge and finally, the Colorado court system recognized that the credibility of the justice system's commitment to due process and the rule of law were being jeopardized by irresponsible DAs (and perhaps, irresponsible or ignorant county commissions). The judges of the 11th District began to take dramatic action, and so far the Colorado Supreme Court has backed them up. The OARC has a history of disciplining irresponsible District Attorneys, so I am not surprised they took seriously the complaints against Stanley and her staff members, including Eytan's complaint. No one "bought a seat at the table" or exercised "undue influence" to take down Linda Stanley. Her own behavior rendered her office ineffective and got her in trouble. With People v Tippet, the courts have now joined the OARC in sending the message to prosecutors: comply with the rules or there will be serious consequences. It's about time.

It has become fashionable for powerful people who face accountability to undermine the courts and agencies taking them to task. Then when the evidence comes out for all to see, we know the powerful people who shouted "It's RIGGED" deserve the consequences. I think at the end of the day, we will be able to see that Stanley and her staff have been treated fairly by a system of accountability that has the public interest at heart.

It is a shame that justice has been delayed and denied because prosecutors were irresponsible. But our system of justice, with all its procedural protections, is our bulwark against the Star Chamber and the Gulag. Upholding them is more important than the outcome of a single case: the Founders believed - and I believe - that it is better that ten guilty men go free than that one innocent man be imprisoned.

All MOO.

 

[Cassady]

^^rsbm

I can't recall any former prosecutor (or a current prosecutor for that matter) making public comments in support of any colleague called before the disciplinary Court, Supreme Court of Colorado. Anybody?

I think it might have something to do with the fact that COBAR/OARC Complaints and hearings generally don't make local and/or national news before the Opinions are published.

But I've also never seen a fellow attorney call a press conference to announce that she hand delivered 80+pages of alleged ethical violations against an elected DA and six additional prosecutors, and hand out copies of her Complaint. And another press event to announce she served as a witness to the OARC during their investigation of the same respondents!

Nonetheless, I think December's written support of Stanley by the Colorado District Attorney's Council, the Colorado Attorney General's Office, and especially Supreme Court Justices Samour, Boatright, and Marquez, when it really mattered, speaks volumes.

This article says that the CDAC actually filed one of the complaints.

Former Morphew prosecutor's marathon disciplinary hearing concludes

Either the district attorney who oversaw the Barry Morphew alleged murder case was so loose-lipped with the press that she sunk the case or she had a First Amendment right

www.google.com

 

[al66pine]

Stanley re Podcast: "1000 People in Colorado"

From the above article:
[…]
Of appearing on the podcast, Kristofco asked, "You believed Mr. Morphew was guilty and you wanted to get others to agree with you, right?"
"Untrue," replied Stanley.
She added, "There were only 1,000 people in Colorado who watched that (the podcast 'Profiling Evil')."

She said that the chances of potential jurors hearing her comments were the same as winning the lottery.
[...]

snipped for focus @Cindizzi
Thanks for catching these quotes from the OARC procedure.

Flashing my tech ignorance here:
Could Stanley know as a FACT that only about 1000 ppl in Colorado viewed that Profiling Evil podcast? Specifically people in CO?
1000 as it was LIVEstreamed?
Did she pull figure out of the air? Or what was her source?

How many LATER views?
27,000+ views!!! for Profiling Evil July 22, 2021 episode in which she participated.*
Was that the one in which LS made these stmts?
(Okay, not everyone in the state could be called for jury duty for the then-upcoming trial, but still.)

Seems her stmt at OARC tried to minimize impact of her podcast stmts, as if:
- Podcast viewers would not recall those stmts if they were called for jury duty. (Maybe, IDK)
- Podcast viewers in 11th JudDist would not repeat those stmts to any one who could be called for jury duty. (Doubtful imo)
- Podcast viewers NOT in 11th JudDist would not repeat those stmts to any one who could be called for jury duty. (Doubtful imo)

And - Chances of potential jurors hearing her comments were the same as winning the LOTTERY??? Sorry, respectfully disagreeing on that point.
jmo

BTW, nice of her to appear on PE podcasts, and down the road, publicly DENIGRATE it? /sarc
~ Oh, pshaw, nobody paid attention to that.

Anyone here predicting future invites for her to participate on ANYBODY's podcasts?
jmo
__________________________________
* "27,303 views Streamed live on Jul 22, 2021"

 

[al66pine]

This article says that the CDAC actually filed one of the complaints.

Former Morphew prosecutor's marathon disciplinary hearing concludes

Either the district attorney who oversaw the Barry Morphew alleged murder case was so loose-lipped with the press that she sunk the case or she had a First Amendment right

www.google.com

@Cassady Thx for your post.

Link shows as subscriber only.
Can someone pls pull just one sentence re the gist of the CDAC's complaint?
TiA

 

[Puzzles8]

Thanks for this @Seattle1 ! Don't think i'd seen it before.

IMO the problem for BM has always been that there wasn't a working dart gun, because of his story about shooting deer on his property shortly before SMs murder. What gun did he use? This is the kind of reason why he can't give a depo in his civil trial.

I am no firearms expert, but is it possible Barry just used his own body strength and hand to inject Suzanne with the dart?

JMPO

 

[ar3593]

Yes, IMO they are probably desperately trying to cling on to dear old Dad's innocence, and stomping on any thoughts to the contrary intruding. But how long can they keep it up?

Until BM is behind bars. I suspect then, we may see a different scenario. Let's pray for that at least. I do think they fear their father because deep down, they know he killed their mother. MOO

 

[MassGuy]

I am no firearms expert, but is it possible Barry just used his own body strength and hand to inject Suzanne with the dart?

JMPO

He wouldn't even need a dart in that situation. All he had to do was use a syringe to remove the tranquilizer from the vial, and inject Suzanne with that same syringe.

 

[Cindizzi]

Either the district attorney who oversaw the Barry Morphew alleged murder case was so loose-lipped with the press that she sunk the case, or, she had a First Amendment right to speak about certain aspects of the investigation.

“If you go down this route you are threatening First Amendment liberties,” said Linda Stanley’s attorney Steve Jensen during his closing arguments in her disciplinary hearing on Friday. “This is scary stuff indeed.”

Jensen accused the arm of the Colorado Supreme Court that is overseeing Stanley’s case of being a regulatory bureaucracy, pointing out that she is not going to run again.

"She has given up her career," Jensen said.

But Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel lawyer Erin Kristofco argued that Stanley had no remorse for causing two first-degree murder cases to circle the drain. She asked the three-person panel who listened to the hearing to disbar Stanley.

The 9-day hearing over two weeks in Denver was similar to a trial with witnesses and competing sides, except there was no jury. Stanley's fate will be decided by a three-person board including a presiding judge, an attorney and a regular citizen.

[…]

Former Morphew prosecutor's marathon disciplinary hearing concludes

Either the district attorney who oversaw the Barry Morphew alleged murder case was so loose-lipped with the press that she sunk the case, or, she had a First Amendment right

denvergazette.com