Found Deceased CO - BARRY ARRESTED AGAIN - Suzanne Morphew, 49, Chaffee Co, 10 May 2020 *Case dismissed w/o prejudice* *found in 2023* #117

Status
Not open for further replies.
  • #1,201
Date: 9/2/2025
Time: 1:30 PM
Duration: 1 Hour(s)
Name: MORPHEW, BARRY
Case Number: 2025CR128
Hearing Type: Status Conference
Location: Alamosa County
Appearance Type:
Courtroom: C


link: Docket Search | Colorado Judicial Branch
 
  • #1,202
Appearing with DA Kelly today was Fred Johnson of the Boulder DA’s Office.
Some may remember him from the Mark Redwine trial.
This article is from the Redwine case



[…]

“Fred Johnson was sworn in as a special deputy in the case,” Boulder County District Attorney Stan Garnett said. “He handled the overall investigation, and the presentation to the grand jury. He will be the lead trial counsel on that.”

[…]
If anyone needs a refresher on the mark Redwine trial he was found guilty and received a sentence of 48 years in prison.
 
  • #1,203
What could Barry gain by having a package delivered to his former house?
A test. To see if anyone was home. To see where cameras were. Potential reconnaissance. It's just suspicious. He wasn't supposed to be over there so sending someone in his stead smacks of "I didn't know I couldn't."

JMO
 
  • #1,204
  • #1,205
Does anyone know WHICH daughter was there?
dark hair

ETA no idea which one, but she has dark hair. Can be seen walking into the court with the male lawyer and also sitting in court behind the defence table.
 
  • #1,206
A test. To see if anyone was home. To see where cameras were. Potential reconnaissance. It's just suspicious. He wasn't supposed to be over there so sending someone in his stead smacks of "I didn't know I couldn't."

JMO
I think he made a mistake on a delivery address on one of his supplements-you know how addresses are preloaded into your history? I think he sent his girl over because he knew he wasn’t allowed, and he couldn’t be bothered contacting the company or paying the extra shipping fee to get it returned and redelivered.
 
  • #1,207
dark hair, so perhaps the youngest?
The last images I've seen they both had dark hair. The more curious thing is, why both daughters weren't there. I think this is the first time Barry's made a court appearance when both of them weren't there to support him.
 
  • #1,208
I'm sorry for his daughters. They must be brainwashed, conditioned, controlled. It's not going to be easy for them to accept their dad murdered their mum after being under his control all this time. While I won't be surprised if they continue to support him forever, I do hope that they can break free, get de-programmed, feel safe and move on with Barry free lives.
 
  • #1,209
He sure looks happy to be “home”. How his daughter could show up for him is beyond my understanding.
I'd like to wipe that smile off his face. Ugh hopefully once this trial is over, he will have no more reasons to smile ever again.

I am curious why only one daughter was there. I hope it's because she no longer supports her dad. Of course it could be conflict with schedules and all, but I just hope it's because she sees him for what he is now and will not be supporting him. That would of course pose an issue if one daughter is behind him and one isn't. I hate that these girls are even in this position to begin with. I have a feeling Suzanne would not want them to be in this position.
 
  • #1,210
I'm curious -- did he introduce himself or was he introduced by the Court during today's proceeding?

From his website, he's a defense attorney with an office in COS, but appears to have ties to Alamosa. IMO, probably more regional associates than attorneys Jane or Beller.


Colorado State Public Defender
Office Head and Lead Counsel on Death Penalty Cases, 2006 - 2015
Defended the indigent accused on the spectrum of state felonies, misdemeanors, and juvenile adjudications. Practiced in the Arapahoe and Alamosa Regional Offices. Managed 30+ attorneys, paraprofessionals, and interns as the Pueblo Regional Office Head, starting in 2012. Acted as lead counsel, capital mitigation trainer, and expert consultant on Colorado death penalty cases from 2013 to 2015.
Yes, Bellar explained that he was having Lipka sit in because there's was a possibility he was also be on the defense team but said now it was seeming more unlikely or something along those lines ...
 
