Still Missing CO - Suzanne Morphew, 49, Chaffee Co, 10 May 2020 *arrest* #90

[mom2chloe]

" Wonderful " is not a word I would use to describe any murder trial. Especially that one.

I don’t speak for OP but wonderful describes the group of us who stand for justice regardless the circumstances. IMO

 

[MassGuy]

Respectfully, I believe Jonathan Grusing retired from the FBI after a long career. CBI's Cahill resigned last December -- days before an internal affairs investigation document was released-- one that would have resulted in his termination.

Man repeatedly threw away trash on day wife disappeared

Yup. Grusing did his 25 and has now moved on to greener pastures.

Cahill saw the writing on the wall, and likely resigned in lieu of firing.

 

[Momofthreeboys]

Well I guess there will be no supporters in the courtroom-I would imagine that family and friends from both sides will be on the witness lists.

If I recall the final prosecution witness list is due to the court and defense in Feb 14…correct me if I am confusing the date with the date expert witnesses need to be identified.

 

[Kemug]

I haven't been a Websleuther for anything like as long as many of you. So let me tell you how very much I appreciate and admire you all for your love of justice, and the way you contribute to it.

 

[CarefullyTaught]

No, this only applies to trial, and won't inhibit their ability to continue investigating in any way.

There can also be many strategic advantages for the defense in requesting and obtaining sequestration of trial witnesses.

Recall of course the State has the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt in a criminal trial, and it’s a high burden.

Witnesses forced to show up and sit around bored, isolated, on call or in a hall or room for possibly several weeks on the off chance they might be called, removed, returned, removed, and called again because of bench arguments/conferences/objections, jury breaks, technical difficulties, emergency hearings, weather issues, direct examination, cross examination, rebuttal, recross, at various points in the trial, is stressful, disorienting, and unpleasant for most people.

Potential or imminent trial witnesses unmoored from trial presentation and testimony flow or developments may be bored, disoriented, exhausted, seem clueless, forgetful, less credible, less trust worthy, and melt a bit together for jurors. The jurors also become bored by how much this can drag things that are already a boring process out by quite a bit with just removing and retrieving witnesses from the courtroom and the process delays of keeping witnesses available, locatable, but separated.
If you’ve ever sat in the hall outside the principal’s office while one of your buddy’s was being questioned and knowing you might be next but unsure of what they actually said to each other, you can imagine the psychic toll this takes on most people. Especially when you’re already under a lot of stress and may be witness to or possibly implicated unknowingly in some traumatic and criminal events.

And you’ll be under penalty of perjury, not knowing what anyone else might have said about what you said or did or about events.

Not fun.

Small but potentially important witnesses for the prosecution may experience this as an extreme burden that disrupts their family life, employment, subjects them to ridicule/harassment/pressure/stress and it’s just much less interesting and satisfying an experience for witnesses in almost all cases than the communal process of being in the courtroom congregation for the whole deal or at least the most of it.

Some witnesses may for whatever reason tune out or be more likely to feel disconnected and doubt themselves or change their minds about wanting to cooperate or change their confidence level about their memory of events because they just want out.

Their isolation makes them easier to emotionally/psychologically manipulate — some might argue — makes them more vulnerable — and one false accidental or momentary (or engineered) interaction with another witness during trial might — depending on various factors — really f things up for the Prosecution — result in sanctions for the witness and/or the prosecution, may result in a mistrial, is a logistical hot mess, and at minimum makes appealable errors
lower hanging fruit. One witness in a big case might not even realize another person is also on the witness list for a trial. They may have come from out of state or lack familiarity with the bulk of the case. They may be discovered later on in the case. So the burden on the Prosecution in such cases goes way way up too.

Meanwhile, the defendant has a constitutional right to confront his accusers, so BM can hang out in court the whole time staring down anyone who takes the stand, despite the witness sequestration order.

“Criminal defendants have a constitutional right to be present in the courtroom during all the testimony. So even if they plan to take the stand, judges may not exclude them.”

In general: advantage BM. Not a ton of upsides here for the prosecution.

Buckle up.

JMO/MOO

 

[Tumbleweed]

Respectfully, I believe Jonathan Grusing retired from the FBI after a long career. CBI's Cahill resigned last December -- days before an internal affairs investigation document was released-- one that would have resulted in his termination.

Man repeatedly threw away trash on day wife disappeared

Yes, I agree. "Quit" is not the best word to use. He had over 20 years in with the FBI. What a loss...

 

[MassGuy]

Yes, I agree. "Quit" is not the best word to use. He had over 20 years in with the FBI. What a loss...

Ha! I just wanted to make sure no one thought that Grusing found himself in the same boat or anything.

I'm just hoping he makes more tv appearances.

