Found Deceased CO - Suzanne Morphew, 49, Chaffee Co, 10 May 2020 *Case dismissed w/o prejudice* #106

[mrjitty]

CHAFFEE COUNTY, Colo. (KRDO) -- Attorneys for Barry Morphew, the Chaffee County man previously arrested and charged with the murder of his wife Suzanne, are trying to change his dismissal ruling from without prejudice to with prejudice.

Cutting through the legal jargon, the main difference between the two dismissals is whether or not a person accused of a crime can be re-tried in a court of law. In April 2022, a Fremont County Judge ruled that Morphew can be re-tried by dismissing the case without prejudice.

Now, in a motion filed on April 18, elected District Attorney Linda Stanley states that Morphew's Attorney Iris Eytan is asking for a judge to set a date when this dismissal ruling can be changed. Stanley argues in the motion that, "Crim. P. Rule 55.1(7) in no way states a court can change a dismissal without prejudice to a dismissal with prejudice at a date certain," Stanley's motion reads.


Court documents say Morphew's attorneys are also trying to limit public access to certain court records. While the contents of those documents remain a mystery, the motion filed by Stanley says they involve "whether the victim’s statements may come in under CRE 807, after a case has been dismissed."
"CRE 807 are statements that Suzanne made. What happens is if you are charged with somebody's death, those statements that person made are an exception to hearsay. So if she made those statements but you made her unavailable by killing her, then her statements are an exception to hearsay. Hearsay is an out-of-court statement that goes to the truth of the matter asserted made by somebody," Loew explained.
What statements Suzanne made are unclear. None of the court documents filed in the case since it was re-opened on May 23 outline what specific statements the victim made that the defense wants to keep out of the public eye.

[…]

Barry Morphew's attorney tries to get dismissal ruling changed to avoid being re-tried for murder | KRDO

Barry Morphew's attorneys tries to get dismissal ruling changed to avoid being re-tried for murder

krdo.com

is this an appeal? or are they asking the court to change it's own ruling?

 

[Seattle1]

Court documents say Morphew's attorneys are also trying to limit public access to certain court records. While the contents of those documents remain a mystery, the motion filed by Stanley says they involve "whether the victim’s statements may come in under CRE 807, after a case has been dismissed."
"CRE 807 are statements that Suzanne made. What happens is if you are charged with somebody's death, those statements that person made are an exception to hearsay. So if she made those statements but you made her unavailable by killing her, then her statements are an exception to hearsay. Hearsay is an out-of-court statement that goes to the truth of the matter asserted made by somebody," Loew explained.
What statements Suzanne made are unclear. None of the court documents filed in the case since it was re-opened on May 23 outline what specific statements the victim made that the defense wants to keep out of the public eye.

^^rsbm

IMO, the statements BM wants kept suppressed from public view are the exhibits of Suzanne's texts between SM and Sheila O. and SM and her sister alleging domestic violence in her marriage to BM that Judge Lama did not admit as evidence in the murder trial.

While the prosecution put the Court and defense on notice in the murder trial that any declarations by BM that he had a perfect marriage with SM would open the door to allow the domestic violence, hearsay evidence.

If you read the Civil lawsuit, they allege multiple times how the defendants knowingly attributed false statements to Suzanne that she wanted out of her marriage! Liars, they claim! Why would SM want out of a perfect marriage?

Of course BM would not want SM's texts (hearsay evidence) about domestic violence she experienced by BM out or the messages that she was done with BM and the marriage because this would certainly be an obstacle between BM and $15M.

And this latest narrative of BM and his team professing his innocence in disappearing SM is just sick, shameful, and insulting. MOO

MOO

 

[mrjitty]

I agree - it will be the same stuff we already know about, which is a huge problem for the civil case

The jury will lap that stuff up like dogs

 

[Seattle1]

is this an appeal? or are they asking the court to change it's own ruling?

Ludicrous -- in Colorado, there's no statute of limitation on murder.

 

[waldojabba]

Ludicrous -- in Colorado, there's no statute of limitation on murder.

Would love to see the legal filings on this one and try to understand what IE’s end game is all about. Is this just another get me noticed push the envelope move by Eytan?
Seems ridiculous. She filed civil lawsuits referring to the AA and now she presumably wants to cherry pick and eliminate statements and or details in the AA bc they don’t help her civil case plus get a judge to say that BM cannot be charged and tried for murder again? Any precedent for that?
Brazen and reckless on the face of it - so wondering what I am missing ? Is there more perhaps “behind the curtain” ? ALL IMO

 

[FromGermany1]

Layman speaking again:

I believe, the laws should finally be adapted to "modern times" (Colorado and all over the world). So many DV cases, with and without murders/with and without accompanying disappearances of the victim, DV must finally be properly evaluated and considered and not swept under the rug at every slightest opportunity (e.g. due to concerns as "jury influence").

I don't have statistics handy, but who is the usual killer of a romantically/ex-romantically involved woman, when there was violence and oppression in the relationship? A stranger or the partner/ex-partner?

I'm not a feminist, but this always upsets me. Always. There is NO justice for the victims of DV.

I don't know, if men would get more likely justice, if they are the victims of DV (AND would admit it)?

 

[mrjitty]

Layman speaking again:

I believe, the laws should finally be adapted to "modern times" (Colorado and all over the world). So many DV cases, with and without murders/with and without accompanying disappearances of the victim, DV must finally be properly evaluated and considered and not swept under the rug at every slightest opportunity (e.g. due to concerns as "jury influence").

I don't have statistics handy, but who is the usual killer of a romantically/ex-romantically involved woman, when there was violence and oppression in the relationship? A stranger or the partner/ex-partner?

I'm not a feminist, but this always upsets me. Always. There is NO justice for the victims of DV.

I don't know, if men would get more likely justice, if they are the victims of DV (AND would admit it)?

I am not even sure we need the law changed - judges just need to update their priors and stop falling into logical fallacies

We discussed this at length on pistorius where the issue was not admissibility (judge trial) but weight.

IIRC the main problem is that women who suffer DV are still very unlikely to be murdered by their partner. So judges tend to give low probabtive value.

The problem is given an intimate partner murder the chance of previous DV is very high

Ditto, stalking is a huge red flag for intimate partner murder
So judge's actually need to pay attention the research. The DV and Stalking in this case are highly probative - the idea they are too prejudicial is absurd.

 

[waldojabba]

I am just an ordinary citizen with no legal background.
In following this case it has been clear to me and most of us here, that since IE has no actual defense for BM, she is attacking anyone and anything on the other side.
Hence all the civil lawsuits and the constant hammering of and reporting of Linda Stanley to the legal board's and then the "press releases" by MSM krdo aka IE's mouthpiece IMO
It appears her game has been and continues to be, to attack her opponents, overwhelm and pepper the state with constant superfluous filings and just create chaos and busy work for the prosecution.
Where is the oversight on this woman? Why is no one calling her out ? The actual judges fell short, both of whom seemingly "ran for the hills" IMO
Is it the responsibility of the AG, the guy that Suzanne's cousin said we should petition for a special prosecutor? Or the Legal Board?
Crippling the state, abusing the court system and victimizing LE and the prosecutor is not justice it’s legal maneuvering that side steps justice. It's railroading and bullying.

If that is indeed what's happening someone in Colorado (the AG ?) needs to send the legal cavalry to the 11th Judical District to help out bc as most of us know they just don't have the same resources as IE. It's past time to fight this woman on an even playing field.

So disheartening

ALL JMO

 

[Momofthreeboys]

I didnt realize he rented it out.
Most mortgage companies do NOT allow the home owner to " rent" out the home if there is a mortgage still owed on it. YIKES !!!

But of course, we all know BM doesn't follow the rules and they don't apply to him, so there's that.

And yes, he probably used Suzanne's $$ to pay it off.

This guy needs to be behind bars. JMO

Back in the late 80s we had several mortgages on several rental properties we owned. We did not have one on our first house we lived in as we paid cash for that. Mortgage interest was an expense in addition to insurances, taxes, depreciation, repairs etc. and a better tax position for us to mortgage the rentals. I think that is still true today. If all he owed was $1800 than it makes sense he just got around to paying it off as it no longer probably benefited from a tax perspective. and to clean up the title perhaps.

 

[O.Incandenza]

is this an appeal? or are they asking the court to change it's own ruling?

It is sort of mysterious. My guess is that they're somehow arguing that subsequent events have shown that the previous motion to dismiss by the prosecution was filed in bad faith. Probably the stuff about dismissing because they believed they were close to finding Suzanne's body and just needed the snow to melt. If they can somehow prove that was disingenuous then maybe they have a case for having the dismissal changed to with prejudice.

Hard to know how they could prove that though, unless there weren't any searches done.

 

[GatorFL]

I didnt realize he rented it out.
Most mortgage companies do NOT allow the home owner to " rent" out the home if there is a mortgage still owed on it. YIKES !!!

But of course, we all know BM doesn't follow the rules and they don't apply to him, so there's that.

And yes, he probably used Suzanne's $$ to pay it off.

This guy needs to be behind bars. JMO

BBM, I don't think this is accurate. I've been a landlord and while each lender varies, they can only require that the mortgagor occupies the house for a period of time. Usually a year. Then you're free to rent it out.

