Found Deceased CO - Suzanne Morphew, 49, Chaffee County, 10 May 2020 #64 *ARREST*

[susiQ]

^^bbm

Yes -- Just as BM is about to receive his progress billing and view his retainer dwindling...

Just curious. What happens when the $$ run out?

 

[ar3593]

iDK hmm is This a tactic? A strategy? I think it is…

JMO

I agree Oviedo...never underestimate a calm and meek demeanor. The quiet ones can be just as powerful as the seemingly self-assured ones. While I do tend to prefer attorneys with a strong and confident approach, it's sometimes the quiet ones that sneak up on you when you least expect it. Let's pray this is the case JMOO

 

[Seattle1]

I've been wondering if/how "Proof Evident/Presumption Great" differs from probable cause finding during the preliminary and found the following:

Article II, § 19 of the Colorado Constitution allows a judge to refuse bail in capital cases “when the proof is evident or the presumption great.” Capital cases are those cases that are punishable by execution. [Note: Judge Murphy confirmed the court does not differentiate capital cases here after the abolishment of the death penalty to define First Degree (Capital) murder].

“The proof is evident or the presumption great” refers to those cases in which the evidence against the defendant is very strong and the judge believes that the likelihood of conviction is very high.

The “proof evident/presumption great” standard requires something more than probable cause but less evidence than is required for conviction.

In 1982, the citizens of Colorado amended Article II, § 19 of the state Constitution to expand the types of cases in which a judge can deny the defendant the right to bail. This amendment allows a judge to deny bail to persons who are charged with a crime of violence and are on probation, parole or bail for a previous crime of violence, or who previously have been convicted of two felonies, one of which was a crime of violence. The judge must hold a hearing before denying bail, and also must find that the “proof is evident or the presumption great” and that the public would be placed in significant peril if the person were released on bond.

The procedure established by this amendment is known as “preventive detention.” Supporters of preventive detention believe that it helps keep dangerous criminals off the streets. Opponents argue that preventive detention is inconsistent with the fundamental notion that a person is presumed to be innocent, and fear that the government can misuse preventive detention to lock up people on inappropriate grounds.

https://www.criminal-lawyer-colorado.com/overview-of-colorado-criminal-law.html

 

[mainemom376]

Just curious. What happens when the $$ run out?

Gonna go fast. JMO

 

[Murphy1950]

I don’t think the lawyers would have referred to the defendant as “witness” in any scenario.

They have intimated he is a victim, so why not a witness? “Mr. Morphew has been sitting in a jail cell, a cage while this is going on,” said attorney Iris Eytan. After all Barry himself has stated "People don't know the truth, so they're gonna think what they're gonna think," Honestly to me personally, "no questions asked" has always implied Suzanne was complicit.

Lets muddy the waters a bit....is he spending only his money on Dru and Iris...or is he spending his and Suzanne's? And if its the latter...is there a fiduciary reponsiblility being violated, somehow...

Absolutely not IMO. Fiduciary implies legal responsibility. The age at which a child legally becomes an adult varies from state to state, but in most states that age is 18. Colorado is 18. Most states that have parental responsibility laws have established the rule that parents can be held responsible for the acts of their child only until the child reaches 18 years of age. As @Ontario Mom stated much earlier millions have been on their own at 18.

 

[Scootie98]

Just curious. What happens when the $$ run out?

There are a lot of tragic persons in this story.....I might get sanctioned for changing the subject or being off topic or whatever....but I live less than an hour from the Moorman, and Morphew families in Indiana....and I have very close family ties to Purdue University....this story is in my zip code...However this case is resolved....there are many victims....whose lives have been ripped apart. Andy and Melinda Moorman are giants...they have done such an incredible job of deflecting their personal pain and loss...and have steadfastly focused on the Morphew daughters' welfare, Suzanne's successful retrieval and recovery for closure...and most notably for me....Gene Morphew. This guy not only loved his family and daughter...but died not knowing her whereabouts, while battling terminal cancer....after bestowing an inheritance to Suzanne....followed by a request from Barry, allegedly, for Gene to sign away her remaining rights....guardianship to Barry, which he apparently refused. The perceived alienation between the Morphew daughters and the Moormans is probably the single most egregious of casualties in this story. They have to go on, somehow, when this is all said and done. Who do they rely upon, confide in, depend on for material, emotional and social support? I surely hope it is the Moormans.

