CO - BARRY ARRESTED AGAIN - Suzanne Morphew, 49, Chaffee Co, 10 May 2020 *Case dismissed w/o prejudice* *found in 2023* #118

[Megnut]

I still do not understand why the body was allegedly moved. The verdict may come down to this unknown.

IMO he was adding to his staged abduction.

Thought it would give credence to a stranger abduction.

FAIL.

JMO

 

[Inthedetails]

I still do not understand why the body was allegedly moved. The verdict may come down to this unknown.

I think it will come down to the animal tranquilizer.

jmo

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

We do know he moved the body whatever the reason was, because of her undecomposed clothing left in the second location.

But I would guess he moved the body because he believed the original location could be tied to him somehow.

 

[GOBliaison]

I still do not understand why the body was allegedly moved. The verdict may come down to this unknown.

{Kindly ref. my #229, this thread:}

"...Even panning downstream on the South Branch wouldn't turn up any of Suzanne's 62 foot bones now. But she decomposed without trace of recognizable organic material - hair, teeth, nails, etc., - stuffed, weighted and secured below the surface of that waterway just upstream from her hot tub.

"Barry had tons of time - a year was it? - to enjoy refreshing dips right there in the South Branch's decaying branches, checking on the state of Suzanne's Nature Composting over the months preceding his initial arrest...No pressure. So confidence building. But... she could not stay there forever, so close to their home....

"Hence, imo, remains retrieval and relocation, again at leisure, of Suzanne's much-reduced volume."
__________________________

Addendum:

Further Barrthink,
methinks:
​

..." And it would be just like those "BIG" bones to hang around. And maybe tumble downstream during the spring flood(s). Yeah...right down past our - strike that - MY old backyard! Major oops!
"No, better gather-up the biggies I can locate while I'm not being pestered.
"So then where...wait a mo'...
" I'm going to horse-up on that tract down south I heard was called "the bone yard. Yeah...

 

[britinsussex]

I am just now catching up on this case after a long absence. Are his daughters still claiming his innocence?

 

[Momofthreeboys]

I am just now catching up on this case after a long absence. Are his daughters still claiming his innocence?

It’s been enough years and they aren’t doing interviews and highly doubt they will.

 

[waldojabba]

I am just now catching up on this case after a long absence. Are his daughters still claiming his innocence?

We have not heard anything from the daughter's since his arrest.
One of his daughter's was thought to be at his initial araingnment but not confirmed to my knowledge

The next court "check in " for BM - IN PERSON is Sept 2 at 1:30pm.
Among items to be addressed is the issue of Bail.

I imagine that will bring at least one of the daughters to court.
We should also find out more then, as part of a bail request I imagine , he will need to address where he would be staying locally and with whom in Colorado.

I think the daughter's appearances and interviews were very carefully orchestrated by Iris & Co in the first go around. We don't actually know who the BM's public defender will be this go around for sure as one has not been yet appointed by the court to my knowledge. We know that Beller and Fischer- Bryialson (sp?) were his attny reps at the arraigment. Another possible public defender candidate was present at the arraignment over a phone or zoom line : Attny David Lipka.

This time around we only know they have not done any interviews that are in the public sphere/MSM but who knows about the future.
If I am a betting person - My sense is that we will definitely hear from one or both of the daughters during the trial if not before.

Proceedings are strictly controlled :

From the link below - posted previously I am sure. This is a whole new ball game with a highly competent DA and a highly competent judge.

"While the court appearance was primarily procedural, this time, the courtroom was studiously controlled, the behavior rules set, the media standards clear in the 12th Judicial District Courtroom of Judge Amanda Hopkins. Those rules include strict standards preventing audio or video recordings, not just in the courtroom, but anywhere on the premises of the courthouse. They designate where the family of the defendant can sit, where any victims can sit, where the news media must sit, and how many news media can be in the room, and who can talk to whom."

