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

[10ofRods]

It doesn't really make much sense to me that the same judge who signed the AA then turns around and says what he does about it. Like, oh wow, look at all this stuff, all these pages, in this AA that I signed myself.

No, that doesn't make sense.

jmo

Judge did not sign the AA.

Affidavits are not signed by judges. AA's are signed by investigators (usually the lead LE investigator). There can be more than one signature. I wouldn't be surprised if there is more than one signature on this AA, but I wouldn't be surprised if there's only one signature.

The Judge is making a legal determination based on facts sworn to by. other parties. The document in which those parties swear to the facts is called an Affidavit (not a brief, not a motion, not an order).

The Judge signed an order, not an Affidavit. His order is public. There is no argument about the public nature of the judge's Order. It's signed and delivered.

It's the Affidavit that many of us want to see (IOW, what does LE have against Barry that is so persuasive that a Judge weighed this heavy matter and came down with an ORDER to ARREST Barry Morphew).

Barry is in jail not because the Judge went and investigated him - he is in jail because investigators swore to the Judge that they had the facts to nail him, and the Judge, after deliberation agreed with them.

And the ball really is in the Defense's court now - as the Judge said, they are entitled now to begin their own investigation and to present those findings at the preliminary hearing.

 

[Momofthreeboys]

Mike King has greater confidence in the impartiality of the process for choosing and evaluating judges than I do. Given that this DA ran as a Republican and replaced a Democrat who previously held the office and given what appears to be an admonishment of the DA in the judge's order, I think it is worth a look to see how judge's are selected and retained in CO and to see who is overseeing the evaluation process.

In Colorado, State and District judges are not elected; they are nominated and appointed by politically elected leaders on the basis of a "merit system." After a preliminary period (2 years), their retention appears on the ballot, but they do not run against anyone. If voters elect not to retain them, the policitally elected leaders appoint another to replace them. Voters do not themselves elect judges as happens in many other states.

Judges are evaluated by attorneys active in their courts. In Districts where more than 500 attorney qualify, those who evaluate are chosen randomly. In smaller districts where fewer attorneys qualify, all may evaluate.

The evaluation questionnaires are prepared by State and District Commissions on Judicial Performance. Here is how those members are selected (from FAQ on their website):

State Commission has 11 citizen volunteer Commission members – 6 non-attorneys and 5 attorneys.

• N-A’s at State Commission selected by Governor (2), House and Senate majority leaders (2), and House and Senate minority leaders (2);
• A’s at State Commission selected by CJ (2), Governor (1), House and Senate leaders (2).
• So, 7 of the 11 State Commission members are selected by D’s and 2 more by a CJ who was appointed by a D governor. 2 State Commission members are selected by R’s.

Each District Commission has 10 citizen volunteer commissioners – 6 non-attorneys and 4 attorneys.

• N-A’s at District Commissions selected by Governor (2), House and Senate majority leaders (2), and House and Senate minority leaders (2).
• A’s at District Commissions selected by CJ (2); House and Senate majority leaders (2).
• So, 6 of the 10 Commission members at each District are selected by D’s and 2 more by a CJ who was appointed by a D governor. 2 of each District’s Commissioners are selected by R’s.

Who selects Commission members?

Chief Justice (nonpartisan office; appointed by previous Governor Hickenlooper, D); the CJ appoints two attorneys to the State and District Commissions (so 2 to the State and 2 to each District).

Governor (D elected 2018; previous was D too) appoints one attorney and two non-attorneys to the State Commission and two attorneys to the District Commissions (so 3 to the State and 3 to each District).

Speaker of the House and President of the Senate (both D’s) appoint one attorney and one non-attorney to the State and District Commissions (so 4 of the State and 4 of each District);

House Minority Leader and Senate Minority Leader (R’s) each appoint one non-attorney to the State and District Commissions (so 2 to the State and 2 to each District).

IMO, given the one-party control of judicial nomination, appointment, and evalution, the case can be made even more than in many other states for public disclosure in the interest of transparency.