  • #1,211
Looks like we will see a motion to dismiss the indictment soon. Here's a lawyer's take on what that can look like.


12. Challenging the Indictment

To challenge an indictment against you in Colorado, first you (or your attorney) would make “discovery” of the grand jury proceedings by gathering all the relevant documents and evidence.

State law requires prosecutors to hand over the grand jury transcripts to you as soon as practicable within 30 days of the indictment. Any tangible evidence must be revealed no later than 30 days before trial.

For all other available evidence, you must make specific requests. For instance, you can ask for “colloquy transcripts.” These document all the discussions that occurred in the grand jury room other than the testimony. You can also ask for any notes memos, or communications that the prosecutors have in connection to the grand jury.

Filing a Motion to Dismiss

Depending on the evidence, you can file a motion to dismiss based on such arguments as:

The prosecutors committed misconduct. This is when the prosecutors’ behavior either caused you “actual prejudice” or compromised the proceedings’ integrity to the point where the court can “presume prejudice.” If the misconduct “substantially influenced the grand jury’s decision to indict”, there was prejudice.22 An example could be the prosecutor denying a witness who has exculpatory evidence from testifying. Another example is that the prosecutors’ grand jury investigators wrongly questioned the witnesses or commented on the evidence. It can also be misconduct if the prosecutors violated the grand jury’s secrecy rules.

The indictment was facially deficient. For example, the paperwork did not include your name, charge, applicable statute, date and location of the offense, or language that a jury could understand. However, facial invalidity challenges are rare because prosecutors are experienced in following the sample indictment form in CRS 16-5-201.

The indictment is not supported by probable cause. This is the most common challenge to indictments. It requires the trial court judge assigned to the criminal case (not the one who presided over the grand jury) to review the grand jury proceedings’ record in a light most favorable to the prosecution, even when there is a conflict in testimony.

The grand jury selection process was discriminatory. It is a violation of the Sixth Amendment if the grand jury was not selected from a fair cross-section of the population.24 It is a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment if grand jurors were excluded from serving due to sex, religion, color, race, occupation, national origin, or economic status.

A conflict of interest should disqualify the prosecutor. An example is that the prosecutor has a financial interest in the outcome of the case or that they have a personal relationship with the victim in the case.

If the judge agrees that there are valid grounds to dismiss the indictment, it could be dropped.
 
  • #1,212
I'd like to wipe that smile off his face. Ugh hopefully once this trial is over, he will have no more reasons to smile ever again.

I am curious why only one daughter was there. I hope it's because she no longer supports her dad. Of course it could be conflict with schedules and all, but I just hope it's because she sees him for what he is now and will not be supporting him. That would of course pose an issue if one daughter is behind him and one isn't. I hate that these girls are even in this position to begin with. I have a feeling Suzanne would not want them to be in this position.
We don't know in what state in the US the younger daughter lives. The older daughter is in Colorado so makes sense that she could probably travel to the hearing. There were no expectations yesterday other than Barry would plead not guilty and future motions and future dates would be assigned.
 
  • #1,213
Looks like we will see a motion to dismiss the indictment soon. Here's a lawyer's take on what that can look like.


12. Challenging the Indictment

To challenge an indictment against you in Colorado, first you (or your attorney) would make “discovery” of the grand jury proceedings by gathering all the relevant documents and evidence.

State law requires prosecutors to hand over the grand jury transcripts to you as soon as practicable within 30 days of the indictment. Any tangible evidence must be revealed no later than 30 days before trial.

For all other available evidence, you must make specific requests. For instance, you can ask for “colloquy transcripts.” These document all the discussions that occurred in the grand jury room other than the testimony. You can also ask for any notes memos, or communications that the prosecutors have in connection to the grand jury.