JMO

Barry Morphew Makes First Court Appearance in Colorado 12th Judicial District Murder Trial - by Jan Wondra - Ark Valley Voice

Barry Morphew, indicted by a Grand Jury, and charged for a second time with First Degree Murder in the death his wife Suzanne Morphew, made his first

arkvalleyvoice.com

 

[windrower]

Yes - next status conference hearing on 9/2/25 @ 1:30pm MT for murder case. And the civil case has a oral arguments hearing on 9/11/25 @ 8:30am.

Some activity on the civil suit-- Appellate Court Docket (reference the Media Thread).

Team BM alone was scheduled for Oral Argument on 9/11/25 (no appellees/defendants requested an oral argument).

On 7/22/25-- Team BM filed an unopposed Motion (DOC-90) to vacate their oral argument, and requested the Court decide the case on the briefs submitted. They further stated they believed the facts and legal arguments were adequately presented in the briefs, and the decisional process would not be significantly aided by oral argument!

Almost as an afterthought, team BM told the Court that the State of Colorado had recently re-filed criminal charges against BM -- the same murder charge, brought in the affidavit and prosecution that was the subject of the appeal. Citing ethical responsibilities, they thought it would be imprudent for them to make any oral statements.

^^This from the powerhouse attorneys BM spent his life savings on--including Jane FB.

On 7/28/25-- in response to the unopposed Motion by BM, the Court was compelled to Order (DOC-91) that in light of the refiling of criminal charges, they directed the parties to file supplemental briefs by 8/4/25, addressing the following questions:

1. Does the refiling of criminal charges impact the issues raised in this appeal such that the appeal should be abated until the criminal case is resolved?

2. If this court decides to proceed with argument in this appeal, what special measures relating to the conduct of oral argument, if any, should the court adopt?

Given this was probably the most arrogant appeal I've ever read in my life, essentially asking the Court to ignore existing laws as if they don't apply to BM, I can't tell you how happy I was to see a response from the Court-- Ordering a supplemental brief where BM wasn't allowed to slither away from abusing the process and wasting the Court's time. JMO

The initial civil suit dismissed by the US District Court failed as a matter of law, and there was no legal basis to file the appeal.

“The burden is on the plaintiff to frame a ‘complaint with enough factual matter (taken as true) to suggest’ that he or she is entitled to relief.” A court will “disregard conclusory statements and look only to whether the remaining, factual allegations plausibly suggest the defendant is liable.” At this stage, the well-pleaded facts underlying a plaintiff’s allegations must articulate a viable legal claim. (Ref. Order granting motions to dismiss - citations omitted).

Can anyone explain how in the world BM et al are moving forward with the ridiculous civil suit?

Is there more upside than downside? Nothing to lose by continuing?

Seems to me his re-arrest shows there was no malicious intent with the first arrest, and that there was adequate evidence, even back then, to file charges against BM.

Why wouldn’t BM walk away from the civil suit? Or won’t it take much effort on the part of his lawyers to keep going? Keeps the prosecution busy with a black hole of nothing?

I feel like a dummy because I’m not understanding it.

 

[Inthedetails]

Can anyone explain how in the world BM et al are moving forward with the ridiculous civil suit?

Is there more upside than downside? Nothing to lose by continuing?

Seems to me his re-arrest shows there was no malicious intent with the first arrest, and that there was adequate evidence, even back then, to file charges against BM.

Why wouldn’t BM walk away from the civil suit? Or won’t it take much effort on the part of his lawyers to keep going? Keeps the prosecution busy with a black hole of nothing?

I feel like a dummy because I’m not understanding it.

I don't understand either. It's bizarre to continue this civil suit, imo.

jmo

 

[Megnut]

The chances of BM getting bail he can make, I'd say are about zero. New Colorado law impacts 1st degree murder charges. Booyah. And besides, he now has no personal ties to the immediate surroundings. And double booyah.

He looked pretty ragged after his first stint in county lock up, will we see more of that, come September?

Couple's months without his beloved guns, that can wear on a guy.