ETA:

Link to Commissions on Judicial Performance, FAQ's:
Commissions on Judicial Performace - Frequently Asked Questions

Link to Market Decisions Research, Judicial Performance Evaluation Surveys:
Judicial Performance Evaluation Surveys | Market Decisions Research

But the rules in Colorado say: Each judicial district nominating commission consists of seven citizens residing in that judicial district. No more than four members can be from the same political party, and there must be at least one voting member from each county in the district. So it appears that it is a relatively non-partisan, perhaps even moreso than states that hold partisan elections. Colorado Judicial Branch - Supreme Court - Judicial Nominating Commissions

 

[Skigh]

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.

Thank you for such a clear,well written explanation.

 

[Deleted member 222031]

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.

I appreciate your input and expertise. If, in your experience, the AA does not present evidence then why does the judge's order to seal seem to state otherwise? I have marked the text I am asking about.

 

[Diddian]

But the rules in Colorado say: Each judicial district nominating commission consists of seven citizens residing in that judicial district. No more than four members can be from the same political party, and there must be at least one voting member from each county in the district. So it appears that it is a relatively non-partisan, perhaps even moreso than states that hold partisan elections. Colorado Judicial Branch - Supreme Court - Judicial Nominating Commissions

A seven member commission of 4 to 3 is likely to always decide in favor of the 4 - and particularly so when they are merely choosing nominees for a list from which the same-party governor is going to make his selection. They are basically teeing it up to him/her.

 

[Ontario Mom]

DBM

 

[O.Incandenza]

I don't think it is all that unusual for judges to admonish lawyers for the prosecution or lawyers for the defense during the course of a case. I would love to know what judge signed off on the arrest warrant. Seems like if that person was a skilled judge they would have had similar feeling about the length and content of the arrest warrant knowing the potential for it to become a public document and given a heads up. I still believe that the law and prosecutor were in a big hurry to get the warrant signed. Hopefully it won't bite them in the butt in the long run.

I believe it was the same judge. In the order keeping the AA sealed, he says "[a] significant portion of the information in the Affidavit was not relevant to the Court's finding of probable cause...." A judge would be very unlikely to say that about an arrest warrant issued by a different judge since they wouldn't know exactly what parts of the AA were relevant to their decision.

I think people are misinterpreting his ruling as him saying the prosecution's case is weak. I don't think you can read that into it. He clearly thought there was enough there to issue an arrest warrant. He does seem to be saying that there's extraneous information in the AA that wasn't relevant to probable cause, and he's concerned about releasing that publicly now. That wouldn't have been an issue while granting the arrest warrant, but could become an issue with regards to tainting the jury pool (especially in a small county), etc.

It's hard to know how viable his concerns are without seeing the AA, of course. 130 pages seems pretty excessive. If it was just a hurried info dump by LE because they needed to get a warrant quickly, it could contain prejudicial information about BM that isn't relevant, prejudicial information about witnesses, etc. That would all be stuff that would need to be redacted before the AA is made public. If there's a lot of it, that would take a long time and sealing it for a few months would seem ok to me. But the whole point of appeals is that you can always get other judges to look at it and see what they think.

 

[Ontario Mom]

Judge did not sign the AA.

It's the Affidavit that many of us want to see (IOW, what does LE have against Barry that is so persuasive that a Judge weighed this heavy matter and came down with an ORDER to ARREST Barry Morphew). Barry is in jail not because the Judge went and investigated him - he is in jail because investigators swore to the Judge that they had the facts to nail him, and the Judge, after deliberation agreed with them.

RS&BBM

You did a really good job of explaining the process.

Just to clarify, it didn't make sense (to me) if it were the same judge that signed off/approved the arrest warrant, since he would have already seen the affidavit. It just seems rather contradictory if it were the same judge, based on the way he described it in the order to keep the affidavit sealed. Good enough to issue the arrest warrant but too much of this and too much of that, and quite a bit of this other, here to release publicly, just seems weird.

But, I guess we'll find out eventually. I suppose once we all do finally read it all of this will make a LOT more sense - as to why it was sealed in the first place. I suppose that AA is going to probably surprise us all. Probably for what IS there, and what ISN'T.

jmo

 

[Ontario Mom]

I believe it was the same judge. In the order keeping the AA sealed, he says "[a] significant portion of the information in the Affidavit was not relevant to the Court's finding of probable cause...." A judge would be very unlikely to say that about an arrest warrant issued by a different judge since they wouldn't know exactly what parts of the AA were relevant to their decision.