 

[ajaylee]

Hi, everybody! I've been offline, thinking there wouldn't be anything new until the trial - and then the 'spy pen'.

My thoughts: the defense thinks this is important.

I can not think of any good reason why - unless the defense is going to try to use it to trot out that tired old excuse bad men use when they 'disappear' their wives/lovers - she just ran away.

If SM was talking to BM and suggesting she might leave, I don't see how the defense can square that with the bike/cougar/abductor scenario.

If SM was talking to someone else and discussing divorce or leaving BM, again, I don't see how that helps his case - the bike scenario just isn't consistent with a runaway wife.

I really really hope BM and the defense aren't going to try to slam SM in anyway - suggesting she had a lover, for example. I'd like to think BM wouldn't want to trash SM in front of his daughters to save his skin, but I think he would - and I'm afraid his attorneys might also risk it.

Kind of reminds me of Patrick Frazee telling his friend that Kelsey Berreth might have just 'disappeared' into the woods. And she might have - except, as his friend noted, that didn't explain how her phone ended up in Idaho. I think the bike business limits some of BM's options.

 

[Scootie98]

They have intimated he is a victim, so why not a witness? “Mr. Morphew has been sitting in a jail cell, a cage while this is going on,” said attorney Iris Eytan. After all Barry himself has stated "People don't know the truth, so they're gonna think what they're gonna think," Honestly to me personally, "no questions asked" has always implied Suzanne was complicit to me.


my reference to fiduciary has nothing to do with the daughters...when BM was granted guardianship over Suzanne's assets and interes....did Barry have a legal responsbility to maintain records of their respective interests?

 

[CGray123]

Just curious. What happens when the $$ run out?

I'm not a lawyer but have been a client and ultimately a friend of impressively ethical lawyers, an observer of criminal proceedings, and an avid reader of appellate briefs and decisions.

Withdrawing from representation is not automatic when the client can't pay. My guess (MOO!) is that E&N are aware that BM's ownership of all the cash he has amassed from jointly held assets is subject to his obligations as a fiduciary. They are also aware of the general rule that murderers cannot inherit from their victims. My guess is, they required that BM transfer a MASSIVE amount into their trust account, and they are doing their (ethical) best to earn it all before the daughters (or the judges overseeing the conservatorships) wise up and take steps to protect the inheritance from SM. (And BM is working overtime to prevent the daughters from asserting their rights-MOO)

Here's the applicable Colorado standard of professional conduct, with interpretive comments:

Colorado Rule of Professional Conduct 1.16
As amended through Rule Change 2021(15), effective July 1, 2021

Rule 1.16 - Declining or Terminating Representation

(a) Except as stated in paragraph (c), a lawyer shall not represent a client or, where representation has commenced, shall withdraw from the representation of a client if:

(1) the representation will result in violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct or other law;

(2) the lawyer's physical or mental condition materially impairs the lawyer's ability to represent the client; or

(3) the lawyer is discharged.

(b) Except as stated in paragraph (c), a lawyer may withdraw from representing a client if:

(1) withdrawal can be accomplished without material adverse effect on the interests of the client;

(2) the client persists in a course of action involving the lawyer's services that the lawyer reasonably believes is criminal or fraudulent;

(3) the client has used the lawyer's services to perpetrate a crime or fraud;

(4) the client insists upon taking action that the lawyer considers repugnant or with which the lawyer has a fundamental disagreement;

(5) the client fails substantially to fulfill an obligation to the lawyer regarding the lawyer's services and has been given reasonable warning that the lawyer will withdraw unless the obligation is fulfilled;

(6) the representation will result in an unreasonable financial burden on the lawyer or has been rendered unreasonably difficult by the client; or

(7) other good cause for withdrawal exists.

(c) A lawyer must comply with applicable law requiring notice to or permission of a tribunal when terminating a representation. When ordered to do so by a tribunal, a lawyer shall continue representation notwithstanding good cause for terminating the representation.

