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

Welcome to Websleuths!
Click to learn how to make a missing person's thread

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
Oh yeah, I fully expect we’ll see it in some form; it’s coming.

We’ll get all the relevant information during the preliminary hearing anyway, but it’s going to be nice to have the AA to refer to at some point.
Right. I personally don't care much about the AA, since the preliminary hearing will give us a preview of the prosecution's actual case (which might differ from what's presented in the AA). But I guess having an easy to reference document would be nice, so I hope they manage to agree on redactions at some point.
 
Right. I personally don't care much about the AA, since the preliminary hearing will give us a preview of the prosecution's actual case (which might differ from what's presented in the AA). But I guess having an easy to reference document would be nice, so I hope they manage to agree on redactions at some point.
I care because I like seeing everything both sides have, as much as possible. I like Florida’s sunshine laws.
 
Even though we could have expected this, it is shocking to me. First of all, his daughters are grown. The court cannot really protect them from harassment and second, the judge is ignoring Rule 55.1 in keeping the AA sealed. It appears Colorado judges will ignore new laws. And finally, it sounds as if the judge is taking sides with the defense attorneys by saying this was the lengthiest AA he has ever read and a significant portion of it might not be entered in at trial anyway.


I don’t find the judge’s actions comforting at all in finding out what really happened to Suzanne.
We know from plenty of prior cases in Colorado that it's really not unusual for the Judge to keep the AA sealed until after the preliminary which is what the Judge previously ruled here as well -- albeit with significant redactions per the volume.

Also, I don't think the spirit of Rule 55.1 was to change this and I think it's being misinterpreted in this case. MOO
 
Even though we could have expected this, it is shocking to me. First of all, his daughters are grown. The court cannot really protect them from harassment and second, the judge is ignoring Rule 55.1 in keeping the AA sealed. It appears Colorado judges will ignore new laws. And finally, it sounds as if the judge is taking sides with the defense attorneys by saying this was the lengthiest AA he has ever read and a significant portion of it might not be entered in at trial anyway.

I don’t find the judge’s actions comforting at all in finding out what really happened to Suzanne.
I think (hope) he's is just being super careful so that there are no grounds for an appeal. He knows this is very high profile and will be scrutinized at every single level. I agree that on the surface it seems he's treating the girls with kid gloves but maybe it only seems that way because we really want to see the AA.
It's definitely another dammit moment.
 
Judge rejects media consortium’s request to reconsider sealing of Barry Morphew arrest affidavit | Colorado Freedom of Information Coalition

The 130-page arrest affidavit for Barry Morphew, who is accused of murdering his wife Suzanne Morphew in 2020, will remain sealed for now.

Chaffee County District Court Judge Patrick Murphy last week rejected a news media consortium’s request that he reconsider his June 4 order closing the record until at least early September.

“The Media Consortium questions the legitimacy of denying public access to the entire Affidavit based upon the length and details contained within it and also questions the likelihood that this information can’t be redacted,” the judge wrote. “However, it wasn’t merely the details and length of the Affidavit that resulted in the Court’s decision to restrict public access.

“It was also the Court’s desire that efforts at redaction be done meaningfully and with reliable input from the parties, which cannot occur until the parties have had time to familiarize themselves with the investigation.”

Murphy in his June 4 ordercalled the affidavit “the lengthiest and most detailed” he has seen in nearly 30 years of experience with criminal cases. He wrote that “a significant portion” of information in the affidavit may not be admissible at trial and that releasing the document prior to an investigation conducted by Barry Morphew’s defense attorneys could hamper their ability to effectively prepare a defense. The judge also raised concerns about the potential for harassment of the Morphews’ two daughters.

Media lawyer Steve Zansberg argued in a response that the affidavit’s length and details contained in the document “are not legitimate grounds to deny the public’s presumptive right to inspect it,” nor is Barry Morphew’s “investigation” of the case against him. Zansberg, who is president of the Colorado Freedom of Information Coalition, noted that Colorado Rule of Criminal Procedure 55.1 — which went into effect May 10 — “imposes a heightened burden on any party seeking to overcome the public’s strong presumptive right to access” to a court record.