I think people are misinterpreting his ruling as him saying the prosecution's case is weak. I don't think you can read that into it. He clearly thought there was enough there to issue an arrest warrant. He does seem to be saying that there's extraneous information in there that wasn't relevant to probable cause, and he's concerned about releasing that publicly now. That wouldn't have been an issue while granting the arrest warrant, but could become an issue with regards to tainting the jury pool (especially in a small county), etc.

It's hard to know how viable his concerns are without seeing the AA, of course. 130 pages seems pretty excessive. If it was just a hurried info dump by LE because they needed to get a warrant quickly, it could contain prejudicial information about BM that isn't relevant, prejudicial information about witnesses, etc. That would all be stuff that would need to be redacted before the AA is made public. If there's a lot of it, that would take a long time and sealing it for a few months would seem ok to me. But the whole point of appeals is that you can always get other judges to look at it and see what they think.

Agreed, with all of this. Much I hadn't even thought of. Great post.

 

[SouthAussie]

I think the desire to see the content of the AA might just fade away after the Preliminary Hearing.

At the Preliminary Hearing it should become obvious why BM was arrested.

 

[10ofRods]

View attachment 301984
I appreciate your input and expertise. If, in your experience, the AA does not present evidence then why does the judge's order to seal seem to state otherwise? I have marked the text I am asking about.

It contains many things. Some of it will be evidence - when the Judge says it is. There will be many in-chambers (out of public view) meetings in which the Judge will find out even more than he already knows, with both sides attempting to convince him about what gets admitted.

Here's my speculation: there was plenty in the AA to convince the Judge, but also some evidentiary red flags. I've brought them up before.

In almost every case, some of what is in the AA will not meet the bar for evidence - but police are not trained in that and police are supposed to give up all that they know (in the public interest and for other reasons).

My specific concern has been self-incrimination. While it is true that things people say to LE (especially if recorded) are likely to be regarded as admissible, there is also this Miranda standard. If Barry blabbed a bunch of different alibis on May 10-12, and then grew silent (but he knew he was speaking to LE - usually, LE asks "Do you understand why we are asking you questions?" Barry would say "yes." LE would then say, "What is your understanding?" And Barry would have to say, "Well, my wife is missing." LE would say, "Did you report her missing?" Barry would have to say, "No, I did not" (and then knowing Barry, he launched into a long explanation about how he called his daughters and the neighbor, blah blah). LE would ask, "Did you call anyone else?" Barry says either "Yes" or "no."

But in the end, LE will have his phone records. And not just from that weekend. Let's say that his phone records consistently show that he's not living at home in any meaningful sense. LE is going to ask him about that. And if they confront him with "And your phone records say you were in Salida and not Maysville at 5 am on May 10," well then, Barry has lied again and got a lot of splaining to do.

Of course, LE needs more than that to convince the Judge - but I am sure they have it. And the Judge agreed, so he ordered Barry to be arrested. And then, held without bail. Because of what's in the AA, which was compiled mostly by LE (and there are probably many recordings, digital records, etc. appended to back them up - hence 129 pages).

 

[lonetraveler]

Yes, I said this some threads ago. BM told the girls that Mom did not want to struggle anymore against the brutal pain that cancer was racking her body with - and that she asked BM to help her end her life in this world and go upstairs.
At great personal risk, so he told them, he heroically, thru copious tears, brought the only wonan he ever loved into the bosom of Abraham where Mom is now settled in peacefully with Jesus - another rose in the Master’s bouquet.

Anything he did after that was for love of Mom and you kids and to protect you.

OMG, I bet his defense team is reading here and getting all kinds of ideas. If I see this during the trial, I'll totally melt down.

 

[MassGuy]

I think the desire to see the content of the AA might just fade away after the Preliminary Hearing.

At the Preliminary Hearing it should become obvious why BM was arrested.

I don’t think it will go away completely, but it won’t be anywhere near as important to us as it is right now.

The vast majority of our questions will be answered over those days in August, but it’s always nice to have the actual document to refer to, for our purposes anyway.

I do fully expect a redacted version to be released at some point following those proceedings, along with some of the search warrants.

