Found Deceased CO - Suzanne Morphew, 49, Chaffee Co, 10 May 2020 *Case dismissed w/o Prejudice* #101

[HongKongPhooey]

Whatever happens from this point on, Barry has to be living with wondering if and when they are coming for him again, amongst people who most likely have read the AA and believe he is guilty. He can run, but he’ll always be looking over his shoulder until the day comes. I still think he looked like a worried man leaving court, not least that Suzanne may be found I bet.

JMO

 

[Kemug]

The options really lessen if Suzanne's body is found buried, even the fiercest Barry supporters will have to admit that. Wilbur Mountainlion is immediately exonerated, and Suzanne is not in Ecuador. Leaving only an abductor/murderer.

 

[mrjitty]

Whatever happens from this point on, Barry has to be living with wondering if and when they are coming for him again, amongst people who most likely have read the AA and believe he is guilty. He can run, but he’ll always be looking over his shoulder until the day comes. I still think he looked like a worried man leaving court, not least that Suzanne may be found I bet.

JMO

I mean that had to have been a bad shock

I was wondering if this kind of investigation doesn't need to be discovered?

 

[MsBetsy]

I like that take a lot, especially this:

There’s no doubt that they need a breather. They need an opportunity to step back and hit the reset button on this case,” said Chohan. “Because of all their witnesses their expert witnesses that got struck from this case.”

A refiling some day could mean new attempts to bring the witnesses and their testimony, which includes information on Barry Morphews whereabouts, back.

“I think they will be able to start from the beginning. I think they will be able to reintroduce these experts, to do the discovery right, to correct the mistakes they had made in the previous case.”

And LOL:

“Now the community wrongfully is going to believe that Barry just got away with murder,” said defense attorney Iris Eytan.

Great article. I would just change the last sentence to, "Now Barry will wrongfully believe he just got away with murder"

 

[Scootie98]

Actually I was wondering about fire ants, I had one bite me once, and let me tell you it is no fun at all. But for our Zoo, I'm thinking maybe we should add a mixed bag - red, soldier, fire, whatever. The more the merrier.

To this day....I wear a scar from a fire ant bite that is as big as the ant.

 

[GatorFL]

Now that I have calmed down a bit, I do have to give it to Linda Stanley. She had the guts to proceed and pursue a case against Barry Morphew. He could have been living the high life, flush with cash, hunting to his heart’s content in the knowledge that he got away with murder. Linda Stanley unmasked him. So there’s that.

I disagree. He was always the prime suspect before she reared her head in this case. Perhaps she was driven to unmask Barry, but at what cost? We know the CBI did not support an arrest at the time one was made, because they knew there was not enough evidence. Other than needlessly unmasking him, what did she do? She totally mucked up this case from the beginning. The judge admonished her and called her "reckless" and another attorney noted that her office did not play by ethical rules. If the sanctions that have been placed on this case follow through if he is recharged, whomever the prosecutor is will face an uphill battle, even if her remains are recovered, IMO.

Barry Morphew murder case: DA drops all charges

 

[Jayhawk]

I disagree. He was always the prime suspect before she reared her head in this case. Perhaps she was driven to unmask Barry, but at what cost? We know the CBI did not support an arrest at the time one was made, because they knew there was not enough evidence. Other than needlessly unmasking him, what did she do? She totally mucked up this case from the beginning. The judge admonished her and called her "reckless" and another attorney noted that her office did not play by ethical rules. If the sanctions that have been placed on this case follow through if he is recharged, whomever the prosecutor is will face an uphill battle, even if her remains are recovered, IMO.

Barry Morphew murder case: DA drops all charges

The prosecution needs a complete case reset.

 

[WingsOverTX]

I disagree. He was always the prime suspect before she reared her head in this case. Perhaps she was driven to unmask Barry, but at what cost? We know the CBI did not support an arrest at the time one was made, because they knew there was not enough evidence. Other than needlessly unmasking him, what did she do? She totally mucked up this case from the beginning. The judge admonished her and called her "reckless" and another attorney noted that her office did not play by ethical rules. If the sanctions that have been placed on this case follow through if he is recharged, whomever the prosecutor is will face an uphill battle, even if her remains are recovered, IMO.

