I don't believe BM confided the details of SM's murder in anybody, period!
I'm also afraid I don't share the optimism here that MG and SD will be star witnesses at trial-- and not because of their exposure to BM, but because their knowledge of his personality is not going to be admissible evidence at trial (RULE 404. CHARACTER EVIDENCE NOT ADMISSIBLE TO PROVE CONDUCT, EXCEPTION; OTHER CRIME).
For example, while MG can provide direct knowledge of expecting to work at the river house project on Saturday all day, and BM calling it a day before noon-- allegedly to "make the wife happy," yet evidence shows he spent the afternoon at DSI, changing the blade on the Bobcat, etc., MG can't testify about BM's shady business practices, including poaching employees like JP off another job to travel to Broomfield on Sunday for cash wages. MG can't testify about hearsay. She can testify that BM failed to collect her on Sunday morning as planned, and that she had to commute to the project on her own. Again,
just the facts in evidence.
In other words, this type of evidence (
character) is considered of slight probative value and may be very prejudicial. Courts have ruled it inadmissible because it tends to distract the trier of fact from the main question of what actually happened on the particular occasion. It subtly permits the trier of fact to reward the good man, to punish the bad man, because of their respective characters-- despite what the evidence in the case shows actually happened.
Relative to SD, she's quoted as saying that she told herself that evidence against Morphew was ‘merely circumstantial,’ and that authorities would drop their investigation after his first murder charge was dismissed.
She said Morphew ‘never wanted to discuss it’ when she asked him about his wife’s disappearance. ‘He just wanted to heal and move forward.’
SD claims she further distanced herself from BM upon learning of the BAM found in Suzanne’s body. And she said she since has been working with a therapist to understand dynamics involving ‘control and narcissism’ that harmed their relationship.
Again, in a criminal trial, character evidence, which suggests how a person might have acted based on their personality, is generally inadmissible to prove they acted in conformity with that character on a specific occasion. However, Colorado law provides that the strict
rules of evidence do not apply to a sentencing hearing. In fact any evidence that a Judge deems to have probative value will be heard. Colo. R. Evid. 1101
MOO
Shoshona Darke broke down in tears as she spoke exclusively to the Daily Mail after her ex's arrest on a murder charge.
www.dailymail.co.uk
Free Consultation - Call 303-627-7777 - H. Michael Steinberg aggressively represents the accused against charges in Crime & Criminal cases. A Manual - Guide to Colorado Criminal Case Sentencing - Denver Crime Lawyer
www.hmichaelsteinberg.com
!
