Found Deceased CO - Suzanne Morphew, 49, Chaffee Co, 10 May 2020 *Case dismissed w/o Prejudice* #102

[CGray123]

Do you know if this investigation/lead would have been discovered to the defence?

It would seem absurd if it was, because the accused might be able to destroy evidence.

Assuming that an informant shared the information leading to the inquiry, and/or there was no written report or other document to be shared before the dismissal, the prosecution would have no obligation to share the location.

"Rule 16 - Discovery and Procedure Before Trial, Colo. R. Crim. P. 16

Part I. Disclosure to the Defense

.....

(e) Matters not Subject to Disclosure.

.....

(2) Informants. Disclosure shall not be required of an informant's identity where his or her identity is a prosecution secret and a failure to disclose will not infringe the constitutional rights of the accused. Disclosure shall not be denied hereunder of the identity of witnesses to be produced at a hearing or trial."

Of course, the person who disposed of SM's remains would know the location. My guess is, there are quite a few trail cams there, and along the approaches. Just in case.

 

[CGray123]

Who does DA report to? Who holds them accountable, or does it vary by state?

In Colorado, district attorneys are locally elected, so as independent officers they answer to the voters of their districts. They are also accountable to County Commissions within their districts, in the sense that the office relies to some extent upon county funds and uses county facilities and other resources. They are also accountable to local district and county judges in a meaningful sense, since their cases are decided in those courts.

As lawyers, they are accountable to the Supreme Court of Colorado for compliance with professional rules of conduct.

 

[CGray123]

The Colorado Attorney General's Criminal Justice Section has a Special Prosecutions Unit that is designed to provide local prosecutors and LE with assistance in complex felony cases. It is designed to be capable of handling all aspects of such cases directly, including discovery and trial. Here's part of the job description:

"All prosecutions in which the team participates involve extensive legal research and pre-trial motions work, much of which is performed by the team attorney assigned to the case. The attorneys must possess superb analytical abilities and the proven writing skills necessary to provide superior support in motions practice. In addition, the attorneys must possess strong and proven litigation skills, which enable the attorney to consult and/or participate in all aspects of the prosecution, including discovery, depositions, hearings and all phases of the prosecution of complex felony offenses. This expertise includes being able to master the unique issues involved in conducting voir dire, trial, and managing the jury instructions."

Did DA Stanley avail herself of this resource? If not, why not?

I have a vague recollection that one of the AG's attorneys entered an appearance in the case, then withdrew. Does anyone else recall this? If so, do we know what that withdrawal was about?

 

[Seattle1]

Not only a no body case…there enough of those…a case based on circumstantial evidence alone that while totally able to be done, in my opinion far more difficult for a jury who may be expecting the “how” and “where” with some forensic evidence. She had a steep hill to climb from the get go as a less seasoned prosecutor. ^^bbm

Generally, the DA, an elected official, puts in their time on a case on the front end-- long before the perpetrator is criminally charged. They typically assist police in the investigation of criminal offenses, provide legal opinions to police relative to investigations, advise them on the drafting of criminal complaints, search warrants, and statements of probable cause. The DA ultimately evaluates the evidence and is responsible for deciding whether or not to prosecute the case. ^^sbm

I agree any prosecutor leading the fight for a no-body criminal charge and/or conviction, including LS, has a steep hill to climb!

And perhaps LS sees her strengths are not as a 'trial lawyer' but as more skilled in the typical responsibilities of a DA as quoted above.
IMO, just as LS put in the front-end hours required for the Schelling murder, fighting for justice for Kelsie, long before the perpetrator was criminally charged, LS also wasn't (and never intended to be) the 'trial lawyer' that secured Lucas Dante's conviction. IMO, I think LS believed Jeff Lindsey, the prosecutor she hired with more than twice her experience, was the best 'trial lawyer' to win a conviction for the Morphew case.

As an elected official, representing the State, I don't think the People (her constituents) could care less whether or not LS is seated at the table. I think what they care about is the ultimate goal, the conviction of a wife killer. Or at least I do. MOO

 

[mrjitty]

Forensic evidence is circumstantial?

 

[Sillybilly]

Forensic evidence is circumstantial?

Most evidence is circumstantial.

Circumstantial is evidence that is open to reasonable interpretation by a reasonable person reviewing it (i.e. even autopsy results are circumstantial because they are open to interpretation, whether by the medical examiner, LE, or the public).

Direct evidence speaks for itself .. it does not require interpretation (i.e. eye witness accounts, surveillance video of the murder).

HTH

 

[Seattle1]

The Colorado Attorney General's Criminal Justice Section has a Special Prosecutions Unit that is designed to provide local prosecutors and LE with assistance in complex felony cases. It is designed to be capable of handling all aspects of such cases directly, including discovery and trial. Here's part of the job description:

"All prosecutions in which the team participates involve extensive legal research and pre-trial motions work, much of which is performed by the team attorney assigned to the case. The attorneys must possess superb analytical abilities and the proven writing skills necessary to provide superior support in motions practice. In addition, the attorneys must possess strong and proven litigation skills, which enable the attorney to consult and/or participate in all aspects of the prosecution, including discovery, depositions, hearings and all phases of the prosecution of complex felony offenses. This expertise includes being able to master the unique issues involved in conducting voir dire, trial, and managing the jury instructions."

Did DA Stanley avail herself of this resource? If not, why not?

I have a vague recollection that one of the AG's attorneys entered an appearance in the case, then withdrew. Does anyone else recall this? If so, do we know what that withdrawal was about?

In practice, I think you'll find that generally, the service of AG's special prosecution unit generally applies to civil cases, and indictments by a grand jury -- which are not the norm in Colorado criminal cases-- which are mostly reliant on "information and complaint."

From the link:

Special Prosecutions​

The Special Prosecutions Unit primarily investigates and prosecutes multi-jurisdictional, complex crimes. Our office works with the statewide grand jury to assist with complex investigations. We also have expertise with wiretap investigations, state tax fraud, human trafficking, environmental crimes, and auto theft. We have an experienced team of prosecutors who also assist district attorneys with complex violent crime prosecutions.

I recall both the prosecution and the defense brought in special counsel at the conclusion of the PH -- which is not unusual. It's also not unusual for the respective members to formally withdraw after their purpose is fulfilled. I believe the same will be especially diligent to withdraw in post qualified immunity climate. MOO

 

[CGray123]

In practice, I think you'll find that generally, the service of AG's special prosecution unit generally applies to civil cases, and indictments by a grand jury -- which are not the norm in Colorado criminal cases-- which are mostly reliant on "information and complaint."

From the link:

Special Prosecutions​

The Special Prosecutions Unit primarily investigates and prosecutes multi-jurisdictional, complex crimes. Our office works with the statewide grand jury to assist with complex investigations. We also have expertise with wiretap investigations, state tax fraud, human trafficking, environmental crimes, and auto theft. We have an experienced team of prosecutors who also assist district attorneys with complex violent crime prosecutions.

I recall both the prosecution and the defense brought in special counsel at the conclusion of the PH -- which is not unusual. It's also not unusual for the respective members to formally withdraw after their purpose is fulfilled. I believe the same will be especially diligent to withdraw in post qualified immunity climate. MOO

BBM. I see nothing in the unit description - or the job description that I posted earlier - that suggests a civil focus. Respectfully, can you tell me where your understanding comes from?

If a small town DA with a thin budget and a thinner staff, faced with a complex major crime, did not avail herself of this resource - especially after Lindsey left - people should be asking, "Why not?" If they came in, what did they do, and why didn't they do more?

 

[Momofthreeboys]

BBM. I see nothing in the unit description - or the job description that I posted earlier - that suggests a civil focus. Respectfully, can you tell me where your understanding comes from?

If a small town DA with a thin budget and a thinner staff, faced with a complex major crime, did not avail herself of this resource - especially after Lindsey left - people should be asking, "Why not?" If they came in, what did they do, and why didn't they do more?

I think Hurlbert tried but I still don’t understand why some think the weaknesses weren’t apparent. I think the case was one that perhaps scared off the seasoned lawyers. But of course that is just done wild pondering. The lawyers aren’t necessarily going to be emotionally vested…they are going to be “whatcha got”.

 

[CGray123]

Not only a no body case…there enough of those…a case based on circumstantial evidence alone that while totally able to be done, in my opinion far more difficult for a jury who may be expecting the “how” and “where” with some forensic evidence. She had a steep hill to climb from the get go as a less seasoned prosecutor.

The unstated assumption underlying this position is that circumstantial evidence is weak, and that is simply not so. Juries are regularly instructed by judges that it's not so, and most of the people in prison are there because circumstantial evidence proved their guilt to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.

If I go to sleep and the ground is dry, and find snow on the ground when you wake up, I can rely entirely on circumstantial evidence to infer (beyond a reasonable doubt) that snow fell during the night without any direct evidence. The case against BM is that kind of case, and properly prepared and presented it could easily result in a conviction. E&N knew that: from the very beginning they retained appellate specialists to make sure that issues were properly introduced and preserved for appeal. That's a very unusual step, especially for attorneys who are arguing their client is innocent!

Respectfully, the innuendo that filing this case based on circumstantial evidence was irresponsible is a non-starter for me. I am critical of LS for other reasons, but not for believing the evidence could convict BM. MOO.

 

[Seattle1]

Who does DA report to? Who holds them accountable, or does it vary by state?

In Colorado, district attorneys are locally elected, so as independent officers they answer to the voters of their districts. ^rsbm

Depending upon the state's law, if not decided by local voters, DAs can also be appointed by the state's Attorney General, Governor, a state commission, and/or chief executive of the jurisdiction.

Speaking for my own state, Alaska's DAs are appointed by the Attorney General. Last I recall, there are probably less than 5 states that don't elect their DAs. Besides Alaska, I also know that New Jersey's DAs are appointed by the Governor.

I think you'll find that on WS, criminal matters in the US are mostly handled in state judicial systems (versus the United States Attorney).

(Later this month, I get to attend the investiture of a special person as a United States Attorney. I'm actually pretty excited-- must have passed my background check)!

 

[MassGuy]

The unstated assumption underlying this position is that circumstantial evidence is weak, and that is simply not so. Juries are regularly instructed by judges that it's not so, and most of the people in prison are there because circumstantial evidence proved their guilt to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.

If I go to sleep and the ground is dry, and find snow on the ground when you wake up, I can rely entirely on circumstantial evidence to infer (beyond a reasonable doubt) that snow fell during the night without any direct evidence. The case against BM is that kind of case, and properly prepared and presented it could easily result in a conviction. E&N knew that: from the very beginning they retained appellate specialists to make sure that issues were properly introduced and preserved for appeal. That's a very unusual step, especially for attorneys who are arguing their client is innocent!

Respectfully, the innuendo that filing this case based on circumstantial evidence was irresponsible is a non-starter for me. I am critical of LS for other reasons, but not for believing the evidence could convict BM. MOO.

Yes. This case was winnable, because the evidence made it that way. It's built on a foundation of proven lies (more than I've ever seen in my life).

I'm not mad that Stanley brought a losing case foward (she didn't), it's that the DA's office didn't win a winnable case.

The evidence is there, and it all points at the only man with the motive, means, and opportunity.

 

[Seattle1]

BBM. I see nothing in the unit description - or the job description that I posted earlier - that suggests a civil focus. Respectfully, can you tell me where your understanding comes from?

If a small town DA with a thin budget and a thinner staff, faced with a complex major crime, did not avail herself of this resource - especially after Lindsey left - people should be asking, "Why not?" If they came in, what did they do, and why didn't they do more?

Respectfully, the broad array of examples cited at OP's link are civil matters. Perhaps Janet Drake, Deputy Attorney General (720-508-6000) can best satisfy OP's inquiry.

 

[CGray123]

Respectfully, the broad array of examples cited at OP's link are civil matters. Perhaps Janet Drake, Deputy Attorney General (720-508-6000) can best satisfy OP's inquiry.

Still scratching my head how one can see a primarily civil purpose for the Special Prosecutions Unit.

I don't think it's unreasonable to believe from the description that the focus of the special prosecutions unit is crime. Here's the first sentence of the unit description:

"The Special Prosecutions Unit primarily investigates and prosecutes multi-jurisdictional, complex crimes."

Looking at the rest of the description (emphasis and parenthesis supplied), one can also infer that the unit is focused on criminal investigations and prosecutions:

"Our office works with the statewide grand jury (which exists to investigate crime) to assist with complex investigations.

We also have expertise with wiretap investigations (which require a criminal warrant),

state tax fraud (it's a crime, although a large recovery could be made via a civil suit as an alternative to criminal restitution),

human trafficking (criminal conduct),

environmental crimes (criminal, obviously),

and auto theft (a crime, although again a civil suit might provide a remedy criminal restitution would not).