JMO

 

[waldojabba]

Can anyone explain how in the world BM et al are moving forward with the ridiculous civil suit?

Is there more upside than downside? Nothing to lose by continuing?

Seems to me his re-arrest shows there was no malicious intent with the first arrest, and that there was adequate evidence, even back then, to file charges against BM.

Why wouldn’t BM walk away from the civil suit? Or won’t it take much effort on the part of his lawyers to keep going? Keeps the prosecution busy with a black hole of nothing?

I feel like a dummy because I’m not understanding it.

Just my 2 cents. I may be way off and @Seattle will weigh in with actual answer.

I don’t think it’s clear yet whether BM lawyers are going to move forward with it.

They asked the judge to rule on the info they filed. They want to not have oral arguments in court / they don’t want to argue their motions.
The judge is kind of …What?

So the judge asked both parties to file briefs responding to his two points in @ Seattle write up above, by August 4 th.

It seems the judge might be giving BM’s lawyers a way to save face by asking them if they want to delay until after the murder trial. (#1)
The judge would have to rule on that if they ask for that. ( imo this is what BM will ask for)
Kick the can down the road.

The second point was if they were to proceed with oral arguments how could that work from a practical standpoint to have the murder trial going on too. ( imo it can’t)

So I think what happens is the judge postpones their civil suit pending the end of murder trial.

What should happen is that it just gets thrown out by the judge and that may be what the defense asks for.

We need to wait for the judges ruling.

Clear as mud?

JMO.

 

[Inthedetails]

Just my 2 cents. I may be way off and @Seattle will weigh in with actual answer.

I don’t think it’s clear yet whether BM lawyers are going to move forward with it.

They asked the judge to rule on the info they filed. They want to not have oral arguments in court / they don’t want to argue their motions.
The judge is kind of …What?

So the judge asked both parties to file briefs responding to his two points in @ Seattle write up above, by August 4 th.

It seems the judge might be giving BM’s lawyers a way to save face by asking them if they want to delay until after the murder trial. (#1)
The judge would have to rule on that if they ask for that. ( imo this is what BM will ask for)
Kick the can down the road.

The second point was if they were to proceed with oral arguments how could that work from a practical standpoint to have the murder trial going on too. ( imo it can’t)

So I think what happens is the judge postpones their civil suit pending the end of murder trial.

What should happen is that it just gets thrown out by the judge and that may be what the defense asks for.

We need to wait for the judges ruling.

Clear as mud?

JMO.

That makes sense.

I was also thinking BM might feel compelled to continue, or postpone, because to drop the case could look like an admission that his second arrest for murder is valid (which it is, but a defendant doesn't want to say that).

jmopinion

 

[Tragg]

Just my 2 cents. I may be way off and @Seattle will weigh in with actual answer.

I don’t think it’s clear yet whether BM lawyers are going to move forward with it.

They asked the judge to rule on the info they filed. They want to not have oral arguments in court / they don’t want to argue their motions.
The judge is kind of …What?

So the judge asked both parties to file briefs responding to his two points in @ Seattle write up above, by August 4 th.

It seems the judge might be giving BM’s lawyers a way to save face by asking them if they want to delay until after the murder trial. (#1)
The judge would have to rule on that if they ask for that. ( imo this is what BM will ask for)
Kick the can down the road.

The second point was if they were to proceed with oral arguments how could that work from a practical standpoint to have the murder trial going on too. ( imo it can’t)

So I think what happens is the judge postpones their civil suit pending the end of murder trial.

What should happen is that it just gets thrown out by the judge and that may be what the defense asks for.

We need to wait for the judges ruling.

Clear as mud?

JMO.

The 10th Circuit panel has determined that oral arguments are not necessary and the civil case hearing has been cancelled. Briefs are already filed, so Morphew's attorneys will not need to put more effort into the case. There is no reason for Morphew to ask the court to dismiss it.