Filing a Motion to Dismiss

Depending on the evidence, you can file a motion to dismiss based on such arguments as:

The prosecutors committed misconduct. This is when the prosecutors’ behavior either caused you “actual prejudice” or compromised the proceedings’ integrity to the point where the court can “presume prejudice.” If the misconduct “substantially influenced the grand jury’s decision to indict”, there was prejudice.22 An example could be the prosecutor denying a witness who has exculpatory evidence from testifying. Another example is that the prosecutors’ grand jury investigators wrongly questioned the witnesses or commented on the evidence. It can also be misconduct if the prosecutors violated the grand jury’s secrecy rules.

The indictment was facially deficient. For example, the paperwork did not include your name, charge, applicable statute, date and location of the offense, or language that a jury could understand. However, facial invalidity challenges are rare because prosecutors are experienced in following the sample indictment form in CRS 16-5-201.

The indictment is not supported by probable cause. This is the most common challenge to indictments. It requires the trial court judge assigned to the criminal case (not the one who presided over the grand jury) to review the grand jury proceedings’ record in a light most favorable to the prosecution, even when there is a conflict in testimony.

The grand jury selection process was discriminatory. It is a violation of the Sixth Amendment if the grand jury was not selected from a fair cross-section of the population.24 It is a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment if grand jurors were excluded from serving due to sex, religion, color, race, occupation, national origin, or economic status.

A conflict of interest should disqualify the prosecutor. An example is that the prosecutor has a financial interest in the outcome of the case or that they have a personal relationship with the victim in the case.

If the judge agrees that there are valid grounds to dismiss the indictment, it could be dropped.
In reading the indictment this morning I also wondered if they would challenge the grand jury decision. However the 3 "new" pieces of evidence which are the only ones in the indictment unique are that Suzanne is deceased, there is a high probability her body was moved based on evidence and she had BAM in her bones which are strong pieces of evidence. The rest is pretty identical to the first case. Probably going to depend on who gets accepted as PDs if in fact Barry no longer has legal assets.
 
Last edited:
  • #1,214
We'll also see an attempt to reduce the bail originally set by the judge. This is a really good article on the issue in Colorado.

A Comprehensive Guide to Colorado Bail Laws

Understanding why a Judge has the Power to set the Conditions of Bail

You may wonder why a judge has the legal right to force you to remain in Colorado (away from your family and friends) as a condition of your bond when you are a resident of another state.

This article addresses issues surrounding the setting of bail in Colorado and the laws that give judges so much power and authority to set the conditions of your freedom even though you have been convicted of nothing and are presumed to be innocent. A recent Colorado Supreme Court case People v. Jones , 2015 contains an analysis if the almost limitless power of a Judge to set bond 16-4-204 and 13-4-102, C.R.S.

The Almost Absolute Power of a Colorado Trial Judge to set the Conditions of Bond

When a judge rules within his or her discretion and an appeal of that ruling is governed by what is called the “abuse of discretion standard” that judge’s ruling which includes the setting of and conditions of bond will NOT BE REVERSED ON APPEAL UNLESS THERE IS AN ABUSE OF THAT DISCRETION.

What is an abuse of discretion? A lower Court will only be found (on appeal) to have abused the Court’s discretion if the Court’s decision was manifestly arbitrary, unreasonable, or unfair, or if the Court misconstrues or misapplies the law.

The test on appeal of the Judge’s decision is not whether another Judge “would have reached a different result but, rather, whether the trial court’s decision fell within a range of reasonable options.”

Therefore the “one bite of the apple” rule applies as a reality to Colorado criminal defense lawyers. Your Colorado criminal defense lawyer will have one first chance to persuade the trial judge to set reasonable conditions of bond that favor the defense at the very start of the case.

The Motives of a Judge in Setting Bond What is the Judge Thinking?