Barry Morphew murder case: DA drops all charges

When the case is refiled, it's a new case and previous sanctions are moot under Colorado law, according to analysis posted recently in this forum.

A premature arrest is not why this case ended up temporarily dismissed, IMO.

Judge L said the DA was "arguably, reckless" so he qualified that term. I think a good case can be made that Judge L was reckless. See the analysis pertaining to that here:

The below is from CO Attorney and defense specialist, H. Michael Steinberg’s website:

The When of the Violation
If a failure to disclose evidence occurs at a pretrial stage of a Colorado criminal case, judges simply order that disclosure and there is no perceived need for a sanction to further remedy the situation.

BUT, if the failure to disclose becomes known either during or just before the start of a trial that the state had material that should have been produced – then Rule 16 gives a Colorado judge much broader discretion in deciding what should then be done.

The judge will balance several issues in this context:

1. The reasons why the disclosure was not made;
2. The extent of the prejudice, if any, to the opposing party,
3. The feasibility of rectifying that prejudice by a continuance, and any other relevant circumstances.

Among the options open to the judge are the following – a judge may:

1. Order the noncomplying party to permit the discovery of the material and information not previously disclosed;
2. Grant a continuance (if possible); or
3. Enter such other order as it deems just under the circumstances;

ABA Standards for Criminal Justice

Colorado Crim.P. 16(III)(g) provides:

Failure to Comply; Sanctions.

If at any time during the course of the proceedings it is brought to the attention of the court that a party has failed to comply with this rule or with an order issued pursuant to this rule, the court may order such party to permit the discovery or inspection of materials not previously disclosed, grant a continuance, prohibit the party from introducing in evidence the material not disclosed or enter such other order as it deems just under the circumstances.

Whether the judge imposes a sanction of the extreme side of its’ power may well depend on whether the prosecutor willfully violated the rule or order.

The “Tailoring” of the Sanction to Remedy the Discovery Violation
Judges are guided by another important principle in deciding how to remedy a discovery violation. That principle is this – in the judge’s role to remedy the prejudice to the defense if the trial judge finds a violation of discovery under Crim P. 16, they are directed to do so while trying to promote “compliance with the discovery rules while affecting the evidence at trial and the merits of the case as little as possible.'”

ABA Standards for Criminal Justice

The dismissal of a case, or even the less severe suppression of the withheld evidence as a sanction for a violation of discovery, is not favored by the law in this area.

The reasons are based on the policies underlying the purpose of a trial as “a search for the truth.”

Most courts across the country that have ruled in this area on appeal have found that an exclusion of prosecution evidence produces “a disproportionate windfall for the defendant.”

The Least Severe Sanction for a Violation of the Rules of Discovery
Colorado Courts of Appeal have also found that the purpose of the discovery process, including the imposition of sanctions, is to advance the search for truth.

When a violation is found and analyzed, those courts have instructed the Colorado trial judge to impose “the least severe sanction that will accomplish the desired result prompt and full compliance with the court’s discovery orders.”

BBM above from the link below.
IANAL and still trying to understand the legalese and why the Judge ruled as he did with regard to striking prosecution’s experts’ from being able to testify as such, effectively crippling/gutting the prosecution’s case. Given that Judge L stated that he felt the prosecution’s missteps were not willful and given what I understand from the above, the law frowns upon and cautions trial Judge’s against issuing severest of sanctions - disallowing prosecution’s evidence - in favor of the search for the truth, I can’t help but wonder did Judge L issue the severe sanction due to asking the prosecution twice to submit the experts’ testimony and cv’s and basically was annoyed that they didn’t do it after allowing them a second chance, or what??

Don’t get me wrong, I’m as disappointed as anyone that the prosecution ‘blundered’ in the pre-trial proceedings but it still confuses me that the Judge stated he didn’t feel the missteps by the prosecution were willful but decided to issue severe sanction of striking expert witnesses which to my understanding, the law and legal higher ups advise trial Judge’s against doing. So I say again, all considered, Judge L’s ruling seems overly punitive to me, almost as though, had the trial proceeded as scheduled, instilling reasonable doubt before the jury is even seated. Could he not have fined the actual prosecutor/s at fault, and/or called LS into chambers and counseled her about the thin ice she was skating on and demand she turn over the info or else….(can/do trial Judge’s ever do that?).