 

[Error505]

It’s my understanding that the DA asked for the arrest warrant to be sealed, so as not to tip off BM via a court filing that he was about to be arrested.

The justification was that he was a flight risk due to the liquidation of assets, and him telling people that he had plans to move to Arizona.

So I could see the judge reading through the AA, realizing at the time that some of the content was problematic, but signing it anyways because it both met the burden, and time was of the essence.

Great post & your explanation certainly sounds plausible. I would love to know your source. Curiosity is killing me.

 

[Error505]

Mike King has greater confidence in the impartiality of the process for choosing and evaluating judges than I do. Given that this DA ran as a Republican and replaced a Democrat who previously held the office and given what appears to be an admonishment of the DA in the judge's order, I think it is worth a look to see how judge's are selected and retained in CO and to see who is overseeing the evaluation process.

In Colorado, State and District judges are not elected; they are nominated and appointed by politically elected leaders on the basis of a "merit system." After a preliminary period (2 years), their retention appears on the ballot, but they do not run against anyone. If voters elect not to retain them, the policitally elected leaders appoint another to replace them. Voters do not themselves elect judges as happens in many other states.

Judges are evaluated by attorneys active in their courts. In Districts where more than 500 attorney qualify, those who evaluate are chosen randomly. In smaller districts where fewer attorneys qualify, all may evaluate.

The evaluation questionnaires are prepared by State and District Commissions on Judicial Performance. Here is how those members are selected (from FAQ on their website):

State Commission has 11 citizen volunteer Commission members – 6 non-attorneys and 5 attorneys.

• N-A’s at State Commission selected by Governor (2), House and Senate majority leaders (2), and House and Senate minority leaders (2);
• A’s at State Commission selected by CJ (2), Governor (1), House and Senate leaders (2).
• So, 7 of the 11 State Commission members are selected by D’s and 2 more by a CJ who was appointed by a D governor. 2 State Commission members are selected by R’s.

Each District Commission has 10 citizen volunteer commissioners – 6 non-attorneys and 4 attorneys.

• N-A’s at District Commissions selected by Governor (2), House and Senate majority leaders (2), and House and Senate minority leaders (2).
• A’s at District Commissions selected by CJ (2); House and Senate majority leaders (2).
• So, 6 of the 10 Commission members at each District are selected by D’s and 2 more by a CJ who was appointed by a D governor. 2 of each District’s Commissioners are selected by R’s.

Who selects Commission members?

Chief Justice (nonpartisan office; appointed by previous Governor Hickenlooper, D); the CJ appoints two attorneys to the State and District Commissions (so 2 to the State and 2 to each District).

Governor (D elected 2018; previous was D too) appoints one attorney and two non-attorneys to the State Commission and two attorneys to the District Commissions (so 3 to the State and 3 to each District).

Speaker of the House and President of the Senate (both D’s) appoint one attorney and one non-attorney to the State and District Commissions (so 4 of the State and 4 of each District);

House Minority Leader and Senate Minority Leader (R’s) each appoint one non-attorney to the State and District Commissions (so 2 to the State and 2 to each District).

IMO, given the one-party control of judicial nomination, appointment, and evalution, the case can be made even more than in many other states for public disclosure in the interest of transparency.

ETA:

Link to Commissions on Judicial Performance, FAQ's:
Commissions on Judicial Performace - Frequently Asked Questions

Link to Market Decisions Research, Judicial Performance Evaluation Surveys:
Judicial Performance Evaluation Surveys | Market Decisions Research

Great information @Diddian I’m not one that has complete faith in selected/elected officials, I’m much more skeptical in recent years. I question “personal agendas” far more now when it comes to those in various government in positions. Thank you for your post. MOO

 

[Diddian]

Great information @Diddian I’m not one that has complete faith in selected/elected officials, I’m much more skeptical in recent years. I question “personal agendas” far more now when it comes to those in various government in positions now. Thank you for your post. MOO

Same here. I don't like concentrations of power in any one place, no matter where that is. And I like transparency where governance is concerned. Power corrupts and secrecy enables corruption... and all that old jazz that is as true today as ever.

 

[SouthAussie]

Great post & your explanation certainly sounds plausible. I would love to know your source. Curiosity is killing me.