In a few months we will see a decision from the 10th Circuit - very likely adverse to Morphew IMO. At that point, team Morphew will need to decide whether to proceed with further appeals -ultimately a petition the SCOTUS for certiorari review. Such petitions are rarely granted.

Even if the SCOTUS these days is more willing to reconsider its immunity rules in cases of egregious LE misconduct, and even if Morphew had not been charged again, his civil case would have had a vanishingly small chance of receiving SCOTUS attention. If charges are pending at the time the petition is to be filed, even that chance is gone. Unless JFB&Co can pull off a legal miracle in Alamosa in the next few months, I think we'll see them abandon the effort to get civil damages for the first arrest.

I think DA Kelly has effectively outlawed legal miracles in her jurisdiction. All MOO.

 

[waldojabba]

The 10th Circuit panel has determined that oral arguments are not necessary and the civil case hearing has been cancelled. Briefs are already filed, so Morphew's attorneys will not need to put more effort into the case. There is no reason for Morphew to ask the court to dismiss it.

In a few months we will see a decision from the 10th Circuit - very likely adverse to Morphew IMO. At that point, team Morphew will need to decide whether to proceed with further appeals -ultimately a petition the SCOTUS for certiorari review. Such petitions are rarely granted.

Even if the SCOTUS these days is more willing to reconsider its immunity rules in cases of egregious LE misconduct, and even if Morphew had not been charged again, his civil case would have had a vanishingly small chance of receiving SCOTUS attention. If charges are pending at the time the petition is to be filed, even that chance is gone. Unless JFB&Co can pull off a legal miracle in Alamosa in the next few months, I think we'll see them abandon the effort to get civil damages for the first arrest.

I think DA Kelly has effectively outlawed legal miracles in her jurisdiction. All MOO.

From @Seattle1 post above in the thread :

On 7/22/25-- Team BM filed an unopposed Motion (DOC-90) to vacate their oral argument, and requested the Court decide the case on the briefs submitted. They further stated they believed the facts and legal arguments were adequately presented in the briefs, and the decisional process would not be significantly aided by oral argument!

Almost as an afterthought, team BM told the Court that the State of Colorado had recently re-filed criminal charges against BM -- the same murder charge, brought in the affidavit and prosecution that was the subject of the appeal. Citing ethical responsibilities, they thought it would be imprudent for them to make any oral statements.

^^This from the powerhouse attorneys BM spent his life savings on--including Jane FB.

On 7/28/25-- in response to the unopposed Motion by BM, the Court was compelled to Order (DOC-91) that in light of the refiling of criminal charges, they directed the parties to file supplemental briefs by 8/4/25, addressing the following questions:

1. Does the refiling of criminal charges impact the issues raised in this appeal such that the appeal should be abated until the criminal case is resolved?

2. If this court decides to proceed with argument in this appeal, what special measures relating to the conduct of oral argument, if any, should the court adopt?
//

@Tragg - do you have a link/source for your response ?

Per the above, the supplemental briefs were due on 8/4/25 - so the ruling you reference must have been in the last two weeks or so?

Appreciate the clarification

JMO

 

[Seattle1]

Some activity on the civil suit-- Appellate Court Docket (reference the Media Thread).

Team BM alone was scheduled for Oral Argument on 9/11/25 (no appellees/defendants requested an oral argument).

On 7/22/25-- Team BM filed an unopposed Motion (DOC-90) to vacate their oral argument, and requested the Court decide the case on the briefs submitted. They further stated they believed the facts and legal arguments were adequately presented in the briefs, and the decisional process would not be significantly aided by oral argument!

Almost as an afterthought, team BM told the Court that the State of Colorado had recently re-filed criminal charges against BM -- the same murder charge, brought in the affidavit and prosecution that was the subject of the appeal. Citing ethical responsibilities, they thought it would be imprudent for them to make any oral statements.

^^This from the powerhouse attorneys BM spent his life savings on--including Jane FB.

