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

[Momofthreeboys]

I have to say, that in my opinion, it's rather interesting that the media would want to make victim's rights (in this case the daughters) a touchstone in their response. Historically the mainstream media have been the very people that have used caution in reporting about victims. It actually punctuates the case that a previous poster put out where the judge sealed documents and was supported by the attorney for the victim. I find it difficult to comprehend that anyone would not see the daughters as victims....

 

[Deleted member 222031]

I have to say, that in my opinion, it's rather interesting that the media would want to make victim's rights (in this case the daughters) a touchstone in their response. Historically the mainstream media have been the very people that have used caution in reporting about victims. It actually punctuates the case that a previous poster put out where the judge sealed documents and was supported by the attorney for the victim. I find it difficult to comprehend that anyone would not see the daughters as victims....

The judge made it a "touchstone."

The media response - see attached - points out in some detail how broad the judge's order is with respect to the daughters vs. the wide-ranging options for their protection that exist. They make it clear the burden is on the judge to state WHY these legal protections are not enough and make withholding the entire AA the remedy.

 

[Momofthreeboys]

The judge made it a "touchstone."

The media response - see attached - points out in some detail how broad the judge's order is with respect to the daughters vs. the wide-ranging options for their protection that exist. They make it clear the burden is on the judge to state WHY these legal protections are not enough and make withholding the entire AA the remedy.
View attachment 301799

We'll just have to agree to disagree. The media has a financial stake in this no matter how they express it in legalistic terms and I think their advocacy for a PPO is a weak argument as is their argument that the young women can "bring criminal charges" if violated in social media or in the conventional media or in person . Most "victims" would agree. I have to side with the judge on this one.

 

[Cassady]

IMO the Judge sealed the AWA to protect the integrity of the witnesses who will testify at the prelim hearing and to keep irrelevant or inadmissible information from being released into the public domain prior to the PH. Apparently the case is circumstantial and the credibility of witnesses will be at a premium according to the Court's opinion on this issue.

If the witnesses(including the daughters of the victim and defendant) are ID'd in the AWA and that became public prior to the PH, some of those witnesses could be subject to harassment or they could make the media and social media interview circuit. That could impact those witnesses testimony at the PH.

IMO the Court is trying to protect the integrity of the case through the PH because they have to make the decision at that hearing. Most cases get past the PH pretty easily, but this Judge makes it sound like there will be some questions at this PH, mainly because it will come down to witness credibility.

 

[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

Sleuthers: Please don't beat up on me. I don't say I endorse sealing the AA; I only suggest what some part of the Judge's reasoning might be.

BTW: Am I the only one musing over the juxtaposition of MUR-FEE vs. MOR-FEW?

 

[10ofRods]

Sleuthers: Please don't beat up on me. I don't say I endorse sealing the AA; I only suggest what some part of the Judge's reasoning might be.

BTW: Am I the only one musing over the juxtaposition of MUR-FEE vs. MOR-FEW?

You are absolutely not the only one who noticed that the surnames are related (Irish and English versions of the same older name, IMO).

And I totally get the points that everyone is making about sealing/unsealing the AA - just because someone says they understand why the judge did it, doesn't mean we think it was a good idea.

Looks to be a complex issue for Colorado, first of all. I was surprised to hear about how restrictive judges have tried to be in CO about AA's and how many times their own Supreme Court overturned a lower judge's order.

BTW, I think you are quite right about how the Judge left most of us feeling (that the AA shows Barry as guilty and as a monster, with pages of detail to support that). IOW, the Judge himself has now telegraphed that whatever is in the AA is really disturbing. If on top of that, the two daughters are themselves witnesses named in the AA (thereby contributing to their father's arrest), it's an awful situation.

This is a kinder, gentler justice system than what I've observed personally, and I seriously don't think that every criminal defendant's family gets this same consideration in Colorado. However, I think it may backfire on Judge Murphy, in that he's now made everyone very curious about what it says and basically insinuated that Barry is a monster.

 

[Momofthreeboys]

You are absolutely not the only one who noticed that the surnames are related (Irish and English versions of the same older name, IMO).

And I totally get the points that everyone is making about sealing/unsealing the AA - just because someone says they understand why the judge did it, doesn't mean we think it was a good idea.