"Wild Crime" on Hulu was excellent.

 

[Whitneyh]

I wish someone would update us, on what happened this afternoon.

 

[Tumbleweed]

Ha! I just wanted to make sure no one thought that Grusing found himself in the same boat or anything.

I'm just hoping he makes more tv appearances.

"Wild Crime" on Hulu was excellent.

LOL, yeah I was shocked when I googled him and he appeared in IMDB.

 

[al66pine]

Sequestering Witnesses?

Yes, and just because someone is on the list, doesn't mean the prosecution is obligated to call them.
In Patrick Frazee's trial, the prosecution put his mother on the list and never called her, so she was forced to spend the entirety of the trial in the hallway.

@MassGuy Thanks for your post reminding us about def's-Mom-on-Wit/List in the PF case. Was that for both the Guilt & Penalty phases?

For BM's trial, I wonder if ppl on prosecutor's Wit/List will be sequestered during the entire Guilt phase?
Seems if those on state's list were permitted in ct. room while def team puts on its evidence, that they could conform their testimony to other def. witnesses.
So it seems logical imo that the basis for sequester remains constant during the the Guilt phase. my2ct.

But sequestering ppl on prosecutor's Wit/List during Penalty phase? Depends on the prosecutor's motion to sequester witnesses, Guilt only or Penalty too, and then depends on ct's ruling on motion??? I don't recall sequestering for both phases. IDK. @MassGuy? Anyone? TiA.

 

[mom2chloe]

Yup. Grusing did his 25 and has now moved on to greener pastures.

Cahill saw the writing on the wall, and likely resigned in lieu of firing.

Ok apologies but we are indeed on the same page now. Will Grusing and/or Cahill be testifying as witnesses or are their retirements precluding them from that. Will their recordings/documents of previous witnesses and others be sufficient for court? Is the written documentation enough without their personal testimony sufficient?
Also I am sorry for Cahill’s fairly recent injury and glad he is ok. I too have someone close to me who experienced an accidental gun discharge and is lucky to be alive. Prayers for him and everyone who loves him.

 

[MassGuy]

Ok apologies but we are indeed on the same page now. Will Grusing and/or Cahill be testifying as witnesses or are their retirements precluding them from that. Will their recordings/documents of previous witnesses and others be sufficient for court? Is the written documentation enough without their personal testimony sufficient?
Also I am sorry for Cahill’s fairly recent injury and glad he is ok. I too have someone close to me who experienced an accidental gun discharge and is lucky to be alive. Prayers for him and everyone who loves him.

Them not being currently employed by their respective organizations doesn't change anything.

Grusing will testify as if he was still with the FBI, and the same would apply to Cahill.

 

[Boxer]

There can also be many strategic advantages for the defense in requesting and obtaining sequestration of trial witnesses.

Recall of course the State has the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt in a criminal trial, and it’s a high burden.

Witnesses forced to show up and sit around bored, isolated, on call or in a hall or room for possibly several weeks on the off chance they might be called, removed, returned, removed, and called again because of bench arguments/conferences/objections, jury breaks, technical difficulties, emergency hearings, weather issues, direct examination, cross examination, rebuttal, recross, at various points in the trial, is stressful, disorienting, and unpleasant for most people.

Potential or imminent trial witnesses unmoored from trial presentation and testimony flow or developments may be bored, disoriented, exhausted, seem clueless, forgetful, less credible, less trust worthy, and melt a bit together for jurors. The jurors also become bored by how much this can drag things that are already a boring process out by quite a bit with just removing and retrieving witnesses from the courtroom and the process delays of keeping witnesses available, locatable, but separated.
If you’ve ever sat in the hall outside the principal’s office while one of your buddy’s was being questioned and knowing you might be next but unsure of what they actually said to each other, you can imagine the psychic toll this takes on most people. Especially when you’re already under a lot of stress and may be witness to or possibly implicated unknowingly in some traumatic and criminal events.

And you’ll be under penalty of perjury, not knowing what anyone else might have said about what you said or did or about events.

Not fun.

Small but potentially important witnesses for the prosecution may experience this as an extreme burden that disrupts their family life, employment, subjects them to ridicule/harassment/pressure/stress and it’s just much less interesting and satisfying an experience for witnesses in almost all cases than the communal process of being in the courtroom congregation for the whole deal or at least the most of it.

Some witnesses may for whatever reason tune out or be more likely to feel disconnected and doubt themselves or change their minds about wanting to cooperate or change their confidence level about their memory of events because they just want out.