 

[Seattle1]

Another example of text evidence BM probably wouldn't want released or public between SM and her sister, Melinda:

Barry Morphew Was 'Dominant' in Relationship With Missing Colorado Mom Suzanne Morphew, Her Sister Says

Suzanne Morphew's husband Barry Morphew, 53, was arrested Wednesday on charges of first-degree murder.

www.insideedition.com

May 7, 2021

Melinda Moorman is opening up about what she says their relationship was really like. Suzanne, a Colorado mom, was reported missing nearly a year ago.

“Barry was very dominant in the relationship and my sister was very passive, gentle soul,” Melinda told Inside Edition. “He had a great tendency to overpower and intimidate people to get what they wanted.”

She explained that at first, she didn’t believe Suzanne’s husband of 26 years could have anything to do with her disappearance.

But as time went on, Melinda said the family grew suspicious, especially following a particular conversation she said she had with Suzanne shortly before her disappearance.

“The Friday before Mother’s Day, my sister had sent me a text message that morning. It was very lengthy. It was very powerful. It was very revealing,” Melinda said. “She had been ready to share some things close to her chest. She said she was scared.”

 

[Spartygirl]

BBM, I don't think this is accurate. I've been a landlord and while each lender varies, they can only require that the mortgagor occupies the house for a period of time. Usually a year. Then you're free to rent it out.

I think it depends on if they have it recorded as your " Primary" residence or not.

I know a lot of landlords that purchase homes for rentals, not their primary home, so would definitely depend on that.

 

[mrjitty]

It is sort of mysterious. My guess is that they're somehow arguing that subsequent events have shown that the previous motion to dismiss by the prosecution was filed in bad faith. Probably the stuff about dismissing because they believed they were close to finding Suzanne's body and just needed the snow to melt. If they can somehow prove that was disingenuous then maybe they have a case for having the dismissal changed to with prejudice.

Hard to know how they could prove that though, unless there weren't any searches done.

yes it seems odd.

Generally a court is not allowed to start overseeing an investigation - that is a separation of powers thing

 

[Momofthreeboys]

yes it seems odd.

Generally a court is not allowed to start overseeing an investigation - that is a separation of powers thing

so many intricate legal things...was the order stipulated to, were there motions that had not been heard and "left open" when the dismissal occurred, was there legal basis to the prosecutions assertion they were close to finding Suzanne's body...this is some deep legal stuff that the news article is alleging....way beyond my layman knowledge and very interesting.

 

[K9Enzo]

Regarding being close to finding Suzanne's body.

However, at a later court hearing, Hurlbert told a judge that they were wrong about being close to finding the body, KUSA-TV reported in October.

Morphew lawyers accuse Fremont County DA of hiding evidence in wife's disappearance case

Barry Morphew's lawyers are asking for the prosecutors in his case to face punishment up to and including disbarment.

www.cpr.org

 

[Momofthreeboys]

Regarding being close to finding Suzanne's body.

However, at a later court hearing, Hurlbert told a judge that they were wrong about being close to finding the body, KUSA-TV reported in October.

Morphew lawyers accuse Fremont County DA of hiding evidence in wife's disappearance case

Barry Morphew's lawyers are asking for the prosecutors in his case to face punishment up to and including disbarment.

www.cpr.org

As if that is surprise. It is so shockingly sad how messed up this whole thing was. I thought the AA was not good with all the inadmissible info they stuffed it with, but I just assumed prosecution would redeem themselves in the preliminary :-(

 

[HongKongPhooey]

As if that is surprise. It is so shockingly sad how messed up this whole thing was. I thought the AA was not good with all the inadmissible info they stuffed it with, but I just assumed prosecution would redeem themselves in the preliminary :-(

My opinion - the good thing about the AA is that it is out there. And anyone who has read it, has to believe Barry murdered Suzanne. So he has to live with this, people knowing about him, for the rest of his grabby life. Any hangers on will eventually fall off and where will that leave him?

 

[kittythehare]

My opinion - the good thing about the AA is that it is out there. And anyone who has read it, has to believe Barry murdered Suzanne. So he has to live with this, people knowing about him, for the rest of his grabby life. Any hangers on will eventually fall off and where will that leave him?

empty and broke after IE has cleaned him out, hopefully.
Poetic justice.

 

[Seattle1]

It boggles my mind whenever it appears unclear here that this case was dismissed without prejudice because the sanctions by the court, striking the prosecutions expert witnesses, essentially dismissed the case for the State.

The prosecution requested the case dismissed (without prejudice) because requesting dismissal is a matter within the district attorney's sole discretion. This is the law. Take note the Defense need not consent, and does not have standing to object to the Peoples Motion to Dismiss Without Prejudice.

To be clear, Defense Motion to Dismiss Based on Presentation of False Testimony at Pretrial Hearings [D-64], as well as all its previous requests to dismiss the case were denied.


[..]

https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/11th_Judicial_District/Freemont/Morphew/2022-04-19%2008-49-34%20Motion%20to%20Dismiss%20Without%20Prejudice.pdf