On 7/28/25-- in response to the unopposed Motion by BM, the Court was compelled to Order (DOC-91) that in light of the refiling of criminal charges, they directed the parties to file supplemental briefs by 8/4/25, addressing the following questions:

1. Does the refiling of criminal charges impact the issues raised in this appeal such that the appeal should be abated until the criminal case is resolved?

2. If this court decides to proceed with argument in this appeal, what special measures relating to the conduct of oral argument, if any, should the court adopt?

Given this was probably the most arrogant appeal I've ever read in my life, essentially asking the Court to ignore existing laws as if they don't apply to BM, I can't tell you how happy I was to see a response from the Court-- Ordering a supplemental brief where BM wasn't allowed to slither away from abusing the process and wasting the Court's time. JMO

The initial civil suit dismissed by the US District Court failed as a matter of law, and there was no legal basis to file the appeal.

“The burden is on the plaintiff to frame a ‘complaint with enough factual matter (taken as true) to suggest’ that he or she is entitled to relief.” A court will “disregard conclusory statements and look only to whether the remaining, factual allegations plausibly suggest the defendant is liable.” At this stage, the well-pleaded facts underlying a plaintiff’s allegations must articulate a viable legal claim. (Ref. Order granting motions to dismiss - citations omitted).

Following up the post above as follows: the parties filed their supplemental briefs by 8/4/25 as requested, and the Court responded by Order dated 8/8/25. Please see the Media Thread for more details.

 

[Seattle1]

BM's next hearing is on Sept 2. I recall one of the issues his defense wanted to address at the hearing was bail. I've read so many opinions about BM's "bail" recently that make absolutely no sense to me! IMO, the 2024 resolution didn't change anything other than to allow amending the Colorado Constitution to add the words "murder in the first degree." IMO, the defense will likely attempt to argue for a reduction of BM's bail, but I'm not getting anything here where he's entitled to a PR bond or low bail based on the 2024 Amendment!

Colorado's Constitution-- dating back to 1876-- has always provided that all persons shall be bailable by sufficient sureties, except for capital offenses, when the proof is evident or the presumption great. [Section 19].

In 2020, when Colorado abolished capital punishment (i.e., legally authorized killing of someone as punishment for a crime), some took exception to 'murder in the first degree' and 'capital offense' being inferred to have the same meaning, and took the matter to the Supreme Court, and won!

In 2023, the Colorado Supreme Court ruled that a judge no longer had the ability to deny a person charged with first-degree murder the right to bail out of county jail prior to trial.

In 2024, the Colorado Legislature referred Amendment I to the Colorado Constitution to the people, placing the measure on the ballot, and it passed.

Amendment I reinstates the former rule allowing a judge to preclude a person accused of first-degree murder from posting bail where the “proof is evident and the presumption is great” that the person committed the crime following a hearing on the issue (PEPG hearing). At the conclusion of the Preliminary Hearing, the judge presiding over the hearing decides on probable cause and whether the case is bound over for trial, and if the Prosecution met the burden for PEPG.

As a result, first-degree murder defendants will now attend an additional (PEPG) hearing on the issue of eligibility for bail (as they did for decades before the 2023 ruling), and, depending on the judge’s ruling, bail may be denied and the defendant forced to await trial in jail-- as the Constitution intended.

https://leg.colorado.gov/sites/default/files/2024a_hcr1002_signed.pdf

ETA: The period of not denying bail for first-degree murderers before Amendment I passed (2023-2024) was very short lived. I recall the only defendant I'm aware of was James Craig -- arrested 3/18/23, and his bail set at $10M cash only. In other words, the Supreme Court may have ceased the Court's ability to use the PEPG exception to deny bail, but they did not deny their discretion to safeguard the public by the means at their disposal.