(d) Upon termination of representation, a lawyer shall take steps to the extent reasonably practicable to protect a client's interests, such as giving reasonable notice to the client, allowing time for employment of other counsel, surrendering papers and property to which the client is entitled and refunding any advance payment of fee or expense that has not been earned or incurred. The lawyer may retain papers relating to the client to the extent permitted by other law.

RPC 1.16

Entire Appendix repealed and readopted April 12, 2007, effective January 1, 2008.

COMMENT

[1] A lawyer should not accept representation in a matter unless it can be performed competently, promptly, without improper conflict of interest and to completion. Ordinarily, a representation in a matter is completed when the agreed-upon assistance has been concluded. See Rules 1.2(c) and 6.5. See also Rule 1.3, Comment [4]. Mandatory Withdrawal

[2] A lawyer ordinarily must decline or withdraw from representation if the client demands that the lawyer engage in conduct that is illegal or violates the Rules of Professional Conduct or other law. The lawyer is not obliged to decline or withdraw simply because the client suggests such a course of conduct; a client may make such a suggestion in the hope that a lawyer will not be constrained by a professional obligation.

[3] When a lawyer has been appointed to represent a client, withdrawal ordinarily requires approval of the appointing authority. See also Rule 6.2. Similarly, court approval or notice to the court is often required by applicable law before a lawyer withdraws from pending litigation. Difficulty may be encountered if withdrawal is based on the client's demand that the lawyer engage in unprofessional conduct. The court may request an explanation for the withdrawal, while the lawyer may be bound to keep confidential the facts that would constitute such an explanation. The lawyer's statement that professional considerations require termination of the representation ordinarily should be accepted as sufficient. Lawyers should be mindful of their obligations to both clients and the court under Rules 1.6 and 3.3. Discharge

[4] A client has a right to discharge a lawyer at any time, with or without cause, subject to liability for payment for the lawyer's services. Where future dispute about the withdrawal may be anticipated, it may be advisable to prepare a written statement reciting the circumstances.

[5] Whether a client can discharge appointed counsel may depend on applicable law. A client seeking to do so should be given a full explanation of the consequences. These consequences may include a decision by the appointing authority that appointment of successor counsel is unjustified, thus requiring self-representation by the client.

[6] If the client has severely diminished capacity, the client may lack the legal capacity to discharge the lawyer, and in any event the discharge may be seriously adverse to the client's interests. The lawyer should make special effort to help the client consider the consequences and may take reasonably necessary protective action as provided in Rule 1.14. Permissive Withdrawal

[7] A lawyer may withdraw from representation in some circumstances. The lawyer has the option to withdraw if it can be accomplished without material adverse effect on the client's interests. Withdrawal is also justified if the client persists in a course of action that the lawyer reasonably believes is criminal or fraudulent, for a lawyer is not required to be associated with such conduct even if the lawyer does not further it. Withdrawal is also permitted if the lawyer's services were misused in the past even if that would materially prejudice the client. The lawyer may also withdraw where the client insists on taking action that the lawyer considers repugnant or with which the lawyer has a fundamental disagreement.

[8] A lawyer may withdraw if the client refuses to abide by the terms of an agreement relating to the representation, such as an agreement concerning fees or court costs or an agreement limiting the objectives of the representation. Assisting the Client upon Withdrawal

[9] Even if the lawyer has been unfairly discharged by the client, a lawyer must take all reasonable steps to mitigate the consequences to the client. The lawyer may retain papers as security for a fee only to the extent permitted by law. See Rule 1.16(d).

 

[susiQ]

I've been wondering if/how "Proof Evident/Presumption Great" differs from probable cause finding during the preliminary and found the following:

Article II, § 19 of the Colorado Constitution allows a judge to refuse bail in capital cases “when the proof is evident or the presumption great.” Capital cases are those cases that are punishable by execution. [Note: Judge Murphy confirmed the court does not differentiate capital cases here after the abolishment of the death penalty to define First Degree (Capital) murder].