Colorado law mandates that the primary interest in setting the amount and conditions of bond is to make certain that a defendant on bond will appear at the time and place required to answer to the criminal charge. Under section 16-4-103(3)(a) the type of bond and conditions of release shall be sufficient to reasonably ensure the appearance of the person as required.

For example, Colorado law allows a Judge the right to refuse a Defendant the right to leave the state while a case is pending. The Judge may find that denying the Defendant the right to leave the state “reduces the risk of flight.” Put another way compelling a Defendant to remain in the state makes it more likely the Defendant will appear at all court proceedings and less likely the Defendant will abscond.

The Strongest Argument in Support of the Defendant’s Right To Reasonable Conditions of Bond is Derived From The ABA Standards Of Criminal Justice Pretrial Release 10-5.2

Standard 10-1.4.Conditions of Release

Consistent with these Standards, each jurisdiction should adopt procedures designed to promote the release of defendants on their own recognizance or, when necessary, unsecured bond.Additional conditions should be imposed on release only when the need is demonstrated by the facts of the individual case reasonably to ensure appearance at court proceedings, to protect the community, victims, witnesses or any other person and to maintain the integrity of the judicial process.

Whenever possible, methods for providing the appropriate judicial officer with reliable information relevant to the release decision should be developed, preferably through a pretrial services agency or function, as described in Standard 10-1.9.

When release on personal recognizance is not appropriate reasonably to ensure the defendant’s appearance at court and to prevent the commission of criminal offenses that threaten the safety of the community or any person, constitutionally permissible non-financial conditions of release should be employed consistent with Standard 10-5.2.

Release on financial conditions should be used only when no other conditions will ensure appearance. When financial conditions are imposed, the court should first consider releasing the defendant on an unsecured bond. If unsecured bond is not deemed a sufficient condition of release, and the court still seeks to impose monetary conditions, bail should be set at the lowest level necessary to ensure the defendant’s appearance and with regard to a defendant’s financial ability to post bond.

Financial conditions should not be employed to respond to concerns for public safety.
The judicial officer should not impose a financial condition of release that results in the pretrial detention of a defendant solely due to the defendant’s inability to pay.

Consistent with the processes provided in these Standards, compensated sureties should be abolished. When financial bail is imposed, the defendant should be released on the deposit of cash or securities with the court of not more than ten percent of the amount of the bail, to be returned at the conclusion of the case.


In addition to providing for an early determination of the type of bond and conditions of release for all bailable defendants, the statutory scheme details the purposes to be served by, and the criteria to be considered in making, those determinations.

The Four Key Colorado Laws That Govern the Setting of Bail and Bail Conditions

There are FOUR key statutes that govern bail bonds in Colorado.

They are:

16-4-103, C.R.S. Setting and selection type of bond criteria); the various types of pretrial bond available for setting by the court,

16-4-104, C.R.S. Types of bond set by the court); specific conditions of release to be made applicable to bonds,

16-4-105, C.R.S. Conditions of release on bond); and authorization for the court to modify the conditions of bond, including the procedural prerequisites for doing so,

16-4-109, C.R.S. Reduction or increase of monetary conditions of bond change in type of bond or conditions of bond definitions).

In 2013 Everything Changed Colorado’s New Pretrial Bail Law

A summary of the significant changes in approach to setting Bail in Colorado is provided below (attribution is given to the Colorado Commission on Criminal and Juvenile Justice (CCJJ)).

The legislative history of the new law…reveals that the General Assembly was primarily concerned with reducing unnecessary pretrial detention by limiting the use of secured financial conditions of release, with an overall strategy of using research-driven best practices in the administration of bail. The new law was drafted so as not to diminish existing judicial discretion at bail, and many of the substantive changes are optional; nevertheless, like the prior law, the new statute contains important mandatory provisions that judges and others should note.