I mean, this is about protecting the People of the State of Colorado and the search for the truth in pursuit of justice for the victim, Suzanne Renee Moorman Morphew, and so I can’t help but feel the Judge either felt he needed to punish the prosecution after granting them more time to produce and/or was afraid the defense would file an appeal if he didn’t issue a severe sanction.

At any rate, I suppose it’s water under the bridge at this point, but can I just say that if new evidence comes to light/Suzanne’s remains are found and BM is re-arrested and charges re-filed (hopefully, fingers crossed), I think it would be best if a Special Prosecutor, the likes of a Dan May or Matt Murphy is assigned to the case to ensure the case/the evidence in it’s totality, is presented correctly at a future trial so that Suzanne ultimately receives the justice she so rightfully deserves.

When the Colorado District Attorney Fails to Turn Over Key Evidence – What Will Happen?


All of the above IMHOO

#FINDSUZANNE
#BRINGSUZANNEHOME
#JUSTICEFORSUZANNE

ETA-clarity

As always, my opinion only

 

[Boxer]

When the case is refiled, it's a new case and previous sanctions are moot under Colorado law, according to analysis posted recently in this forum.

A premature arrest is not why this case ended up temporarily dismissed, IMO.

Judge L said the DA was "arguably, reckless" so he qualified that term. I think a good case can be made that Judge L was reckless. See the analysis pertaining to that here:



As always, my opinion only

The first judge, Judge Murphy gave LS a verbak warning on discovery instead of a sanction, saying he would not sanction the DAs inutial discovery violation because as of yet there was not a "pattern" of withholding discovery.
The second and third diacivery violations created the pattern.

How gleeful E&N must have been when they realized LS was not going to comply with a judge's directions.
Shooting fish in a barrel.

 

[Megnut]

That the Prosecution is a stumbling, bumbling mess is a narrative pushed by an expensive defense. The degree to which it's accurate, exaggerated or fabricated is open for discussion.

The judge IMO relied heavily on the defense's representation of the case and of violations.

I'd like clarification.

We already know some "violations" weren't actually violations. Defense had the discovery, they just couldn't find it.

The defense, if I understand this correctly, represented that the Prosecution withheld exculpatory discovery by not disclosing the Codis hits (linked to unsolved but later solved crimes bearing no similariy to Suzanne's abduction). It was only the defense and only the defense's spin that those hits were viable suspects. They weren't. Then, ever or now! (Even though the defense is still spouting it!)

In email and memo mining, the defense picked up on discord among the ranks, regarding the timing of Barry's arrest. Key to note that the disagreement was on timing -- from those who wanted to be there for the tasty takedown and from those who felt that, in holding off on an arrest, Barry might keep talking, a boon of valuable doublespeak. Again, the pointed conversation was about when Barry should be arrested. It was the defense alone who conflated this into a supposed rigorous debate among LE about whether Barry should be arrested, further implying a lack of evidence, as if some felt he was innocent! Gross mischaracterization!

Same with the dog. No real followup by the Prosecution because IMO it just wasn't newsworthy. Now, the defense tried hard to sell a story that the dog lost the scent at a log -- a worm that made into the judge's, no less. But the dog never found a scent. Nothing exculpatory there. Nothing there, period. IMO an expert they, for trial, no longer intended to call. The defense, however, was successful in their story-telling, convincing the judge the prosecution was holding back information that could exonerate Barry by pointing elsewhere. No such thing. The dog actually makes it worse for Barry. Suzanne was never there.

That's the part the defense didn't say.

This is all smoke and mirrors IMO. The prosecution isn't obligated to put every expert on the stand, including ones that reinforce the case against Barry but are minor players.

IMO where this went horribly sideways is with the judge's sanctions which blanketed all experts, not just the ones in question.

Of course, if the dog had trailed Suzanne's scent to a location (like a log), the Prosecution can't withhold or bury that information. A defendant"s right to a fair trial depends on disclosure. Of evidence that is exculpatory. This was not that!

Iris' post-court analysis highlights the false story she wants to sell. That there are SOs three states away who have a connection to this case (there aren't and they don't).

I could be wrong but I think the prosecution was prepared to lose their dog expert -- no one expected the judge to exclude nearly all of their experts, effectively eviserating their circumstantional no body case.

