Found Deceased CO - Suzanne Morphew, 49, Chaffee County, 10 May 2020 #62 *ARREST*

[SouthAussie]

<RSBM>
He can’t recall a single time an affidavit such as this has not been released in CO.

Has he been practising in CO for very long? Just wondering, because I did a quick google and the AA was delayed in its release in the Perrish Cox arrest also (in 2011).
All that I googled was "release of arrest affidavit delayed" and that came right up. I only did one quick search, and I didn't specify CO.


A judge on Wednesday agreed to delay the release of the arrest affidavit in the sexual-assault case against Denver Broncos cornerback Perrish Cox.

The stay is in effect until the Colorado Supreme Court decides whether to review the appeal of the release or, if the top court does decide to review it, until a ruling is made.

The earliest the Supreme Court would issue a ruling on the affidavit, which details evidence prosecutors have against Cox, is after July 14. And it could be much longer than that.

Judge delays release of Perrish Cox arrest affidavit – The Denver Post
June 29, 2011

 

[dixiegirl1035]

Since it was the defense's motion to seal the AA, if it is unsealed, would the defense have any say over exactly what is released? Who determines which information is released?

The court asked that the prosecutors and defense meet to discuss just that IIRC.

 

[MrsWatson]

The court asked that the prosecutors and defense meet to discuss just that IIRC.

TY@dixiegirl1035. I know this is new territory for CO, I'm sure there are going to be some legal challenges. It will be interesting to see how it plays out and how it's used going forward.

CO seems to have no shortage of infamous murder cases these days.

 

[Nikynoo]

Since it was the defense's motion to seal the AA, if it is unsealed, would the defense have any say over exactly what is released? Who determines which information is released?

I would imagine it would be subject to negotion through motions filed with the court. The judge makes the ultimate decision?

 

[OldCop]

So what do you think about the judge's commentary about it: inflammatory, too long, extraneous to admissible evidence?

Would you say the judge's stated concerns tell us he is giving more weight to the defense's position or not?

Was protecting teen/adult children ever an emphasis in a judge's order in withhold an AA in your experience?

Good questions, @IRBHTX.
I would like to think that the judge is sending a message to both the prosecution and the defense. He is telling the prosecution to stick to the facts and evidence at trial.
I don’t think he is giving more weight to the defense. He is telling the defense that he intends to ensure that their client will receive a fair trial. He does not want a possible conviction thrown out on appeal.
As far as the protection of teen/adult children of a defendant, never in my experience has that been a reason for sealing an affidavit, not to say that has never happened. In most cases, an AA is sealed to protect against destruction of evidence or to protect victims, witnesses, and/or confidential informants. In this case it could be assumed that the daughters are both victims and witnesses, but the judge went out of his way to speak about the girls and the possibility of threats and harassment, but also giving them time to absorb the enormity of the case against their father and whether or not they want to see for themselves the evidence against him. This to me is highly unusual. He seems to be ruling on the “feelings” of the girls rather than the concrete issues of harassment or threats. What victim of a serious crime is not overwhelmed when faced with the facts?
As far as information that was not considered relevant being included in the AA, the law says that the MINIMUM amount of evidence to prove probable cause must be included in order to obtain the warrant. It does not set a limit or maximum amount. Reading closely, the judge only says it is the longest AA he has ever seen and that some of the information contained therein MAY be inadmissible.
I think the judge is setting a tone for the upcoming trial and letting both sides know that he will brook no courthouse shenanigans.
MOO

 

[Momofthreeboys]

Has he been practising in CO for very long? Just wondering, because I did a quick google and the AA was delayed in its release in the Perrish Cox arrest also (in 2011).
All that I googled was "release of arrest affidavit delayed" and that came right up. I only did one search, and I didn't specify CO. There could even be more, if I looked a little harder.


A judge on Wednesday agreed to delay the release of the arrest affidavit in the sexual-assault case against Denver Broncos cornerback Perrish Cox.

The stay is in effect until the Colorado Supreme Court decides whether to review the appeal of the release or, if the top court does decide to review it, until a ruling is made.

The earliest the Supreme Court would issue a ruling on the affidavit, which details evidence prosecutors have against Cox, is after July 14. And it could be much longer than that.