Their isolation makes them easier to emotionally/psychologically manipulate — some might argue — makes them more vulnerable — and one false accidental or momentary (or engineered) interaction with another witness during trial might — depending on various factors — really f things up for the Prosecution — result in sanctions for the witness and/or the prosecution, may result in a mistrial, is a logistical hot mess, and at minimum makes appealable errors
lower hanging fruit. One witness in a big case might not even realize another person is also on the witness list for a trial. They may have come from out of state or lack familiarity with the bulk of the case. They may be discovered later on in the case. So the burden on the Prosecution in such cases goes way way up too.

Meanwhile, the defendant has a constitutional right to confront his accusers, so BM can hang out in court the whole time staring down anyone who takes the stand, despite the witness sequestration order.

“Criminal defendants have a constitutional right to be present in the courtroom during all the testimony. So even if they plan to take the stand, judges may not exclude them.”

In general: advantage BM. Not a ton of upsides here for the prosecution.

Buckle up.

JMO/MOO

There is only one reason for E&N to sequestor.
To trip up police and prosecution witnesses.
It is their formula.
That is how they got Tom Fallis off.
Jury exit surveys said the witnesses didn't seem credible.
They were succesfully made to look that way by E&N.

Not that in this case the lack of clarity around mixed DNA and "limited sample" (moo aka "trace") which led to a "partial match" isn't an error of their own making.

 

[Cindizzi]

We'd need a lawyer to chime in here, but this was the same practice used in the trial of the man accused of murdering Kelsey Berreth.

From what I can gather, any party can request witnesses be sequestered in Colorado (I think the prosecution requested this in the Berreth case).

The defense would want this here because it would make it harder for witnesses to change their testimony based on what a prior witness has said.

They could then point out discrepancies.

The prosecution would probably like it as well, as it would keep Barry's supporters out of the courtroom if they were on the witness list (daughters for instance).

I wonder if the daughters will be exempt from the sequestration order (if they are called to testify ) due to them being considered victims. ??
In the Redwine trial, Dylan’s mother, stepfather and brother all testified and they were exempt ( his brother Corey AFTER he testified) and allowed to be present for the trial.
See paragraph 4 :

https://www.courts.state.co.us/user...District/La_Plata/Redwine/Order after PTC.pdf

 

[Tumbleweed]

Lauren recap outside courthouse:
Barry Morphew motions hearing on WebEx hacked, "never seen this lengthy [an] affidavit"

 

[DeDee]

My error has been deleted.

 

[gliving]

“Pursuant to our responsibilities under Brady v. Maryland, I am writing to inform you that there may be information contained in (a) Colorado Bureau of Investigation internal affairs report… that may impact the credibility of Joseph Cahill,” CBI Director John Camper wrote in the Dec. 17 letter to 11th Judicial District Attorney Linda Stanley, who is prosecuting the case against Morphew."

snip

"In the letter, Camper said CBI officials “regret this situation.”

“While I am disappointed that I need to pen this letter, it is important that you be made aware of this matter,” Camper wrote."

CBI agent in Barry Morphew murder case resigned amid internal affairs investigation

 

[swedeheart]

Morphew case investigator resigned over personal weapon discharge, letter reveals

I just wanted to point out this paragraph, because I'm petty.

"Eleventh Judicial District Judge Patrick Murphy recused himself from the case last month because of a longtime friendship he has with an attorney representing Barry Morphew's girlfriend, Shoshona Darke."

 

[Cindizzi]

Morphew case investigator resigned over personal weapon discharge, letter reveals

A former Colorado Bureau of Investigation agent who was integral in the early months of Barry Morphew's trial resigned last month, further complicating an already complicated, high-profile murder trial.

Joseph Cahill stepped down from the CBI on Dec. 8, just two days before an internal affairs investigation involving an incident in which his personal weapon went off in his home while he was off duty, according to a document obtained by The Gazette.

[ snip ]


A Dec. 17 Brady letter written by CBI Director John Camper addressed to 11th Judicial District Attorney Linda Stanley explained the Cahill incident, which involved "the accidental discharge of former Agent Cahill’s personal weapon while at home in an off-duty capacity, ... unrelated to any criminal cases to which he was assigned."

A Brady letter is a document that questions an officer’s credibility, should the person be called to testify at trial, explained Jeff Roberts, executive director of the Colorado Freedom of Information Coalition.

“There is data called a 'Brady list' that DAs and law enforcement agencies compile on officers who are deemed untrustworthy for one reason or another. These are issues that could affect their credibility in court.”

[ snip ]


Eleventh Judicial District Judge Ramsey Lama — who is new to the case, having been recently assigned to it — ordered prosecutors to turn over the internal affairs and resignation materials regarding Cahill.

Defense attorneys claim they didn't receive the information about the DNA in time to prepare for the preliminary hearing. Prosecutors said they handed over all of the evidence in time.

 

[swedeheart]

New link: