But, in this case, the content of the AA is one of the judge's reasons for withholding its release to the public, as redaction would be too burdensome after the arrest, as well, in the judge's opinion.
What say you on that point, assuming this judge signed off on the AA?
He did not "sign off" on the affidavit.
I think you're misunderstanding what an affidavit is. An affidavit was filed with the Chaffee County Court system, requesting the arrest of one Barry Morphew. The affidavit is written either entirely by LE (usually conferring with the DA). One person collects all the various reports, each of which is also sworn to under penalty of perjury (when police, CBI and FBI make reports, those reports are considered factual based on the signature of an actual LE investigator). NO judge weighs in, at this point in the proceedings, on whether all those LE people are nuts, are wrong, are non-objective, etc.
When the lead investigator puts their signature on it and tells the Judge, in essence, "I swear that all of this is true," all the Judge is going to decide on is
whether there is enough in it to warrant an arrest.
The Judge does not question the investigator formally. The Judge is neither a prosecutor nor a defense attorney. The Judge is not the trier of fact in this case (but the Judge will, during the proceedings, determine which evidence is allowed under the rules of evidence). An AA is not evidence. It is a request from the DA/LE to arrest someone.
The Judge agreed with the request, and at the time, the prosecution also agreed to have it sealed (because they didn't want to tip off Barry, obviously - I believe MassGuy just stated this, above).
The media want it unsealed. The prosecution raised no objection to having it remain sealed, however. The media are not primary parties in this case. The prosecution and the defense apparently agreed to wait to have the AA released until September (after evidentiary proceedings make the entire case much better fleshed out, so to speak). Everyone knows that an AA is biased - its only goal is to get the person (Barry) arrested. And the Judge simply agreed, as Judges do day-in and day-out, often 365 days a year - that yep, there was enough in there to arrest Barry. AA served its purpose.
The Judge did not "sign off" on the AA. The Judge read the AA and drew a conclusion that there was enough of evidentiary value to arrest Barry Lee Morphew on a charge of First Degree Murder, with deliberation (and 4 other charges, I believe).
Now the Judge turns to his main task, which is assuring a fair trial. In no way does issuing an arrest warrant mean that the Judge agreed with everything in the AA or thought that everything in the AA would make it to trial as evidence (that almost never happens).
I have myself provided affidavits in criminal court proceedings (and I'm not LE, I was asked by the Court on various occasions to weigh in on certain matters in which the Court decided I was "expert"). I take it very seriously and do not put anything into a sworn affidavit that I do not believe to be true. LE did the same thing - they believe everything in the AA to be true (even if not relevant or admissible) because that's how the system works.
Not once has an affidavit that I've written made it to court as "evidence." And not once have I been called to the stand. But in each case, the Judge conferred with me and let me know the way in which he used the affidavit in the proceedings. I have been asked to provide affidavits by both prosecution and (mostly) defense attorneys. One Judge did ask me to if I would testify if needed and of course I said yes, but that case ended in a plea bargain (and the Judge said my work helped get that done - even though I knew nothing about the actual facts of the case and was providing research on a topic the Judge felt he needed expertise in order to do his job).
Judges read affidavits, weigh them in their minds, and then make life-changing decisions for persons like Barry Morphew, who is now a criminal defendant in a very serious matter.