Judge delays release of Perrish Cox arrest affidavit – The Denver Post
June 29, 2011

Interesting in the article it says the defense, the prosecution and the attorney for the victim all do NOT want it released. I support the media's "vigilance" but at some point it makes no sense to me and truly does bump up against right to privacy and presumption of innocence.

 

[CGray123]

RSBM
Because LE had been very patient up until the surprising arrest, I do believe they have a strong case. However, I also believe it was their intent to tighten a few more loose strings before proceeding. I’m sure they were also hoping to find SM’s remains.
I believe that they felt BM was getting ready to leave town, (perhaps the country), and so hurried their AA. Usually in a complex case, LE will keep an outline of facts and evidence in a bullet point type of list when they have developed a suspect and begin to plan out their arrest affidavit. They will refer to it and use it to fill in gaps, develop more information, and lay out evidence. In a normal course of investigation they will then use this outline to fine tune the final AA. I think that they may have used this preliminary list because time was of the essence. It probably did contain more information than they would normally submit, but they wanted to make sure there was enough there to obtain the arrest warrant before BM skipped town. MOO

BBM. Thank you for this insider view! I hope very much that your insight is right.

 

[CGray123]

New this afternoon -
Scott Reisch/CrimeTalk - Says, respectfully, Judge Murphy got it wrong NOT releasing the Morphew AA. He can’t recall a single time an affidavit such as this has not been released in CO. Public has a right to public information when it can be reasonably made available. Defense hasn’t shown any evidence that releasing the AA is going to prejudice them in any way. Per Scott Reisch: “Hopefully, this will be taken up on a Writ directly to Colorado Supreme Court and get this resolved…”
Scott is always a pleasure to listen to and being an attorney in CO has great insight too. MOO. # starts @ 4:40 maybe 5 min long

Scott's a media person, so his view is not unexpected or unbiased. We are starting to see orders very much like Judge Murphy's, and we will continue to see them until the Colorado Supreme Court issues some rulings. Much as media advocates (like other advocates and activists) may claim adamantly that their view is the ONLY view, and all others are ridiculous, the sound reasons courts have always sealed and redacted records have not gone away, and Rule 55.1 has not "repealed" them. MOO

 

[Momofthreeboys]

Good questions, @IRBHTX.
I would like to think that the judge is sending a message to both the prosecution and the defense. He is telling the prosecution to stick to the facts and evidence at trial.
I don’t think he is giving more weight to the defense. He is telling the defense that he intends to ensure that their client will receive a fair trial. He does not want a possible conviction thrown out on appeal.
As far as the protection of teen/adult children of a defendant, never in my experience has that been a reason for sealing an affidavit, not to say that has never happened. In most cases, an AA is sealed to protect against destruction of evidence or to protect victims, witnesses, and/or confidential informants. In this case it could be assumed that the daughters are both victims and witnesses, but the judge went out of his way to speak about the girls and the possibility of threats and harassment, but also giving them time to absorb the enormity of the case against their father and whether or not they want to see for themselves the evidence against him. This to me is highly unusual. He seems to be ruling on the “feelings” of the girls rather than the concrete issues of harassment or threats. What victim of a serious crime is not overwhelmed when faced with the facts?
As far as information that was not considered relevant being included in the AA, the law says that the MINIMUM amount of evidence to prove probable cause must be included in order to obtain the warrant. It does not set a limit or maximum amount. Reading closely, the judge only says it is the longest AA he has ever seen and that some of the information contained therein MAY be inadmissible.
I think the judge is setting a tone for the upcoming trial and letting both sides know that he will brook no courthouse shenanigans.
MOO

Agree. Along with protecting the victims it also protects anyone who was interviewed. Many of whom may never be called as a witness or play a role in the trials. Sounds like LE put way more than needed into this AA. The people interviewed deserve protection from the media and social media also. If people are afraid to call in tips or talk to LE because they fear their name will be become gossip fodder for conventional or social media that would be a chilling affect for LE and I cannot imagine that was the intent of this new law in Colorado. Before social media took off journalists did have an unspoken code of ethics around what they published with the exception of the rag sheets and paparazzi who get sued fairly often anyway, but that does not occur in social media and is just now starting to be loosely monitored by the social media industry in my opinion. Without a doubt I think the courts are well aware of this. If this AA ever sees the light of day it will be heavily redacted no doubt and chances are it will not see the light of day any earlier than the judge stipulated in his response. I think this media organization probably picked a tough case to challenge. The only good thing is that each decision creates precedent for future cases and it builds upon itself. The judge seemed to apply the reasoning expected by the new law including a date for potential release so I expect him to stand on his decision and not back pedal.