Frankly I think the defense attorneys should've been sanctioned, for misleading the court.

In any event, here we are. If the Prosecution can come back with a body case, the defendant will be in a new world of hurt. Especially when she's found in a location he knows in a manner he knows how to do. Lover, out. Mountain lion, out. Ecuador, out. Suicide, out. SODDIs, out. The husband, in.

As the snow melts, let us hope LE can bring Suzanne home.

JMO

 

[WingsOverTX]

That the Prosecution is a stumbling, bumbling mess is a narrative pushed by an expensive defense. The degree to which it's accurate, exaggerated or fabricated is open for discussion.

The judge IMO relied heavily on the defense's representation of the case and of violations.

I'd like clarification.

We already know some "violations" weren't actually violations. Defense had the discovery, they just couldn't find it.

The defense, if I understand this correctly, represented that the Prosecution withheld exculpatory discovery by not disclosing the Codis hits (linked to unsolved but later solved crimes bearing no similariy to Suzanne's abduction). It was only the defense and only the defense's spin that those hits were viable suspects. They weren't. Then, ever or now! (Even though the defense is still spouting it!)

In email and memo mining, the defense picked up on discord among the ranks, regarding the timing of Barry's arrest. Key to note that the disagreement was on timing -- from those who wanted to be there for the tasty takedown and from those who felt that, in holding off on an arrest, Barry might keep talking, a boon of valuable doublespeak. Again, the pointed conversation was about when Barry shoukd be arrested. It was the defense alone who conflated this into a supposed rigorous debate among LE about whether Barry should be arrested, further implying a lack of evidence, as if some felt he was innocent! Gross mischaracterization!

Same with the dog. No real followup by the Prosecution because IMO it just wasn't newsworthy. Now, the defense tried hard to sell a story that the dog lost the scent at a log -- a worm that made into the judge's, no less. But the dog never found a scent. Nothing exculpatory there. Nothing there, period. IMO an expert they, for trial, didn't intend to call. The defense, however, was successful in their story-telling, convincing the judge the prosecution was holding back information that could exonerate Barry by pointing elsewhere. No such thing. The dog actually makes it worse for Barry. Suzanne was never there.

That's the part the defense didn't say.

This is all smoke and mirrors IMO. The prosecution isn't obligated to put every expert on the stand, including ones that reinforce the case against Barry but are minor players.

IMO where this went horribly sideways is with the judge's sanctions which blanketed all experts, not just the ones in question.

Of course, if the dog had trailed Suzanne's scent to a location (like a log), the Prosecution can't withhold or bury that information. A defendant"s right to a fair trial depends on disclosure. Of evidence that is exculpatory. This was not that!

Iris' post-court analysis highlights the false story she wants to sell. That there are SOs three states away who have a connection to this case (there aren't and they don't).

I could be wrong but I think the prosecution was prepared to lose their dog expert -- no one expected the judge to exclude nearly all of their experts, effectively eviserating their circumstantional no body case.

Frankly I think the defense attorneys should've been sanctioned, for misleading the court.

In any event, here we are. If the Prosecution can come back with a body case, the defendant will be in a new world of hurt. Especially when she's found in a location he knows in a manner he knows how to do. Lover, out. Mountain lion, out. Ecuador, out. Suicide, out. SODDIs, out. The husband, in.

As the snow melts, let us hope LE can bring Suzanne home.

JMO

Judge M did a better job of keeping the defense in line although his decision on bail was quite faulty IMO. If BM maintains the same defense team when new charges are filed, the case will need a judge who can cut through the bull and indicate to both sides in advance what penalties can endanger the case due to CMO noncompliance on either side.

Silly that adults need to be told exactly what penalties they will incur for misdeed, forced or unforced, but necessary, apparently. I'd like to see something monetary upwards of $25,000 for each violation in future. If I were the judge, a person who works for the court would be in charge of recordkeeping each CMO violation alleged by both sides. Let's have a document that compares what is alleged with actual fact finding so that sudden sleight of hand is not par for the course as we go along. Get this behavior in hand and the trial will have more credibility.

Probably just wishful thinking on my part. But proceeding in future with the same nonsense on both sides is untenable from an outsider's perspective.

When the prosecution truly fails, let them pay. And when the defense obscures the truth by inference or fact, let them pay.

