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

[Ontario Mom]

I'd love to see the case re-filed by Kelly tomorrow! But I am very sure DA Kelly will wait to see the judge's decision on motions to dismiss (on the grounds of immunity) filed in Morphew's civil suit. If any of the claims remain after that decision, she will want to see what Morphew's responses are to interrogatories, requests for admission, requests for documents, and deposition questions.

My question if the case moves forward is, will the civil defendants offer to include questions Kelly might want answered, to fill in her mosaic of evidence (some call it a "wall of evidence") and to lock Morphew into a story told under oath? And how will she respond to that offer?

Unfortunately, all that will take time to resolve even if the civil case is dismissed. Fortunately, there is no statute of limitations on murder. And, if Colorado passes the no-bond-for-murderers amendment to the state constitution by the time he's charged, he probably won' t be able to bond out while the new case is pending.

Thanks for explaing it so well. I haven't really followed all of this, yet I am entirely confident Barry Morphew will face justice for what he did. Sooner rather than later would be ideal, but it's coming either way.

jmo

 

[Seattle1]

Unfortunately, all that will take time to resolve even if the civil case is dismissed. Fortunately, there is no statute of limitations on murder. And, if Colorado passes the no-bond-for-murderers amendment to the state constitution by the time he's charged, he probably won' t be able to bond out while the new case is pending.

^^rsbm

I believe the pending Amendment to the Colo Constitution only struck the language (i.e., 'capital murder') but retained the exception provision of no bond WHEN proof is evident or presumption great. Let's hope the DA satisfies the PEPG burden the second time around!

Constitutional Bail Exception First Degree Murder | Colorado General Assembly

leg.colorado.gov

 

[Waxahachie1]

..aye.. and she'll try finding a way to blame Linda Stanley for this too..

Turner is responsible for the decisions she made that led to this.
There were a million options available to her at the time which did not involve setting psychoboy free to kill again.

She made her choices, now she must pay the price.

With great respect, I disagree.

There is some prosecutorial behavior that so damages the system of justice that dismissal of the case is the only remedy. There are plenty of examples if we look for them. There are even civil judgments against prosecutors whose conduct breaches the immunity they otherwise would enjoy.

Cases do get dismissed when prosecutors make mistakes that call into question the integrity of the system. But the denial of justice for the victims is the prosecutor's responsibility, not the judge's IMO.

 

[FromGermany1]

O/T but comparable:

Alec Baldwin’s Rust shooting trial dismissed after lawyers say evidence was withheld

New Mexico judge agrees charges should be dropped after lawyers said state ‘buried’ evidence about live ammunition

www.theguardian.com

What, if BM can walk because of such mistake by the prosecution?

 

[Waxahachie1]

O/T but comparable:

Alec Baldwin’s Rust shooting trial dismissed after lawyers say evidence was withheld

New Mexico judge agrees charges should be dropped after lawyers said state ‘buried’ evidence about live ammunition

www.theguardian.com

What, if BM can walk because of such mistake by the prosecution?

He might have walked, if Eytan and Nielsen had brought the discovery issues up after a jury was seated and testimony began. This is what Baldwin's attorneys did. It was a risky strategy but it worked.

After testimony clearly established that the prosecutor had participated in the decision to conceal the evidence that no Baldwin employee had brought live rounds to the set, the judge had no choice but to dismiss the case with prejudice. In a legal sense, "jeopardy" had attached and the Fifth Amendment's prohibition of double jeopardy meant Baldwin could not be tried again for the same offense.

In Morphew's case, Judge Lama applied sanctions short of dismissal before the scheduled triaL, and allowed Stanley to voluntarily dismiss the case without prejudice before "jeopardy" attached. So, he can be tried again.

 

[Chingaling]

Do you think of someone, who would benefit from BM learning, how to give teenagers an or..sm? Then I have no name, but the answer would be: a teen from IN. Just acc. to his taste. MOO

Agree, and I think that's why Delphi isn't solved.