“The proof is evident or the presumption great” refers to those cases in which the evidence against the defendant is very strong and the judge believes that the likelihood of conviction is very high.

The “proof evident/presumption great” standard requires something more than probable cause but less evidence than is required for conviction.

In 1982, the citizens of Colorado amended Article II, § 19 of the state Constitution to expand the types of cases in which a judge can deny the defendant the right to bail. This amendment allows a judge to deny bail to persons who are charged with a crime of violence and are on probation, parole or bail for a previous crime of violence, or who previously have been convicted of two felonies, one of which was a crime of violence. The judge must hold a hearing before denying bail, and also must find that the “proof is evident or the presumption great” and that the public would be placed in significant peril if the person were released on bond.

The procedure established by this amendment is known as “preventive detention.” Supporters of preventive detention believe that it helps keep dangerous criminals off the streets. Opponents argue that preventive detention is inconsistent with the fundamental notion that a person is presumed to be innocent, and fear that the government can misuse preventive detention to lock up people on inappropriate grounds.

https://www.criminal-lawyer-colorado.com/overview-of-colorado-criminal-law.html

Given the length of the AA, it looks like the prosecution decimated the probable cause requirements and went directly to proof evident/presumption great all at once! . The prelim should be a walk in the park for the prosecution. MOO

 

[Seattle1]

Just curious. What happens when the $$ run out?

In criminal cases, withdrawing from representation requires court approval. I think we can trust that the contract between BM and his defense team provided for their full representation for his initial trial - beginning to end.

In another case I'm following, (ND quadruple murder), after two years, the lead attorney was granted permission to withdraw and when his "backing firm" (co-counsel, never retained by the defendant) attempted to withdraw along with their partner, the court refused -- citing:

...the attorneys should have expected they might take over Isaak’s representation because they entered their appearance in the case as co-counsel. Any financial arrangements in the case are between attorneys and Isaak “and not for this Court to resolve,” Reich wrote. And the attorneys did not show how their status as witnesses in the disciplinary action might be a conflict of interest that necessitated withdrawal, the judge said.

ND - Several bodies found at Mandan business, 1 April 2019 *Arrest* #2

 

[GordianKnot]

I am mentally prepared to hear BM referred to as “an innocent bystander”, next time, by his lawyers/s

BBM:

Brace yourself.

I think we're going to hear TeamBarry refer to him as "a victim."

Imma need to be placed in four-point restraints if that happens.

JMO.

 

[HongKongPhooey]

BBM:

Brace yourself.

I think we're going to hear TeamBarry refer to him as "a victim."

Imma need to be placed in four-point restraints if that happens.

JMO.

Not again?

xX

 

[ar3593]

Bit of sarcastic irony here......but the defense whining about the faulty evidence sounds about like Barry's claim about the sheriffs dept screwing up the bicycle scene. When they got you dead to rights...just claim the evidence is damaged?

Birds of a feather flock together !

 

[susiQ]

BBM:

Brace yourself.

I think we're going to hear TeamBarry refer to him as "a victim."

Imma need to be placed in four-point restraints if that happens.

JMO.

BM is a victim of his “moronicity.” Or, is it moronedness?” I’ve misplaced my GK dictionary !

 

[BeckyF]

Why didn’t FBI arrest him on April 5th after they presented to him the 26 pieces of evidence?

 

[jakat]

I tend to think the “witness” is BM.

Yes. He was a witness to her murder.

 

[susiQ]

Why didn’t FBI arrest him on April 5th after they presented to him the 26 pieces of evidence?

My guess is, they were still working on the 120+ pages of the AA. No doubt BM rattled off a few more lies that day that provided more fuel for the fire that is going to burn him to a crisp! JMO

 

[jakat]

BBM:

Brace yourself.

I think we're going to hear TeamBarry refer to him as "a victim."

Imma need to be placed in four-point restraints if that happens.

JMO.

Lololol

 

[Charlot123]

Re: Barry's dumpster-diving behavior at the store, I've always been of the opinion that he was discarding something vs. trying to retrieve something.

I'm convinced he was burying evidence in the trash, not recovering it.

On account of, that's what Barry does.

He hides stuff.

JMO.

He digs it in