If it's going to be played like a game, a set of clear Marquess of Queensberry Rules and penalties that make compliance more likely should apply.

Thank you for listening. MOO

 

[Cindizzi]

That the Prosecution is a stumbling, bumbling mess is a narrative pushed by an expensive defense. The degree to which it's accurate, exaggerated or fabricated is open for discussion.

The judge IMO relied heavily on the defense's representation of the case and of violations.

I'd like clarification.

We already know some "violations" weren't actually violations. Defense had the discovery, they just couldn't find it.

The defense, if I understand this correctly, represented that the Prosecution withheld exculpatory discovery by not disclosing the Codis hits (linked to unsolved but later solved crimes bearing no similariy to Suzanne's abduction). It was only the defense and only the defense's spin that those hits were viable suspects. They weren't. Then, ever or now! (Even though the defense is still spouting it!)

In email and memo mining, the defense picked up on discord among the ranks, regarding the timing of Barry's arrest. Key to note that the disagreement was on timing -- from those who wanted to be there for the tasty takedown and from those who felt that, in holding off on an arrest, Barry might keep talking, a boon of valuable doublespeak. Again, the pointed conversation was about when Barry should be arrested. It was the defense alone who conflated this into a supposed rigorous debate among LE about whether Barry should be arrested, further implying a lack of evidence, as if some felt he was innocent! Gross mischaracterization!

Same with the dog. No real followup by the Prosecution because IMO it just wasn't newsworthy. Now, the defense tried hard to sell a story that the dog lost the scent at a log -- a worm that made into the judge's, no less. But the dog never found a scent. Nothing exculpatory there. Nothing there, period. IMO an expert they, for trial, no longer intended to call. The defense, however, was successful in their story-telling, convincing the judge the prosecution was holding back information that could exonerate Barry by pointing elsewhere. No such thing. The dog actually makes it worse for Barry. Suzanne was never there.

That's the part the defense didn't say.

This is all smoke and mirrors IMO. The prosecution isn't obligated to put every expert on the stand, including ones that reinforce the case against Barry but are minor players.

IMO where this went horribly sideways is with the judge's sanctions which blanketed all experts, not just the ones in question.

Of course, if the dog had trailed Suzanne's scent to a location (like a log), the Prosecution can't withhold or bury that information. A defendant"s right to a fair trial depends on disclosure. Of evidence that is exculpatory. This was not that!

Iris' post-court analysis highlights the false story she wants to sell. That there are SOs three states away who have a connection to this case (there aren't and they don't).

I could be wrong but I think the prosecution was prepared to lose their dog expert -- no one expected the judge to exclude nearly all of their experts, effectively eviserating their circumstantional no body case.

Frankly I think the defense attorneys should've been sanctioned, for misleading the court.

In any event, here we are. If the Prosecution can come back with a body case, the defendant will be in a new world of hurt. Especially when she's found in a location he knows in a manner he knows how to do. Lover, out. Mountain lion, out. Ecuador, out. Suicide, out. SODDIs, out. The husband, in.

As the snow melts, let us hope LE can bring Suzanne home.

JMO

Another instance of Judge L ruling with the Defense is in the Order granting change of venue. Like he didn’t research, he just cut and pasted Defense statements regarding Stanley like this one on page 5.

It says that Stanley violated a pre trial publicity order in her press conference remarks.

The press conference was just 6 hours after the arrest so there were no orders in place yet!

And she was answering a reporter question.
Reporter: Is Barry answering your questions and has he told you where Suzanne’s body is?
Stanley: Once in custody, Mr. M asked for an attorney and all questioning ended.

I can’t defend other things the DA did ( like going on podcasts) but IE was spinning the truth about the PC.
JMO
EBM to correct page number- page 5 not page 8

https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/11th_Judicial_District/Chaffee/cases of interest/21CR78/ORDER RE_ [D-34] DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO CHANGE VENUE AND REQUEST FOR EVIDENTIARY HEARING PRIOR TO VOIR DIRE EXAMINATION BECAUSEMR.pdf

 

[WingsOverTX]

Another instance of Judge L ruling with the Defense is in the Order granting change of venue. Like he didn’t research, he just cut and pasted Defense statements regarding Stanley like this one on page 8.

It says that Stanley violated a pre trial publicity order in her press conference remarks.