 

[I am not Sherlock H.]

He might have walked, if Eytan and Nielsen had brought the discovery issues up after a jury was seated and testimony began. This is what Baldwin's attorneys did. It was a risky strategy but it worked.

After testimony clearly established that the prosecutor had participated in the decision to conceal the evidence that no Baldwin employee had brought live rounds to the set, the judge had no choice but to dismiss the case with prejudice. In a legal sense, "jeopardy" had attached and the Fifth Amendment's prohibition of double jeopardy meant Baldwin could not be tried again for the same offense.

In Morphew's case, Judge Lama applied sanctions short of dismissal before the scheduled triaL, and allowed Stanley to voluntarily dismiss the case without prejudice before "jeopardy" attached. So, he can be tried again.

IANAL, so with that qualifier…. but did want to ask this question.

On that last sentence, ‘he can be tried again’.

Technically, IIRC, he (BM) was not yet tried the first time perhaps? Yes he was charged….. and the case dismissed without prejudice. But I didn’t think that a jury was impaneled for the case? And if that is so, is it such that in court or legal parlance he was not tried at all? (I could easily be quite wrong on all of this.)

And in terms of timing…… no rush. As I’ve often quoted, my late father an NASA civil structural engineer always said “there is never time to do the job right, there is always time to do the job over.” And yet unfortunately in this case, there is only one chance. They can take all the time they need IMO. MOO

 

[Seattle1]

O/T but comparable:

Alec Baldwin’s Rust shooting trial dismissed after lawyers say evidence was withheld

New Mexico judge agrees charges should be dropped after lawyers said state ‘buried’ evidence about live ammunition

www.theguardian.com

What, if BM can walk because of such mistake by the prosecution?

This comparison of a man hand delivering ammunition evidence to the NM Sheriff's Office in March, after one defendant had been tried and convicted, and the special prosecutor unilaterally deciding to withhold this evidence from the defense of both defendants, is not only noncomparable to the Morphew case, but I think it's becoming a bit too much! For one, there is zero evidence whatsoever that on the date BM's case was dismissed w/o prejudice, that the prosecution here was in receipt of exculpatory evidence, and was purposely withholding it from the defense! To be clear, if there was even a hint of Brady in this case on the eve of BM's trial, Judge Lama would have Ordered this case dismissed WITH prejudice, which means his case could never be refiled again-- even after SM's remains recovered. IMO, this is a no brainer.

 

[Waxahachie1]

This comparison of a man hand delivering ammunition evidence to the NM Sheriff's Office in March, after one defendant had been tried and convicted, and the special prosecutor unilaterally deciding to withhold this evidence from the defense of both defendants, is not only noncomparable to the Morphew case, but I think it's becoming a bit too much! For one, there is zero evidence whatsoever that on the date BM's case was dismissed w/o prejudice, that the prosecution here was in receipt of exculpatory evidence, and was purposely withholding it from the defense! To be clear, if there was even a hint of Brady in this case on the eve of BM's trial, Judge Lama would have Ordered this case dismissed WITH prejudice, which means his case could never be refiled again-- even after SM's remains recovered. IMO, this is a no brainer.

My understanding is that the prosecution's theory of the case was this: Baldwin should have known that there was an unreasonable risk that his armorer would bring live ammunition to the set, in part because he was aware of his armorer's youth, inexperience, and lack of training. The evidence that was concealed undermined this theory because it tended to show the live rounds that killed Halyna Hutchens came from a source outside Baldwin's knowledge and control. It's a plausible argument and the judge, who heard all the evidence, accepted it. People can disagree, but I doubt the judge's exercise of discretion will be overturned on appeal.

P.S. There is no serious question that the prosecution deliberately concealed the evidence from Baldwin.

PPS. The evidence showed that the prosecution was aware of the availability of the Rust-related ammunition before the prosecution of the armorer, and did not retrieve it. She will be seeking to overturn her conviction on the grounds of prosecution misconduct.