 

[Deleted member 222031]

Has he been practising in CO for very long? Just wondering, because I did a quick google and the AA was delayed in its release in the Perrish Cox arrest also (in 2011).
All that I googled was "release of arrest affidavit delayed" and that came right up. I only did one quick search, and I didn't specify CO.


A judge on Wednesday agreed to delay the release of the arrest affidavit in the sexual-assault case against Denver Broncos cornerback Perrish Cox.

The stay is in effect until the Colorado Supreme Court decides whether to review the appeal of the release or, if the top court does decide to review it, until a ruling is made.

The earliest the Supreme Court would issue a ruling on the affidavit, which details evidence prosecutors have against Cox, is after July 14. And it could be much longer than that.

Judge delays release of Perrish Cox arrest affidavit – The Denver Post
June 29, 2011

Yes, that statement struck me as odd and incorrect, given the investigation by the Denver Post into the withholding of information by the CO criminal courts. There would be no Rule 55.1 in CO were there not clear evidence of sealing and suppression of public information by the courts in wanton disregard of the 1st & 4th amendments to the U.S. Constitution. MOO

 

[Deleted member 222031]

Interesting in the article it says the defense, the prosecution and the attorney for the victim all do NOT want it released. I support the media's "vigilance" but at some point it makes no sense to me and truly does bump up against right to privacy and presumption of innocence.

BM is still presumed innocent if the AA is redacted and released. Just because the "court of public opinion" may be swayed does not mean he has lost any rights. If there is enough evidence for a judge to sign an arrest warrant, it should remain hidden to protect the alleged criminal's privacy? Your reasoning puzzles me, especially since it advocates for secrecy until a defendant has been bound over for trial. In this case the prelim has been delayed (it should have occurred this month).

How many delays could we have without the right of the public to see evidence on which the charges are based? It is a basic right enshrined in law and precedent, not a frivolous right based on media "vigilance" IMHO.

However painful to those personally involved, when a judge finds enough probable cause to make an arrest, the law is the law and public information is just that.

Especially if a capital offense is alleged, the public should not be in darkness in any step of the process. IMHO

 

[jondaba]

Sleuthers; it seems to me that upon reading the AA, JudgeMurphy realized that Barry is guilty and a monster.
As someone suggested above: perhaps the daughters initially told LE the truth and thereby (inadvertently) incriminated Barry. IIRC, judge Murphy expressly ordered Barry not to harass the daughters (presumably) about what they told the cops . To me, Judge Murphy has shown that his manifest goal is to protect those daughters’ testimony so as to bring Barry to justice. He doesn't want the girls attacked for it, reviled for it or influenced to change or suppress the testimony they first gave LE. JMO

 

[Error505]

Thank you, @Error505
bbm sbm rbm
You are the best ---
1. for bringing this to the thread,
2. summarizing a specific point in it, and
3. giving the time markers for relevant portion of vid.

Post of the day.

Aww, thank you @al66pine .
My pleasure to add t0 the discussion. I appreciate on WS when I can go to referenced information quick ‘n easy. Thx again, very kind of you.

 

[Momofthreeboys]

BM is still presumed innocent if the AA is redacted and released. Just because the "court of public opinion" may be swayed does not mean he has lost any rights. If there is enough evidence for a judge to sign an arrest warrant, it should remain hidden to protect the alleged criminal's privacy? Your reasoning puzzles me, especially since it advocates for secrecy until a defendant has been bound over for trial. In this case the prelim has been delayed (it should have occurred this month).

How many delays could we have without the right of the public to see evidence on which the charges are based? It is a basic right enshrined in law and precedent, not a frivolous right based on media "vigilance" IMHO.

However painful to those personally involved, when a judge finds enough probable cause to make an arrest, the law is the law and public information is just that.