Looks to be a complex issue for Colorado, first of all. I was surprised to hear about how restrictive judges have tried to be in CO about AA's and how many times their own Supreme Court overturned a lower judge's order.

BTW, I think you are quite right about how the Judge left most of us feeling (that the AA shows Barry as guilty and as a monster, with pages of detail to support that). IOW, the Judge himself has now telegraphed that whatever is in the AA is really disturbing. If on top of that, the two daughters are themselves witnesses named in the AA (thereby contributing to their father's arrest), it's an awful situation.

This is a kinder, gentler justice system than what I've observed personally, and I seriously don't think that every criminal defendant's family gets this same consideration in Colorado. However, I think it may backfire on Judge Murphy, in that he's now made everyone very curious about what it says and basically insinuated that Barry is a monster.

I don't agree at all that the judge insinuated Barry is a monster. I never once got that impression. I got the impression that there was some form of character assassination or speculation going in in the document that may or may not be admissible as evidence and I got the impression that it would be disturbing to Suzanne and Barry's kids to read it. It is not at all obvious to me that it was all about Barry. It may very well be but frankly, my initial thought was it could be LE interviews about Suzanne or even the girls themselves or all three or extended family members and since it's never making it into court it makes sense not to unleash it to the media. It's not a stretch to think that LE was watching social media and I'm sure they had some doozy of interviews about the entire family and all kinds of speculation. Once the document is released, media can publish anything they want and attribute to "the arrest warrant" which makes it appear as if it is all legitimate, legally admissible information. Once the document is all cleaned up and the preliminary is over there really is no harm for their daughters to hear facts. But no victim needs to hear a bunch of innuendo.

 

[fcavanaugh]

There’s been some good discussion about thoughts/different views on whether the Judge erred in his ruling to keep the AA sealed. I can see both sides and although admittedly perplexed by the Judge’s ruling at first as to my mind, sure, the daughter’s are victims of trauma via collateral damage, but Suzanne is the direct victim of the actual crime itself. Suzanne lost her life fgs, and I can’t help but worry that her rights as the direct victim of the crime might be getting lost in all of this and who will speak for her.
Having said that, while I’m trying my best to understand the Judge’s reasoning and to trust the process, I must admit that I really didn’t care for the part about the amount of redaction needed being too time consuming. IMO, it sounds like a weak excuse and don’t see why redactions the Judge deemed necessary couldn’t have been made expeditiously in order for redacted version of AA released within reasonable time allowed. Idk, but the Judge not ordering/ruling to release at the very least, a redacted version/summary of the AA, which would protect (collateral) victims as well as witnesses, it just feels icky, like BM and his team were *handed* more time to try and hide BM’s heinous deeds and to prepare while pouring over 10,000 pages of discovery. If there’s nothing bad in it, why does BM and his team want to keep it sealed. Is it not indication of admission on some level to want to suppress/keep the AA sealed? Rhetorical question.

Stating the obvious, Judge’s are supposed to be impartial and I believe most Judges are ethical, but IMO, they are human and sometimes prejudiced, for lack of a better word, “leanings” end up showing through in rulings during/over the course of the process. That said, it’s not lost on me that before being appointed Judge, Judge Murphy spent his entire career working as a Public Defender. Not that there’s anything wrong with that at all, let’s just say, I’ll be keeping the aforementioned in mind while waiting and watching with keen interest to see how things go/are decided/ruled on going forward.

At the end of the day, the true direct victim of the crime itself is SUZANNE MOORMAN MORPHEW. I want her to have a voice, and not be forgotten. I also want BM to get a fair trial to leave NO room for mistrial or appeals down the road. This is of utmost importance imo. I do have faith that the DA/prosecution will stand up for Suzanne and not let her be forgotten, that no matter how much BM and his defense team might try to portray him as victim, remain confident that the DA has the “goods” on BM to prove he is NOT victim but victimizer, and ultimate justice will be that Suzanne’s voice is heard, and her killer sent away/locked up for the rest of his miserable life.

All of the above IMHOO


#FindSuzanne
#BringSuzanneHome
#JusticeForSuzanne

ETA-edited post after re-reading article at link below posted by @Chelly - the Judge will consider requests to unseal the AA 7 days post PH’s in August.