The press conference was just 6 hours after the arrest so there were no orders in place yet!

And she was answering a reporter question.
Reporter: Is Barry answering your questions and has he told you where Suzanne’s body is?
Stanley: Once in custody, Mr. M asked for an attorney and all questioning ended.

I can’t defend other things the DA did ( like going on podcasts, but IE was spinning the truth about the PC.
JMO

https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/11th_Judicial_District/Chaffee/cases of interest/21CR78/ORDER RE_ [D-34] DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO CHANGE VENUE AND REQUEST FOR EVIDENTIARY HEARING PRIOR TO VOIR DIRE EXAMINATION BECAUSEMR.pdf

Sad when the judge needs a fact checker for misdeeds. I really don't know how you remedy judicial malfeasance of this nature. Maybe Stanley herself should be monitoring the judge and object when he fails in his duty of oversight, whether or not that failure is deemed willful.

JMO

 

[Murphy1950]

That the Prosecution is a stumbling, bumbling mess is a narrative pushed by an expensive defense. The degree to which it's accurate, exaggerated or fabricated is open for discussion.

The judge IMO relied heavily on the defense's representation of the case and of violations.

I'd like clarification.

We already know some "violations" weren't actually violations. Defense had the discovery, they just couldn't find it.

The defense, if I understand this correctly, represented that the Prosecution withheld exculpatory discovery by not disclosing the Codis hits (linked to unsolved but later solved crimes bearing no similariy to Suzanne's abduction). It was only the defense and only the defense's spin that those hits were viable suspects. They weren't. Then, ever or now! (Even though the defense is still spouting it!)

In email and memo mining, the defense picked up on discord among the ranks, regarding the timing of Barry's arrest. Key to note that the disagreement was on timing -- from those who wanted to be there for the tasty takedown and from those who felt that, in holding off on an arrest, Barry might keep talking, a boon of valuable doublespeak. Again, the pointed conversation was about when Barry should be arrested. It was the defense alone who conflated this into a supposed rigorous debate among LE about whether Barry should be arrested, further implying a lack of evidence, as if some felt he was innocent! Gross mischaracterization!

Same with the dog. No real followup by the Prosecution because IMO it just wasn't newsworthy. Now, the defense tried hard to sell a story that the dog lost the scent at a log -- a worm that made into the judge's, no less. But the dog never found a scent. Nothing exculpatory there. Nothing there, period. IMO an expert they, for trial, no longer intended to call. The defense, however, was successful in their story-telling, convincing the judge the prosecution was holding back information that could exonerate Barry by pointing elsewhere. No such thing. The dog actually makes it worse for Barry. Suzanne was never there.

That's the part the defense didn't say.

This is all smoke and mirrors IMO. The prosecution isn't obligated to put every expert on the stand, including ones that reinforce the case against Barry but are minor players.

IMO where this went horribly sideways is with the judge's sanctions which blanketed all experts, not just the ones in question.

Of course, if the dog had trailed Suzanne's scent to a location (like a log), the Prosecution can't withhold or bury that information. A defendant"s right to a fair trial depends on disclosure. Of evidence that is exculpatory. This was not that!

Iris' post-court analysis highlights the false story she wants to sell. That there are SOs three states away who have a connection to this case (there aren't and they don't).

I could be wrong but I think the prosecution was prepared to lose their dog expert -- no one expected the judge to exclude nearly all of their experts, effectively eviserating their circumstantional no body case.

Frankly I think the defense attorneys should've been sanctioned, for misleading the court.

In any event, here we are. If the Prosecution can come back with a body case, the defendant will be in a new world of hurt. Especially when she's found in a location he knows in a manner he knows how to do. Lover, out. Mountain lion, out. Ecuador, out. Suicide, out. SODDIs, out. The husband, in.

As the snow melts, let us hope LE can bring Suzanne home.

JMO

Excellent post Megnut. The dog scent, DNA evidence and the Brady Violation, all smoke and mirrors. The irony was they wanted the Brady letter in play to suggest there was a problem with Cahill’s credibility. While at the same time expounding on the fact that CBI said it was too early to arrest. CBI being Cahill.

I find I&E incredibly untrustworthy, for all we know, they know the source of the sheath but are continuing to play the game.