Especially if a capital offense is alleged, the public should not be in darkness in any step of the process. IMHO

Yes, in the long view I do not think documents need to be public until someone is bound over for trial. I trust the judges to make the decision to release or not release documents prior to the preliminary. This privacy occurs in grand jury so is not a "foreign" concept in the US therefore I do not buy the argument that it is an "enshrined right" prior to the trial setting or "the people" are in darkness. That exists and this law does not change that. I have no problem with someone arrested sitting in jail if a judge has determined that there is enough in the arrest avadavat to sign off. If they are in jail they are no threat to society and I have no need to know anything and there is a time bound process that must be followed along with presumption of innocence for the person arrested. I am more concerned with the invasion or rights of those that have given information or whose information is in the documentation to LE than I am an accused as well as a fair process that doesn't not create potential for post trial appeals.

 

[Error505]

Has he been practising in CO for very long? Just wondering, because I did a quick google and the AA was delayed in its release in the Perrish Cox arrest also (in 2011).
All that I googled was "release of arrest affidavit delayed" and that came right up. I only did one quick search, and I didn't specify CO.


A judge on Wednesday agreed to delay the release of the arrest affidavit in the sexual-assault case against Denver Broncos cornerback Perrish Cox.

The stay is in effect until the Colorado Supreme Court decides whether to review the appeal of the release or, if the top court does decide to review it, until a ruling is made.

The earliest the Supreme Court would issue a ruling on the affidavit, which details evidence prosecutors have against Cox, is after July 14. And it could be much longer than that.

Judge delays release of Perrish Cox arrest affidavit – The Denver Post
June 29, 2011

Scott's a media person, so his view is not unexpected or unbiased. We are starting to see orders very much like Judge Murphy's, and we will continue to see them until the Colorado Supreme Court issues some rulings. Much as media advocates (like other advocates and activists) may claim adamantly that their view is the ONLY view, and all others are ridiculous, the sound reasons courts have always sealed and redacted records have not gone away, and Rule 55.1 has not "repealed" them. MOO

According to a quick search, SR rec’d his JD in 1996 (University of Denver.) Upon graduation he enlisted in Marine Corps and was a prosecutor for the US Navy. After leaving his military service, he went back home to CO and began his practice of criminal law and personal injury. So, he’s been practicing roughly 26 years, give or take.
BBM to address comment by @CGray123 Your statement hits me as a little condescending since SR is an established, longtime CO attorney who is much respected, far more than your statement of “Scott is a media person so his view is not unexpected.” SR is an officer of the court. He may just enjoy the media aspect he can bring along while practicing his profession. I appreciate he is a trusted & approved Colorado source for us on WS & try not to speak condescendingly of those sources, even when I may disagree with their view.
I always find Mr Reisch to be a pleasant, no fluff “kinda guy” as far as attorneys speaking on current cases, just his legal opinion. MOO and all that jazz
Colorado Personal Injury and Criminal Defense Attorneys | Reisch Law Firm

 

[Momofthreeboys]

Sleuthers; it seems to me that upon reading the AA, JudgeMurphy realized that Barry is guilty and a monster.
As someone suggested above: perhaps the daughters initially told LE the truth and thereby (inadvertently) incriminated Barry. IIRC, judge Murphy expressly ordered Barry not to harass the daughters (presumably) about what they told the cops . To me, Judge Murphy has shown that his manifest goal is to protect those daughters’ testimony so as to bring Barry to justice. He doesn't want the girls attacked for it, reviled for it or influenced to change or suppress the testimony they first gave LE. JMO

There is only two ways this will go.....either the evidence is substantial enough to bind Barry over for trial or the evidence is thin and the case will be dismissed. We can't "guess" what the judge thought about the information in the document other than what he wrote in his response and that he felt it should not be made public at this time and the only assumption I can come to is he wanted to preserve the legal aspects of the process. The prosecution will make their case at the preliminary and this will go to trial or it won't.

 

[Deleted member 222031]

Sleuthers; it seems to me that upon reading the AA, JudgeMurphy realized that Barry is guilty and a monster.
As someone suggested above: perhaps the daughters initially told LE the truth and thereby (inadvertently) incriminated Barry. IIRC, judge Murphy expressly ordered Barry not to harass the daughters (presumably) about what they told the cops . To me, Judge Murphy has shown that his manifest goal is to protect those daughters’ testimony so as to bring Barry to justice. He doesn't want the girls attacked for it, reviled for it or influenced to change or suppress the testimony they first gave LE. JMO

If I understand you correctly, protection of witnesses, esp. the daughters, should be the judge's overriding concern in releasing the AA? I don't believe the law supports that.