 

[Chelly]

Judge Rules To Keep Barry Morphew’s 130 Page Arrest Affidavit Sealed Until At Least September
Judge Rules To Keep Barry Morphew's 130 Page Arrest Affidavit Sealed Until At Least September

The order states the affidavit will remain sealed until at least seven days after a proof evident/preliminary hearing scheduled across four days on August 9, 10, 23 and 24. At that point the judge will consider requests to unseal the affidavit

 

[SouthAussie]

There’s been some good discussion about thoughts/different views on whether the Judge erred in his ruling to keep the AA sealed. I can see both sides and although admittedly perplexed by the Judge’s ruling at first as to my mind, sure, the daughter’s are victims of trauma via collateral damage, but Suzanne is the direct victim of the actual crime itself. Suzanne lost her life fgs, and I can’t help but worry that her rights as the direct victim of the crime might be getting lost in all of this and who will speak for her.
Having said that, while I’m trying my best to understand the Judge’s reasoning and to trust the process, I must admit that I really didn’t care for the part about the amount of redaction needed being too time consuming. IMO, it sounds like a weak excuse and don’t see why redactions the Judge deemed necessary couldn’t have been made expeditiously in order for redacted version of AA released within reasonable time allowed. Idk, but the Judge not ordering/ruling to release at the very least, a redacted version/summary of the AA, which would protect (collateral) victims as well as witnesses, it just feels icky, like BM and his team were *handed* more time to try and hide BM’s heinous deeds and to prepare while pouring over 10,000 pages of discovery. If there’s nothing bad in it, why does BM and his team want to keep it sealed. Is it not indication of admission on some level to want to suppress/keep the AA sealed? Rhetorical question.

At any rate, I personally don’t think the Judge is going to back down. If it goes to the Supreme Court, how long could that take. I mean we’re in the last week of June, and the Preliminary is set to start on 8/9/21, not that far off. IANAL, and haven’t had time to read and absorb the full scope of next steps in the judicial process after the media’s response, but if the courts are backed up already, how much of a priority will something like this be, and can final decisions/rulings by Judge and/or the SC if it goes that far, come down by 8/9/21.

Stating the obvious, Judge’s are supposed to be impartial and I believe most Judges are ethical, but IMO, they are human and sometimes prejudiced, for lack of a better word, “leanings” end up showing through in rulings during/over the course of the process. That said, it’s not lost on me that before being appointed Judge, Judge Murphy spent his career as a Public Defender. Not that there’s anything wrong with that at all, let’s just say, I’ll be keeping the aforementioned in mind while waiting and watching with keen interest to see how things go/are decided/ruled on going forward.

At the end of the day, the true direct victim of the crime itself is SUZANNE MORPHEW. I want her to have a voice and to not be forgotten, and for BM to get a fair trial to leave NO room for mistrial or appeals. This is of utmost importance. I do have faith that the DA/prosecution will stand up for Suzanne and not let her be forgotten, and that no matter how much BM and his defense team tries to portray him as victim, am confident that the DA has the “goods” on BM to prove he is NOT victim but victimizer, and ultimate justice will be that Suzanne’s voice will be heard, and her killer being sent away for the rest of his miserable life.

All of the above IMHOO

#FindSuzanne
#BringSuzanneHome
#JusticeForSuzanne

Yes, I think Suzanne's advocate is the state ... the prosecutorial office. And it seems that they placed no objection on the judge temporarily sealing the affidavit. They are happy enough for it to be released, but they did not object to the temporary sealing either.

From what I can tell, the attorney members on this thread seem to agree. It is a temporary protection that is deemed necessary for a fair trial in this case. A fair trial that will not result in a conviction being thrown out.
My impression is that they appear to trust the judge's reasoning, seeing that none of us knows what is in that AA.

 

[Ontario Mom]

Judge Rules To Keep Barry Morphew’s 130 Page Arrest Affidavit Sealed Until At Least September
Judge Rules To Keep Barry Morphew's 130 Page Arrest Affidavit Sealed Until At Least September

The order states the affidavit will remain sealed until at least seven days after a proof evident/preliminary hearing scheduled across four days on August 9, 10, 23 and 24. At that point the judge will consider requests to unseal the affidavit

Just jumping off your post here as I had an oddball thought.

(For anyone that knows the legal answer) Can the judge actually keep this sealed indefinitely?
That seems to be implied as he'll "consider" requests to unseal it, 7 days after the prelim hearing.
I mean if he's just going to consider it, that means he can just keep it sealed, doesn't it?
Or does it?