Zansberg argued there are “multiple adequate and less restrictive means” to protect the safety and well being of the Morphew children, other than closing public access to the entire arrest affidavit. If the affidavit contains extremely sensitive personal or private information unrelated to the prosecution’s need for the arrest warrant, he wrote, “Rule 55.1 provides that such information may be redacted.”

But the alternatives suggested by Zansberg “only respond to abuse or harassment and do nothing to prevent it,” Murphy wrote in his latest order, issued July 16. “Therefore, in furtherance of protecting the Morphew daughters from abuse or harassment, the Court will allow time for meaningful efforts at redaction to be made.”

The judge also rejected the media consortium’s contention that the court is required under Rule 55.1 to find that “no less restrictive means” exist to protect Barry Morphew’s right to fair trial. Morphew’s fair trial rights “were not identified by the Court as a substantial interest in its Order,” Murphy wrote. “Therefore, there is no requirement that the Court consider less restrictive means or balance Mr. Morphew’s fair trial rights against the presumption of public access.”

The media consortium seeking the Morphew arrest affidavit includes The Associated Press, The Denver Post, The Gazette, KCNC-TV (CBS4), KDVR-TV (FOX31), KKTV-TV (11 News), KMGH-TV (Denver7), KOAA-TV (News5), KRDO-TV, KUSA-TV (9NEWS) and KXRM-TV (FOX21).

Barry Morphew faces charges of first-degree murder and destroying his wife’s body in an attempt to avoid arrest. Suzanne Morphew was reported missing on May 10, 2020, and her body has not been found.

SABBM:

This is a weak sauce argument.

<*DBM*>

I have huge concerns about this judge.

JMO.
 
Last edited:
Given the quotes about allowing meaningful time for redaction, it does seem like he intends to release the AA at some point though. Presumably after the preliminary hearing.
Yes -- the Judge previously wrote that the Order to seal the AA will expire 7 days after the conclusion of the PEPG and preliminary hearing, currently scheduled to be completed Aug 24, 2021. Baring any motion to keep the Order in place, I think we can expect to see the AA sometime in early September.

https://www.courts.state.co.us/user...21CR78/21CR78 Order Limit Public Redacted.pdf
 
We know from plenty of prior cases in Colorado that it's really not unusual for the Judge to keep the AA sealed until after the preliminary which is what the Judge previously ruled here as well -- albeit with significant redactions per the volume.

Also, I don't think the spirit of Rule 55.1 was to change this and I think it's being misinterpreted in this case. MOO
Rule 55.1 requires a judge to explain why withholding an AA is necessary in that judge's opinion. The judge did that. As to whether his reasoning is justified in this case, some of us would disagree. When weighing the defendant's & witnesses rights, it is important that a judge lean as much toward release as possible. The presumptive rights of the public were not weighed with due regard and reflect the ongoing bias of criminal courts in CO to withhold as much as possible as long as possible. There really is no need for a Rule 55.1 if judges merely maintain the same reasoning as is precedent with the only difference being an explanation in the record. If the Rule is to be effective, it must be taken as seriously as protection of the defendant & witnesses. I personally do not believe Judge Murphy even tried. JMHO
 
What in the holy hellz bells is in that AA??!! It must be shocking to say the least.

I know, right? What possibly would subject them to more harassment than their father being charged for the murder of their mother? Why would anyone think they would be harassed, if they are innocent victims? Did they know of something prior to the murder and didn’t report it?

I’m so darn curious now. Sealing the affidavit has made it more salacious. The media has to be chomping at the bit to see the AA.
 
I’m incredibly frustrated with the media in this case, as if Lauren isn’t covering something then it doesn’t get covered (unless it’s a big event).

Lauren almost certainly knows what this hearing is about (I told her, and the DA would have been able to verify), but hasn’t so much as Tweeted.

I don’t get it.


Thank you @MassGuy Very interesting. From the article:

But the alternatives suggested by Zansberg (attorney for the media consortium) “only respond to abuse or harassment and do nothing to prevent it,” Murphy wrote in his latest order, issued July 16. “Therefore, in furtherance of protecting the Morphew daughters from abuse or harassment, the Court will allow time for meaningful efforts at redaction to be made.”