Significant statutory provisions include:

16-1-104 Definition of Bail

This section changes the definition of bail from “the amount of money” to “a security, which may include a bond with or without monetary conditions.” The term “security” is used broadly, as in a pledge, and does not itself mean money. The definition is important because it represents the intent of the General Assembly to place the use of money on par with all other non-monetary conditions of pretrial release that must be individually assessed for legality and effectiveness.

To further emphasize this intention, all references to judges “ setting the amount of bail and type of bond” have been changed to “setting the type of bond and conditions of release.”

16-4-101 Eligibility/Bailable Offenses

This section, which mostly mirrors Article II, Section 19 of the Colorado Constitution concerning the right to bail, remains the same with one important exception. On the House floor, a fifth category of offenses for which bail may be denied was added to the statute. This new Section, 16-4-101 (1) (b) (V), along with Section 16-4-101 (1) (b) (IV) from prior law, has no counterpart in the Colorado Constitution and has thus been appropriately described by the Colorado Attorney General’s Office as “constitutionally suspect.”

16-4-103 Setting and Selection of Bond/Criteria

This section is substantially different from prior law, and contains the language meant primarily to implement the three CCJJ recommendations as well as housing various parts of prior Section 16-4-105 concerning criteria for setting bond conditions. Readers should note the important interaction between provisions mandating action through the use of “shall” or “must,” and those that are merely permissive.

Overall, this section requires
  • the court to determine the type of bond and conditions of release;
  • review of bond and conditions fixed upon return of an indictment or filing of an information or complaint (including on warrants issued after the filing of charging documents);
  • a presumption of release under least-restrictive conditions unless the defendant is unbailable pursuant to the constitutional preventive detention provisions;
  • individualization of conditions of release (including in “bond schedules”) and express mandatory consideration of a defendant’s financial condition or situation;
  • “reasonable” financial conditions, and non-statutory conditions to be “tailored to address a specific concern;” and
  • consideration of ways (including new bond types in statute) to avoid unnecessary pretrial detention.
16-4-104 Types of Bond

While the prior statute technically listed two bond types unsecured (or “personal recognizance”) and secured secured bonds were more colloquially named based on how they used money as a condition of release (e.g., “cash” or “surety”). The new statute now lists four bond types, each more appropriately defined by its restrictive nature. Subsection (a) bonds are unsecured personal recognizance bonds with only statutorily mandated conditions. Subsection (b) bonds are unsecured personal recognizance bonds with additional non-monetary conditions necessary for public safety or court appearance. Subsection (c) bonds are secured money bonds when the secured financial condition is “reasonable and necessary to ensure” court appearance or public safety. Subsection (d) bonds are secured by real estate to be ordered only when release on personal recognizance without monetary conditions will not assure court appearance or public safety.

The new law restricts the power of the District Attorney

Under prior law, district attorneys could withhold their consent to a personal recognizance bond in certain situations, forcing judges to set secured money amounts. Under the new statute, district attorneys may only withhold consent to a Subsection (a) bond, thereby allowing judges to still set a Subsection (b) unsecured personal recognizance bond with additional non-monetary conditions.

When secured bonds are ordered, defendants may pay the secured money conditions in all methods previously allowed by statute, although payment with stocks and bonds has been eliminated. As before, nothing in the new statute prevents judges from ordering a secured money condition including a condition that the defendant pay the security in only one of the allowable methods, such as through a “cash-only” bond.

16-4-105 Conditions of Release

This new section contains all discretionary and nondiscretionary conditions of release. The mandatory statutory conditions from prior law are the same, but provisions setting presumptive monetary conditions for certain charges have been eliminated. Additionally, a separate section was added for secured monetary conditions to reinforce the notion that secured money at bail should not be automatic. Finally, the conditions of pretrial release previously embedded in the subsection creating pretrial services programs have been included in this section.

Appealing the Judge’s decision on Bail and Bail Conditions

16-4-107 Hearing After Setting of Monetary Conditions of Bond


Seven days after a secured bond is ordered, Defendants may file a motion for relief presenting evidence “not fully considered” by the bail setting judge . Judges may summarily deny the motion, but must do so within 14 days and only after considering “the results of any empirically developed risk assessment instrument.”