 

[SouthAussie]

Just jumping off your post here as I had an oddball thought.

(For anyone that knows the legal answer) Can the judge actually keep this sealed indefinitely?
That seems to be implied as he'll "consider" requests to unseal it, 7 days after the prelim hearing.
I mean if he's just going to consider it, that means he can just keep it sealed, doesn't it?
Or does it?

I don't know if this has any bearing, but I had a quick look to see if/when Perish Cox's AA was unsealed. It was unsealed once the redactions were done. Keeping in mind that the sealing of this particular AA was promoted by the defense, the prosecution, and the victim's attorney.
So, it seems, the judge overrode all of those motions once the judge was comfortable with the allowable content in the AA.

Judge will disclose allegations vs. Broncos' Cox

 

[Deleted member 222031]

At the end of the day, the true direct victim of the crime itself is SUZANNE MOORMAN MORPHEW. I want her to have a voice, not be forgotten. And for BM to get a fair trial to leave NO room for mistrial or appeals down the road. This is of utmost importance imo. I do have faith that the DA/prosecution will stand up for Suzanne and not let her be forgotten, that no matter how much BM and his defense team might try to portray him as victim, remain confident that the DA has the “goods” on BM to prove he is NOT victim but victimizer, and ultimate justice will be that Suzanne’s voice is heard, and her killer sent away/locked up for the rest of his miserable life.

All of the above IMHOO


#FindSuzanne
#BringSuzanneHome
#JusticeForSuzanne

This^^^^is indeed most important. Whatever our opinions, surely we would all agree, that the loss of Suzanne is the most unimaginable tragedy of all. IMHO

 

[Momofthreeboys]

There’s been some good discussion about thoughts/different views on whether the Judge erred in his ruling to keep the AA sealed. I can see both sides and although admittedly perplexed by the Judge’s ruling at first as to my mind, sure, the daughter’s are victims of trauma via collateral damage, but Suzanne is the direct victim of the actual crime itself. Suzanne lost her life fgs, and I can’t help but worry that her rights as the direct victim of the crime might be getting lost in all of this and who will speak for her.
Having said that, while I’m trying my best to understand the Judge’s reasoning and to trust the process, I must admit that I really didn’t care for the part about the amount of redaction needed being too time consuming. IMO, it sounds like a weak excuse and don’t see why redactions the Judge deemed necessary couldn’t have been made expeditiously in order for redacted version of AA released within reasonable time allowed. Idk, but the Judge not ordering/ruling to release at the very least, a redacted version/summary of the AA, which would protect (collateral) victims as well as witnesses, it just feels icky, like BM and his team were *handed* more time to try and hide BM’s heinous deeds and to prepare while pouring over 10,000 pages of discovery. If there’s nothing bad in it, why does BM and his team want to keep it sealed. Is it not indication of admission on some level to want to suppress/keep the AA sealed? Rhetorical question.

At any rate, I personally don’t think the Judge is going to back down. If it goes to the Supreme Court, how long could that take. I mean we’re in the last week of June, and the Preliminary is set to start on 8/9/21, not that far off. IANAL, and haven’t had time to read and absorb the full scope of next steps in the judicial process after the media’s response, but if the courts are backed up already, how much of a priority will something like this be, and can final decisions/rulings by Judge and/or the SC if it goes that far, come down by 8/9/21.

Stating the obvious, Judge’s are supposed to be impartial and I believe most Judges are ethical, but IMO, they are human and sometimes prejudiced, for lack of a better word, “leanings” end up showing through in rulings during/over the course of the process. That said, it’s not lost on me that before being appointed Judge, Judge Murphy spent his entire career working as a Public Defender. Not that there’s anything wrong with that at all, but let’s just say, I’ll be keeping the aforementioned in mind while waiting and watching with keen interest to see how things go/are decided/ruled on going forward.

At the end of the day, the true direct victim of the crime itself is SUZANNE MORPHEW. I want her to have a voice and to not be forgotten, and for BM to get a fair trial to leave NO room for mistrial or appeals. This is of utmost importance. I do have faith that the DA/prosecution will stand up for Suzanne and not let her be forgotten, and that no matter how much BM and his defense team tries to portray him as victim, am confident that the DA has the “goods” on BM to prove he is NOT victim but victimizer, and ultimate justice will be that Suzanne’s voice will be heard, and her killer being sent away for the rest of his miserable life.