My guess is that it is likely due to the statement that the judge decided to keep sealed the AA. Not that the judge just decided (anew) to seal the document.

Murphy also agreed to a defense request to keep the warrants sealed, leaving many details about how investigators broke the case still out of the public view.
Barry Morphew's new defense team tangles with prosecutors in pretrial murder hearing

 

[JosieMae]

I think the desire to see the content of the AA might just fade away after the Preliminary Hearing.

At the Preliminary Hearing it should become obvious why BM was arrested.

I'm happy to see this post as I've given up on the AA release. What might we learn at the preliminary hearings? And how will we learn it?

 

[10ofRods]

RS&BBM

You did a really good job of explaining the process.

Just to clarify, it didn't make sense (to me) if it were the same judge that signed off/approved the arrest warrant, since he would have already seen the affidavit. It just seems rather contradictory if it were the same judge, based on the way he described it in the order to keep the affidavit sealed. Good enough to issue the arrest warrant but too much of this and too much of that, and quite a bit of this other, here to release publicly, just seems weird.

But, I guess we'll find out eventually. I suppose once we all do finally read it all of this will make a LOT more sense - as to why it was sealed in the first place. I suppose that AA is going to probably surprise us all. Probably for what IS there, and what ISN'T.

jmo

I get what you're saying (and, judging from your screen name - you don't live in the unusual state of Colorado).

Seriously, over the years, I've got one takeaway from all my True Crime excursions: the US is loosely knit together by our Constitution, but each state in our union appears to head off in some other direction from the others. After a while, it seems kind of weird and random.

The arrest affidavit isn't approved by a judge (thank goodness), but only a judge can issue a warrant (action) thereupon.

Grand jury indictments are not approved by judges either. A judge can hear these matters (he has to take them under consideration) and provide a legal ruling, but the actual start-of-case documents come from a prosecutor or prosecutorial force - and from no where else. A judge doesn't have to buy all that the prosecution is saying in order to hold someone over for trial.

But in all my years of being active in Western US civil and criminal cases, I've been more and more amazed by what a Judge knows that is never released into evidence at trial.

As an outside observer and sometime consultant to judges, I sit there amazed at how skillfully they guide the process so that even an inadmissible item might still be weighed in the Judge's mind, overall - as the Judge is about applying law, not trying facts.

Which frustrates many who learn about it. There have been many, many times when we (the public) knew facts that the jury was disallowed from considering (and wasn't supposed to know or research). In general, juries actually do abide by the Judge's rules of evidence and do not deliberate using things they learned outside of court.

This one is going to be one for the record books. I believe Barry incriminated himself all over the place. And that his lawyers are going to base their appeals on some of this.

The good news is that Barry is in jail right now, will likely remain in jail (and when the bail is denied, Barry and the public will know more about why), and the longer his attorneys draw this out, the longer he stays in jail. And personally, I think Barry will need different lawyers, used to Constitutional issues, to get any appeal accepted. I see that as being at least 5-6 years from now. And in the meantime, he was arrested (based on the AA) and then he will be tried - and I predict he will be convicted, because the Judge isn't stupid and he's going to allow a lot of evidence unfavorable to Barry...

Sorry for all the typing, but I'm trying to find a way to cheer myself up while we wait for August 9-24.

 

[MassGuy]

I'm happy to see this post as I've given up on the AA release. What might we learn at the preliminary hearings? And how will we learn it?

It’s basically a mini trial, where the prosecution calls witnesses and the defense gets an opportunity to cross-examine those witnesses. The goal being to prove to the judge there is enough evidence to move forward to trial.

The preliminary hearing for Patrick Frazee lasted only a day, but it’s still a solid guide. The witnesses in that one included a local police commander, and a CBI agent.

They recounted the timeline, cell phone evidence, surveillance evidence, physical evidence, and some of the lies the defendant was caught out on.

None of the witnesses themselves were called, but these law enforcement officers recounted much of what they had to say.

So I think we’ll see something similar here, just on a larger scale.

Here’s the live coverage of the Frazee Prelim:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.koaa.com/news/covering-colorado/2019/02/19/live-blog-patrick-frazee-to-appear-in-court-for-preliminary-hearing/?_amp=true