IMO, I see BM in this category. He has no ties to the community, and he's a flight risk. $3M cash only is appropriate bail which I hope will be the equivalent of no pretrial bail release. MOO

 

[Inthedetails]

BM's next hearing is on Sept 2. I recall one of the issues his defense wanted to address at the hearing was bail. I've read so many opinions about BM's "bail" recently that make absolutely no sense to me! IMO, the 2024 resolution didn't change anything other than to allow amending the Colorado Constitution to add the words "murder in the first degree." IMO, the defense will likely attempt to argue for a reduction of BM's bail, but I'm not getting anything here where he's entitled to a PR bond or low bail based on the 2024 Amendment!

Colorado's Constitution-- dating back to 1876-- has always provided that all persons shall be bailable by sufficient sureties, except for capital offenses, when the proof is evident or the presumption great. [Section 19].

In 2020, when Colorado abolished capital punishment (i.e., legally authorized killing of someone as punishment for a crime), some took exception to 'murder in the first degree' and 'capital offense' being inferred to have the same meaning, and took the matter to the Supreme Court, and won!

In 2023, the Colorado Supreme Court ruled that a judge no longer had the ability to deny a person charged with first-degree murder the right to bail out of county jail prior to trial.

In 2024, the Colorado Legislature referred Amendment I to the Colorado Constitution to the people, placing the measure on the ballot, and it passed.

Amendment I reinstates the former rule allowing a judge to preclude a person accused of first-degree murder from posting bail where the “proof is evident and the presumption is great” that the person committed the crime following a hearing on the issue (PEPG hearing). At the conclusion of the Preliminary Hearing, the judge presiding over the hearing decides on probable cause and whether the case is bound over for trial, and if the Prosecution met the burden for PEPG.

As a result, first-degree murder defendants will now attend an additional (PEPG) hearing on the issue of eligibility for bail (as they did for decades before the 2023 ruling), and, depending on the judge’s ruling, bail may be denied and the defendant forced to await trial in jail-- as the Constitution intended.

https://leg.colorado.gov/sites/default/files/2024a_hcr1002_signed.pdf

ETA: The period of not denying bail for first-degree murderers before Amendment I passed (2023-2024) was very short lived. I recall the only defendant I'm aware of was James Craig -- arrested 3/18/23, and his bail set at $10M cash only. In other words, the Supreme Court may have ceased the Court's ability to use the PEPG exception to deny bail, but they did not deny their discretion to safeguard the public by the means at their disposal.

IMO, I see BM in this category. He has no ties to the community, and he's a flight risk. $3M cash only is appropriate bail which I hope will be the equivalent of no pretrial bail release. MOO

Super interesting! Thanks for that info.

jmo

 

[Love Never Fails]

BM's next hearing is on Sept 2. I recall one of the issues his defense wanted to address at the hearing was bail. I've read so many opinions about BM's "bail" recently that make absolutely no sense to me! IMO, the 2024 resolution didn't change anything other than to allow amending the Colorado Constitution to add the words "murder in the first degree." IMO, the defense will likely attempt to argue for a reduction of BM's bail, but I'm not getting anything here where he's entitled to a PR bond or low bail based on the 2024 Amendment!

Colorado's Constitution-- dating back to 1876-- has always provided that all persons shall be bailable by sufficient sureties, except for capital offenses, when the proof is evident or the presumption great. [Section 19].

In 2020, when Colorado abolished capital punishment (i.e., legally authorized killing of someone as punishment for a crime), some took exception to 'murder in the first degree' and 'capital offense' being inferred to have the same meaning, and took the matter to the Supreme Court, and won!

In 2023, the Colorado Supreme Court ruled that a judge no longer had the ability to deny a person charged with first-degree murder the right to bail out of county jail prior to trial.

In 2024, the Colorado Legislature referred Amendment I to the Colorado Constitution to the people, placing the measure on the ballot, and it passed.

Amendment I reinstates the former rule allowing a judge to preclude a person accused of first-degree murder from posting bail where the “proof is evident and the presumption is great” that the person committed the crime following a hearing on the issue (PEPG hearing). At the conclusion of the Preliminary Hearing, the judge presiding over the hearing decides on probable cause and whether the case is bound over for trial, and if the Prosecution met the burden for PEPG.