 

[GatorFL]

When the case is refiled, it's a new case and previous sanctions are moot under Colorado law, according to analysis posted recently in this forum.

A premature arrest is not why this case ended up temporarily dismissed, IMO.

Judge L said the DA was "arguably, reckless" so he qualified that term. I think a good case can be made that Judge L was reckless. See the analysis pertaining to that here:



As always, my opinion only

I saw that attorney's thoughts on the sanctions. I also saw analysis posted earlier in the prior thread that the sanctions would carry over if he were recharged. So, the status of the sanctions is unknown, IMO.

Curious, why do you think the case was dismissed?

 

[GatorFL]

That the Prosecution is a stumbling, bumbling mess is a narrative pushed by an expensive defense. The degree to which it's accurate, exaggerated or fabricated is open for discussion.

The judge IMO relied heavily on the defense's representation of the case and of violations.

I'd like clarification.

We already know some "violations" weren't actually violations. Defense had the discovery, they just couldn't find it.

The defense, if I understand this correctly, represented that the Prosecution withheld exculpatory discovery by not disclosing the Codis hits (linked to unsolved but later solved crimes bearing no similariy to Suzanne's abduction). It was only the defense and only the defense's spin that those hits were viable suspects. They weren't. Then, ever or now! (Even though the defense is still spouting it!)

In email and memo mining, the defense picked up on discord among the ranks, regarding the timing of Barry's arrest. Key to note that the disagreement was on timing -- from those who wanted to be there for the tasty takedown and from those who felt that, in holding off on an arrest, Barry might keep talking, a boon of valuable doublespeak. Again, the pointed conversation was about when Barry should be arrested. It was the defense alone who conflated this into a supposed rigorous debate among LE about whether Barry should be arrested, further implying a lack of evidence, as if some felt he was innocent! Gross mischaracterization!

Same with the dog. No real followup by the Prosecution because IMO it just wasn't newsworthy. Now, the defense tried hard to sell a story that the dog lost the scent at a log -- a worm that made into the judge's, no less. But the dog never found a scent. Nothing exculpatory there. Nothing there, period. IMO an expert they, for trial, no longer intended to call. The defense, however, was successful in their story-telling, convincing the judge the prosecution was holding back information that could exonerate Barry by pointing elsewhere. No such thing. The dog actually makes it worse for Barry. Suzanne was never there.

That's the part the defense didn't say.

This is all smoke and mirrors IMO. The prosecution isn't obligated to put every expert on the stand, including ones that reinforce the case against Barry but are minor players.

IMO where this went horribly sideways is with the judge's sanctions which blanketed all experts, not just the ones in question.

Of course, if the dog had trailed Suzanne's scent to a location (like a log), the Prosecution can't withhold or bury that information. A defendant"s right to a fair trial depends on disclosure. Of evidence that is exculpatory. This was not that!

Iris' post-court analysis highlights the false story she wants to sell. That there are SOs three states away who have a connection to this case (there aren't and they don't).

I could be wrong but I think the prosecution was prepared to lose their dog expert -- no one expected the judge to exclude nearly all of their experts, effectively eviserating their circumstantional no body case.

Frankly I think the defense attorneys should've been sanctioned, for misleading the court.

In any event, here we are. If the Prosecution can come back with a body case, the defendant will be in a new world of hurt. Especially when she's found in a location he knows in a manner he knows how to do. Lover, out. Mountain lion, out. Ecuador, out. Suicide, out. SODDIs, out. The husband, in.

As the snow melts, let us hope LE can bring Suzanne home.

JMO

Having read all that I have one question: then why didn't the prosecution appeal the judge's rulings to a higher court? If it were all due to defense hullabaloo, certainly the People would want to appeal to a higher court to get the sanctions removed. Despite your elaborate argument, there are reasons the state chose to dismiss instead of appeal.

 

[susiQ]

That the Prosecution is a stumbling, bumbling mess is a narrative pushed by an expensive defense. The degree to which it's accurate, exaggerated or fabricated is open for discussion.

The judge IMO relied heavily on the defense's representation of the case and of violations.

I'd like clarification.

We already know some "violations" weren't actually violations. Defense had the discovery, they just couldn't find it.