All of the above IMHOO

#FindSuzanne
#BringSuzanneHome
#JusticeForSuzanne

And if the case is dismissed at preliminary we'll never see it I would guess or we will see a fully redacted version and understand the problem. Based on past trials I've watched, this one is moving along on schedule so I don't see anywhere the "judge" is giving Barry's defense team anything bonus....now, if there are motions to delay the preliminary, motions because they don't have full disclosure, and such, that might be an argument depending on the outcome of those motions but so far it appears everyone involved is doing their jobs. The prosecution has the arrest warrant as they should and dates and timeline were set. I'm not exactly sure where the perception comes from that Barry or his lawyers are getting preferential treatment. Right now the entire argument is only about sealing the arrest warrant from the media until after the preliminary....nothing more...nothing less...the prosecution wrote it, the judge has seen it and the defense has it. The "public" knows he has been arrested and the public knows he is in jail. Honestly, the "hint" about the extreme amount of time to do redactions is a huge hint in my mind and a concern. It's the prosecution's job to "protect Suzanne" and actually to protect the daughters. They made the decision when to arrest based on their feeling regarding ability to go to trial. The public has to trust they were prepared and the public has to trust that the prosecution will do their best to protect the victims. I'm not concerned about the prosecution forgetting that Suzanne is, in their minds, deceased, it says so on their charging documents. The "right" to a speedy trial commences at the hearing where an accused pleads guilty or not guilty. So beginning to end -- arrest to trial can take a year in some cases.

 

[al66pine]

Just speculating...but it may be that since BM is the father of the two daughters...the public's considerable, and sometimes heated comments about him are being considered potential harassment of the daughters...since he is presumed to be innocent. That may be a stretch...but who knows the bounds of the harassment definition?

@Scootie98 bbm May be a stretch?
Nope, imo, most def' a stretch, and it's a looooooooooooooooooong one. my2ct.

 

[Barry]

The paradox for me personally, is that in order to tell if it’s a good idea to release the AA, it would need to be released so I could see it and decide.

 

[Deleted member 222031]

The paradox for me personally, is that in order to tell if it’s a good idea to release the AA, it would need to be released so I could see it and decide.

LOL - yes, that would make things easier!

 

[sk716]

Just jumping off your post here as I had an oddball thought.

(For anyone that knows the legal answer) Can the judge actually keep this sealed indefinitely?
That seems to be implied as he'll "consider" requests to unseal it, 7 days after the prelim hearing.
I mean if he's just going to consider it, that means he can just keep it sealed, doesn't it?
Or does it?

I believe according to CO law, it could be sealed indefinitely.

I honestly believe the biggest consideration in sealing the AA is that Chaffee County, CO has less than 20,000 people. Jury selection will be tough enough as is and the defense is already laying the ground work to appeal based on the venue.

 

[Momofthreeboys]

I believe according to CO law, it could be sealed indefinitely.

I honestly believe the biggest consideration in sealing the AA is that Chaffee County, CO has less than 20,000 people. Jury selection will be tough enough as is and the defense is already laying the ground work to appeal based on the venue.

Where did you hear the defense is looking to appeal for a change of venue?

 

[Deleted member 222031]

I believe according to CO law, it could be sealed indefinitely.

I honestly believe the biggest consideration in sealing the AA is that Chaffee County, CO has less than 20,000 people. Jury selection will be tough enough as is and the defense is already laying the ground work to appeal based on the venue.

Per Rule 55.1, if the order to seal expires, it can be postponed with a new expiration date/event certain can be made by the judge with required justifications, as stated in the Rule.

Here is the language:
"(7) Duration of Order Granting Request. Any order limiting public access to a courtrecord or to any part of a court record shall indicate a date or event certain by which the order will expire. That date or event shall be considered the order’s expiration date or event.

"(9) Review of Order Granting Request. The court shall review any order limiting public access to a court record or to any part of a court record pursuant to this rule at the time of the expiration of the order or earlier upon motion of one of the parties. The court may postpone the expiration of such an order if, in a written order, it either determines that the findings previously made under paragraph (a)(6) of this rule continue to apply or makes new findings pursuant to paragraph (a)(6) of this rule justifying postponement of the expiration date or event. If the court postpones the expiration of the order, it must set a new expiration date or event."