We have an experienced team of prosecutors who also assist district attorneys with complex violent crime prosecutions (seemingly just what the doctor ordered, for a small jurisdiction prosecuting a no-body murder with a great deal of forensic evidence).

If I call Deputy AG Drake, will she tell me this is an inaccurate description of the unit's purpose? Nobody asks them for help with complex violent crime??? Sorry to be persistent, but I don't get this.

 

[CGray123]

I think Hurlbert tried but I still don’t understand why some think the weaknesses weren’t apparent. I think the case was one that perhaps scared off the seasoned lawyers. But of course that is just done wild pondering. The lawyers aren’t necessarily going to be emotionally vested…they are going to be “whatcha got”.

One could just as easily speculate that the consulting attorneys (from the AG or other jurisdictions) were brought in after the damage caused by premature filing was done, took a look at the discovery mess that naturally resulted, believed they couldn't save the case from sanctions, thought the DA might just be inclined to set them up to take the blame when the excrement hit the ventilator blades, and bailed.

 

[Momofthreeboys]

The unstated assumption underlying this position is that circumstantial evidence is weak, and that is simply not so. Juries are regularly instructed by judges that it's not so, and most of the people in prison are there because circumstantial evidence proved their guilt to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.

If I go to sleep and the ground is dry, and find snow on the ground when you wake up, I can rely entirely on circumstantial evidence to infer (beyond a reasonable doubt) that snow fell during the night without any direct evidence. The case against BM is that kind of case, and properly prepared and presented it could easily result in a conviction. E&N knew that: from the very beginning they retained appellate specialists to make sure that issues were properly introduced and preserved for appeal. That's a very unusual step, especially for attorneys who are arguing their client is innocent!

Respectfully, the innuendo that filing this case based on circumstantial evidence was irresponsible is a non-starter for me. I am critical of LS for other reasons, but not for believing the evidence could convict BM. MOO.

Not saying that…saying that it is much easier for jurors to convict in my opinion when there is direct forensic evidence for the “how” question and “where question”. I think means, motive,opportunity are great but the problem with circumstances is not getting challenged on the probabilities.

 

[Boxer]

The Colorado Attorney General's Criminal Justice Section has a Special Prosecutions Unit that is designed to provide local prosecutors and LE with assistance in complex felony cases. It is designed to be capable of handling all aspects of such cases directly, including discovery and trial. Here's part of the job description:

"All prosecutions in which the team participates involve extensive legal research and pre-trial motions work, much of which is performed by the team attorney assigned to the case. The attorneys must possess superb analytical abilities and the proven writing skills necessary to provide superior support in motions practice. In addition, the attorneys must possess strong and proven litigation skills, which enable the attorney to consult and/or participate in all aspects of the prosecution, including discovery, depositions, hearings and all phases of the prosecution of complex felony offenses. This expertise includes being able to master the unique issues involved in conducting voir dire, trial, and managing the jury instructions."

Did DA Stanley avail herself of this resource? If not, why not?

I have a vague recollection that one of the AG's attorneys entered an appearance in the case, then withdrew. Does anyone else recall this? If so, do we know what that withdrawal was about?

She did not contact Dan May either.

 

[Boxer]

Linda Stanley is a perfect example of the Peter principle in full effect.

She was elected.
The voters wanted a tough DA willing to a no body case to trial. The other DA was more cautious and an interim appointee. As a career she defended correction officers against prisoner lawsuits.
MOO she would have brought the right people in. So MOO would the republican primary challenger to LS.

 

[mom2chloe]

One could just as easily speculate that the consulting attorneys (from the AG or other jurisdictions) were brought in after the damage caused by premature filing was done, took a look at the discovery mess that naturally resulted, believed they couldn't save the case from sanctions, thought the DA might just be inclined to set them up to take the blame when the excrement hit the ventilator blades, and bailed.

As much as I hate your theory I cannot discount the possibility. I continue to hope for the DA in this case to succeed and excel. It’s worth repeating that all crimes particularly DV and CSAM among others always tug at the heartstrings. We have a heart problem in society. IMO it’s going to get worse before
It gets better. Also IMO

 

[mrjitty]

The evidence is there, and it all points at the only man with the motive, means, and opportunity.

RSBM

This is why I don't quite understand the idea that the case was brought too early

There was more than enough time to analyse the digital evidence, which is what the case is all about.