Before a judge sets any secured financial condition, the judge shall:

presume that the defendant is “eligible for release on bond with the appropriate and least restrictive conditions” (§ 16-4-103 (4) (a));

determine the sufficiency of the financial condition to ensure court appearance and public safety, “taking into consideration the individual characteristics of each person in custody, including the person’s financial condition” (§ 16-4-103 (3) (a));

find that the condition is “reasonable and necessary to ensure the appearance of the person in court or the safety of any person or persons in the community” (§ § 16-4-104 (1) (c), 16-4-105 (7));

“consider all methods of bond and conditions of release to avoid unnecessary pretrial incarceration” (§ 16-4-103 (4) (c)).
 
  • #1,215
I think he made a mistake on a delivery address on one of his supplements-you know how addresses are preloaded into your history? I think he sent his girl over because he knew he wasn’t allowed, and he couldn’t be bothered contacting the company or paying the extra shipping fee to get it returned and redelivered.
Exactly, Occam's razor, nothing to see here.

Just yesterday a had a prescription sent to my former address by mistake. These kinds of mistakes happen all of the time. It is called Life.

BM is not some type of master-mind doing a double-secret test of the cameras and surveillance of his former property.

You are correct, if I recall, it was some type of supplements addressed to BM, not SD.
 
  • #1,216
dark hair

ETA no idea which one, but she has dark hair. Can be seen walking into the court with the male lawyer and also sitting in court behind the defence table.
The last picture of Barry and his children, both had dark, long hair.
 
  • #1,217
A test. To see if anyone was home. To see where cameras were. Potential reconnaissance. It's just suspicious. He wasn't supposed to be over there so sending someone in his stead smacks of "I didn't know I couldn't."

JMO

Easily happens. An item ordered a long time ago., ort his scenario, I ordered an item from Amazon to be delivered to a hotel. When I got home I ordered another item. Amazon defaulted to the hotel address, which was unnoticed by me, and it was delivered to the hotel.
 
  • #1,218
Exactly, Occam's razor, nothing to see here.

Just yesterday a had a prescription sent to my former address by mistake. These kinds of mistakes happen all of the time. It is called Life.

BM is not some type of master-mind doing a double-secret test of the cameras and surveillance of his former property.

You are correct, if I recall, it was some type of supplements addressed to BM, not SD.

I think, as one of our observant participants has posted, it is all about money for BM. And SD got into a problem because this miser not wanting to pay extra five dollars.

But, it only validates the main reason for Suzanne’s murder - money, again.
 
  • #1,219
Easily happens. An item ordered a long time ago., ort his scenario, I ordered an item from Amazon to be delivered to a hotel. When I got home I ordered another item. Amazon defaulted to the hotel address, which was unnoticed by me, and it was delivered to the hotel.

OK, if you are a constant client in good standing, they can either reimburse and reship free of charge or help you some other way.

That is, when they had humans answering the phone. It is inconvenient now but in 2020-2023 their service was good.
 
  • #1,220
OK, if you are a constant client in good standing, they can either reimburse and reship free of charge or help you some other way.

That is, when they had humans answering the phone. It is inconvenient now but in 2020-2023 their service was good.
People are going to handle misdirected packages differently. It had no bearing on the case whatsoever other than the over the top reaction to the person who went and picked up the package and perhaps LE who clearly couldn't handle the homeowner in a manner many people consider reasonable. But it didn't have anything to do with the case and if anything mucked some things up by causing Judge Murphy to recuse himself. Potentially another proverbial "shot in the foot" by the prosecutors office.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
95
Guests online
2,467
Total visitors
2,562

Forum statistics

Threads
633,174
Messages
18,636,932
Members
243,433
Latest member
neuerthewall20
Back
Top