The defense, if I understand this correctly, represented that the Prosecution withheld exculpatory discovery by not disclosing the Codis hits (linked to unsolved but later solved crimes bearing no similariy to Suzanne's abduction). It was only the defense and only the defense's spin that those hits were viable suspects. They weren't. Then, ever or now! (Even though the defense is still spouting it!)

In email and memo mining, the defense picked up on discord among the ranks, regarding the timing of Barry's arrest. Key to note that the disagreement was on timing -- from those who wanted to be there for the tasty takedown and from those who felt that, in holding off on an arrest, Barry might keep talking, a boon of valuable doublespeak. Again, the pointed conversation was about when Barry should be arrested. It was the defense alone who conflated this into a supposed rigorous debate among LE about whether Barry should be arrested, further implying a lack of evidence, as if some felt he was innocent! Gross mischaracterization!

Same with the dog. No real followup by the Prosecution because IMO it just wasn't newsworthy. Now, the defense tried hard to sell a story that the dog lost the scent at a log -- a worm that made into the judge's, no less. But the dog never found a scent. Nothing exculpatory there. Nothing there, period. IMO an expert they, for trial, no longer intended to call. The defense, however, was successful in their story-telling, convincing the judge the prosecution was holding back information that could exonerate Barry by pointing elsewhere. No such thing. The dog actually makes it worse for Barry. Suzanne was never there.

That's the part the defense didn't say.

This is all smoke and mirrors IMO. The prosecution isn't obligated to put every expert on the stand, including ones that reinforce the case against Barry but are minor players.

IMO where this went horribly sideways is with the judge's sanctions which blanketed all experts, not just the ones in question.

Of course, if the dog had trailed Suzanne's scent to a location (like a log), the Prosecution can't withhold or bury that information. A defendant"s right to a fair trial depends on disclosure. Of evidence that is exculpatory. This was not that!

Iris' post-court analysis highlights the false story she wants to sell. That there are SOs three states away who have a connection to this case (there aren't and they don't).

I could be wrong but I think the prosecution was prepared to lose their dog expert -- no one expected the judge to exclude nearly all of their experts, effectively eviserating their circumstantional no body case.

Frankly I think the defense attorneys should've been sanctioned, for misleading the court.

In any event, here we are. If the Prosecution can come back with a body case, the defendant will be in a new world of hurt. Especially when she's found in a location he knows in a manner he knows how to do. Lover, out. Mountain lion, out. Ecuador, out. Suicide, out. SODDIs, out. The husband, in.

As the snow melts, let us hope LE can bring Suzanne home.

JMO

Thank you @Megnut for articulating what I could not. I’m so with you here! The defence’s misrepresentation of this case is mammoth. I’m actually quite disgusted by IE for her “closing argument” on the court house lawn. Some may find pleasure in demeaning Linda Stanley and laying all the problems at her feet alone. I do not. I believe she has integrity, something that IE appears completely devoid of as far as I am concerned. To spew those lies, YES LIES, shows the character SHE is made of. Shame on you IE. You certainly did NOT give us an example of integrity. Looked like you couldn’t wait to kiss that murderer and put out some more false narrative in an attempt to make him look respectable. You SURE got that wrong!!
JMHO

 

[CGray123]

It seems to me that BM can have the court record expunged or sealed under Colo. Rev. Stat. § 24-72-702. Unless copies of the pertinent records are stored elsewhere (such as a WS resource page, or individual hard drives) public discussion of the AA, the motions, and the court decisions will be greatly impaired. Links embedded in published articles, blog posts, and e-mails will no longer work after the record is sealed. Any thoughts about this issue?

 

[Cindizzi]

It seems to me that BM can have the court record expunged or sealed under Colo. Rev. Stat. § 24-72-702. Unless copies of the pertinent records are stored elsewhere (such as a WS resource page, or individual hard drives) public discussion of the AA, the motions, and the court decisions will be greatly impaired. Links embedded in published articles, blog posts, and e-mails will no longer work after the record is sealed. Any thoughts about this issue?

Can BM petition the Court to do that if his case was not dismissed completely ( with prejudice) and there is still an active investigation into the commission of the acts he is charged with?

 

[mrjitty]

Iris' post-court analysis highlights the false story she wants to sell. That there are SOs three states away who have a connection to this case (there aren't and they don't).

RSBM

Agreed - that is what annoys me because the defence always knew this wasn't true, yet mislead the Court.