IMHO, it is too late to protect them. Once their father was arrested for murder in the 1st degree, they were exposed to public opinion regardless of anything the judge does. Even before the arrest, their public silence was judged. That's just the real world.

The idea that the judge is tasked with making sure they don't lie on the stand is an overreach in my opinion. That goes to their character regardless of any pressure placed in them by their father or anyone else.

Their mother has been removed from their lives and they are likely to never see their father free. Very traumatic. Their testimony could be impeached so lying would be very risky on their part. And that would be the prosecution's burden to prove.

When a judge shows his hand by overreaching to protect particular witnesses, one does need to ask why. I think he has a prejudice not related to any legal reasoning.

Hiding the AA does not protect the daughters. That protection ended the day their mother disappeared. It is a sad reality but one is legally an adult and the other will be soon.

I am curious about how they managed to attend college and high school with their father under a cloud of public suspicion. They seem to have coped quite well - they didn't move/quit school/homeschool/delete all their social media/etc. That, to me, is evidence. How will it play at trial?

Yes, they are victims and victim's rights apply. Preventing release of the AA does them no service while the public's presumptive rights are quashed with only media challenge as a recourse.
MOO

 

[Error505]

If I understand you correctly, protection of witnesses, esp. the daughters, should be the judge's overriding concern in releasing the AA? I don't believe the law supports that.

IMHO, it is too late to protect them. Once their father was arrested for murder in the 1st degree, they were exposed to public opinion regardless of anything the judge does. Even before the arrest, their public silence was judged. That's just the real world.

The idea that the judge is tasked with making sure they don't lie on the stand is an overreach in my opinion. That goes to their character regardless of any pressure placed in them by their father or anyone else.

Their mother has been removed from their lives and they are likely to never see their father free. Very traumatic. Their testimony could be impeached so lying would be very risky on their part. And that would be the prosecution's burden to prove.

When a judge shows his hand by overreaching to protect particular witnesses, one does need to ask why. I think he has a prejudice not related to any legal reasoning.

Hiding the AA does not protect the daughters. That protection ended the day their mother disappeared. It is a sad reality but one is legally an adult and the other will be soon.

I am curious about how they managed to attend college and high school with their father under a cloud of public suspicion. They seem to have coped quite well - they didn't move/quit school/homeschool/delete all their social media/etc. That, to me, is evidence. How will it play at trial?

Yes, they are victims and victim's rights apply. Preventing release of the AA does them no service while the public's presumptive interests are quashed with only media challenge as a recourse.
MOO

Great post. Agree 100%. Very sad for these two young women. One of the worst events in my life was losing my dear mom. I can’t wrap my head around what these girls have faced for the last year and now, there must be some part of their logic asking “Did our dad really murder our mother” by one if not both of them. But, that’s not a “legal stance or issue.” They are included in this case as victims according to the DA because of their father’s actions. MOO

 

[jondaba]

I have read the Judge’s ruling and have come to the conclusions I set forth above.

 

[CGray123]

According to a quick search, SR rec’d his JD in 1996 (University of Denver.) Upon graduation he enlisted in Marine Corps and was a prosecutor for the US Navy. After leaving his military service, he went back home to CO and began his practice of criminal law and personal injury. So, he’s been practicing roughly 26 years, give or take.
BBM to address comment by @CGray123 Your statement hits me as a little condescending since SR is an established, longtime CO attorney who is much respected, far more than your statement of “Scott is a media person so his view is not unexpected.” SR is an officer of the court. He may just enjoy the media aspect he can bring along while practicing his profession. I appreciate he is a trusted & approved Colorado source for us on WS & try not to speak condescendingly of those sources, even when I may disagree with their view.
I always find Mr Reisch to be a pleasant, no fluff “kinda guy” as far as attorneys speaking on current cases, just his legal opinion. MOO and all that jazz
Colorado Personal Injury and Criminal Defense Attorneys | Reisch Law Firm

Thank you for the feedback! No offense of any kind was intended. Scott is surely an experienced advocate, well qualified in the criminal field, and worth following. But he has a point of view that is not surprising or neutral, given his interest in using the media as part of his public outreach. There's nothing wrong with that.