As a result, first-degree murder defendants will now attend an additional (PEPG) hearing on the issue of eligibility for bail (as they did for decades before the 2023 ruling), and, depending on the judge’s ruling, bail may be denied and the defendant forced to await trial in jail-- as the Constitution intended.

https://leg.colorado.gov/sites/default/files/2024a_hcr1002_signed.pdf

ETA: The period of not denying bail for first-degree murderers before Amendment I passed (2023-2024) was very short lived. I recall the only defendant I'm aware of was James Craig -- arrested 3/18/23, and his bail set at $10M cash only. In other words, the Supreme Court may have ceased the Court's ability to use the PEPG exception to deny bail, but they did not deny their discretion to safeguard the public by the means at their disposal.

IMO, I see BM in this category. He has no ties to the community, and he's a flight risk. $3M cash only is appropriate bail which I hope will be the equivalent of no pretrial bail release. MOO

Thank you @Seattle1.
If the judge rules PEPG, then BM should be ineligible for bail regardless of the amount. IMO.

 

[Seattle1]

Thank you @Seattle1.
If the judge rules PEPG, then BM should be ineligible for bail regardless of the amount. IMO.

Since BM was Indicted by the grand jury, and the GJ doesn't decide PEPG but probable cause (replaces the preliminary hearing), and the defendant bound over for trial, I believed this was why Judge Hopkins set BM's bail ($3M cash only) with Indictment/Extradition/Arrest Warrant. However, reading Amendment I, it appears it sets the committed offense effective date which would be on or after November 5, 2024.

If I understand correctly, the Judge is prevented from using PEPG to deny bail here because SM was murdered before the effective date. If true, then the Court can't be prevented from using its discretion to impose sufficient bail in the interest of justice and public safety! JMO

Amendment I:

In the constitution of the state of Colorado, section 19 of article II, amend (2); and add (1)(d) as follows:

Section 19. Right to bail - exceptions. (1) All persons shall be bailable by sufficient sureties pending disposition of charges except:

(d) FOR THE OFFENSE OF MURDER IN THE FIRST DEGREE, AS DEFINED BY LAW, COMMITTED ON OR AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS SUBSECTION(1)(d), WHEN PROOF IS EVIDENT OR PRESUMPTION IS GREAT.

https://leg.colorado.gov/sites/default/files/2024a_hcr1002_signed.pdf

 

[Love Never Fails]

Since BM was Indicted by the grand jury, and the GJ doesn't decide PEPG but probable cause (replaces the preliminary hearing), and the defendant bound over for trial, I believed this was why Judge Hopkins set BM's bail ($3M cash only) with Indictment/Extradition/Arrest Warrant. However, reading Amendment I, it appears it sets the committed offense effective date which would be on or after November 5, 2024.

If I understand correctly, the Judge is prevented from using PEPG to deny bail here because SM was murdered before the effective date. If true, then the Court can't be prevented from using its discretion to impose sufficient bail in the interest of justice and public safety! JMO

Amendment I:

In the constitution of the state of Colorado, section 19 of article II, amend (2); and add (1)(d) as follows:

Section 19. Right to bail - exceptions. (1) All persons shall be bailable by sufficient sureties pending disposition of charges except:

(d) FOR THE OFFENSE OF MURDER IN THE FIRST DEGREE, AS DEFINED BY LAW, COMMITTED ON OR AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS SUBSECTION(1)(d), WHEN PROOF IS EVIDENT OR PRESUMPTION IS GREAT.

https://leg.colorado.gov/sites/default/files/2024a_hcr1002_signed.pdf

Thanks Seattle. So the judge could very well set bail under the date of the murder of Suzanne and lower bail.

If the right lawyer works magic (because lawyers and judges run in the same circles) then it is possible to get his bail amount reduced. It is also possible that all his funds are being held legally in MM1’s name.
I will be very disappointed if he gets bail a second time.

I cannot envision a scenario where BM doesn’t go to prison for murder one. We will see.