I suspect these things are related. Once the "video" of the upset daughter went live the defense could point directly at LS as a "harasser". Rookie mistake for LS, cheap shot by the defense.
 
We know from plenty of prior cases in Colorado that it's really not unusual for the Judge to keep the AA sealed until after the preliminary which is what the Judge previously ruled here as well -- albeit with significant redactions per the volume.

Also, I don't think the spirit of Rule 55.1 was to change this and I think it's being misinterpreted in this case. MOO
Thank you Seattle1. I thought Rule 55.1 was specifically for cases like this. I don’t mind being corrected. Although, I still disagree with the judge’s ruling. :)
 
Yes -- the Judge previously wrote that the Order to seal the AA will expire 7 days after the conclusion of the PEPG and preliminary hearing, currently scheduled to be completed Aug 24, 2021. Baring any motion to keep the Order in place, I think we can expect to see the AA sometime in early September.

https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/11th_Judicial_District/Chaffee/cases of interest/21CR78/21CR78 Order Limit Public Redacted.pdf
But it will be redacted, leaving us to guess some more about what it says.
 
Rule 55.1 requires a judge to explain why withholding an AA is necessary in that judge's opinion. The judge did that. As to whether his reasoning is justified in this case, some of us would disagree. When weighing the defendant's & witnesses rights, it is important that a judge lean as much toward release as possible. The presumptive rights of the public were not weighed with due regard and reflect the ongoing bias of criminal courts in CO to withhold as much as possible as long as possible. There really is no need for a Rule 55.1 if judges merely maintain the same reasoning as is precedent with the only difference being an explanation in the record. If the Rule is to be effective, it must be taken as seriously as protection of the defendant & witnesses. I personally do not believe Judge Murphy even tried. JMHO
Great post, IMO.
 
I know, right? What possibly would subject them to more harassment than their father being charged for the murder of their mother? Why would anyone think they would be harassed, if they are innocent victims? Did they know of something prior to the murder and didn’t report it?

I’m so darn curious now. Sealing the affidavit has made it more salacious. The media has to be chomping at the bit to see the AA.
The girls are grown. Who could hurt them more than their own dad did? I don’t mean to sound indifferent but their “protection” is a poor excuse to seal the affidavit.
 
The girls are grown. Who could hurt them more than their own dad did? I don’t mean to sound indifferent but their “protection” is a poor excuse to seal the affidavit.
Could it be that they're protecting the daughters from BLM? Say they gave details (maybe without even realizing it) that contradicts anything Barry told in those interviews and it's damning. I keep thinking maybe this but I haven't followed many cases.
 
Rule 55.1 requires a judge to explain why withholding an AA is necessary in that judge's opinion. The judge did that. As to whether his reasoning is justified in this case, some of us would disagree. When weighing the defendant's & witnesses rights, it is important that a judge lean as much toward release as possible. The presumptive rights of the public were not weighed with due regard and reflect the ongoing bias of criminal courts in CO to withhold as much as possible as long as possible. There really is no need for a Rule 55.1 if judges merely maintain the same reasoning as is precedent with the only difference being an explanation in the record. If the Rule is to be effective, it must be taken as seriously as protection of the defendant & witnesses. I personally do not believe Judge Murphy even tried. JMHO

I'm recalling that Rule 55.1 came about after a MSM story revealed how there was no expiration date on sealing documents from the public in criminal cases. IMO, the public hearings for Rule 55.1 also focused on requiring an expiration in the proposed amendment but did NOT ignore or abandon sealing the AA (until after the preliminary hearing) as has been the practice!

It seems to me that the Judge is following the proposed amendment as written.

IMO, the rub here is the focus on the Morphew daughters. o_O

We don't know why the Judge appears so focused on citing the Morphew children but I can't help wondering if the AA in fact reflects poorly on the daughters.

MOO

https://community.cobar.org/HigherL...c55-df10-fb95-aeea-fdd4690d53ed&forceDialog=0
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
153
Guests online
1,662
Total visitors
1,815

Forum statistics

Threads
606,863
Messages
18,212,206
Members
233,989
Latest member
scroobius
Back
Top