Found Deceased CO - Suzanne Morphew, 49, Chaffee Co, 10 May 2020 #100 *Case dismissed w/o Prejudice*

[abams]

It would be interesting to know why the prosecution chose dismissal rather than completing the appeals process.

sbm. Simplest answer is they assessed they were likely to lose on appeal.

 

[NatureLover]

Why have we not heard about Barry being diabetic before now?

I’ll bet, if true, that it is a fairly recent diagnosis i.e. since Suzanne disappeared. MOO Not sure what I can link, so Google anabolic steroid use and diabetes…

 

[Spartygirl]

IANAL so I do not know what other remedies were an option. I do think the judge could foresee either an appeal to a higher court or a motion to dismiss would be the result of the remedy he chose.

It would be interesting to know why the prosecution chose dismissal rather than completing the appeals process.

I didn't think they were going to get the judge to back off the sanction of quashing expert testimony without a higher court appeal.

In a murder one case it just seems to a layperson like myself that risking further criminal activity by the defendant is too high a risk. And that is the outcome.

Maybe the other charges will proceed without delay?

MOO

BBM
Speaking of a defendant moving forward with more criminal activity, I feel there is a certain male someone that hopefully is watching his back.
I mean, in BM's own words " I can hide a body where nobody would ever find it" YIKES

Mother's Day is coming up-- memories for ole Bare

Father's Day is coming up... JL needs to be careful.

Granted, it is NOT "Husband's Day" but still......
Bare might think it is and celebrate it in his own way. JMO

 

[rainbowshummingbird]

IANAL so I do not know what other remedies were an option. I do think the judge could foresee either an appeal to a higher court or a motion to dismiss would be the result of the remedy he chose.

It would be interesting to know why the prosecution chose dismissal rather than completing the appeals process.

I didn't think they were going to get the judge to back off the sanction of quashing expert testimony without a higher court appeal.

In a murder one case it just seems to a layperson like myself that risking further criminal activity by the defendant is too high a risk. And that is the outcome.

Maybe the other charges will proceed without delay?

MOO

Strategic planning has not been a strength of the DA and prosecutors. If they had gone the route to appeal Lama’s sanctions, it would have made preparations challenging. With the trial quickly approaching, without knowing who could and could not testify as experts, it would’ve have left them underprepared.

I think they backed themselves into a corner and played the card they had.

 

[Seattle1]

As I have said before, I do believe the prosecution will have a burden to overcome if it files charges again (overcoming claims of bad faith). I agree with you to that extent.

However, I respectfully submit that the hill the prosecution must climb will not be related to the doctrine of res judicata. This doctrine applies to cases that have been decided on the merits after a trial, which did not happen in BM's case. Voluntary dismissals are expressly excluded from the scope of the doctrine. (Legal Information Institute)

Thanks for your response @CGray123, and the res judicata link providing for both voluntary and involuntary dismissals.

Also, under common law, the doctrine of res judicata bars not only what was actually decided in the first action but also whatever could have been decided.

To be clear, I DO NOT believe the prosecution's decision to dismiss the case without prejudice was based on bad faith.

I believe Dan May was very clear that in his opinion, the "uphill battle" was specific to getting the judge to agree to allow the previously court-barred experts to testify -- and not overcoming claims of bad faith. (See Court Order [D-17] linked below).

Specific to this case, while the prosecution requested reconsideration of the court sanctions ordered by the court, IMO, as Dan May also implied, the proper remedy to remove the obstacle from clouding the retrial was for the higher court to reverse the Court Ordered sanctions that prohibited 14/16 expert witnesses from testifying at the trial.

While the Colorado Supreme Court may have refused to hear the prosecutor's petition, I believe the prosecution had a very strong case for the higher court's consideration-- given that IMO, the district court's Order for sanctions was essentially the equivalent of dismissing the prosecution's case.

Since I previously stated that I was not going to cite applicable Colorado Rules of Criminal Procedure-- or any rules for that matter, I don't have a problem with OP disagreeing with my modern view and/or interpretation of res judicata doctrine promoting fairness, especially since I think Dan May's specific reference to the court-barred experts (and not bad faith) aligns with my interpretation here (and where the dismissal by the prosecution wasn't necessarily voluntary).

ORDER RE: [D-17] DEFENDANT’S RENEWED MOTION FOR DISCOVERY AND CONTEMPT SANCTIONS AND FORTHWITH HEARING; [D-17A] SUPPLEMENT; [D-17B] SUPPLEMENT; [D-17C] SUPPLEMENT; AND [D-17D] SUPPLEMENT.

https://www.courts.state.co.us/user...-17-C] SUPPLEMENT AND [D-17D] SUPPLEMENT.pdf

 

[Spartygirl]

Forget the wine. I’m getting into the hard stuff.

 

[Spartygirl]

Does Barry’s ankle bracelet now come off? Is he free to roam the country / world?

Yes and Yes

I fear for some others now, IMO

 

[Love Never Fails]

Prosecutors do this frequently (fail to disclose discovery or experts in a timely manner). I guess this judge wasn’t going to allow it.

It sucks. But it’s a serious due process issue.

I hate that the prosecution missed deadlines. I wonder if this judge would have let it slide were it not for the defense calling it all out? And even so, why such harsh sanctions? He has to know Barry is guilty.

 

[Quiet Time]

Sounds to me like may be the prosecution was stalling, and making excuses, all the while looking for Suzanne.

They finally had to give it up, and change the course of things now that they think they may have located her.

Hopefully, they've made the right move.

jmo

 

[Love Never Fails]

Thanks for your response @CGray123, and the res judicata link providing for both voluntary and involuntary dismissals.

Also, under common law, the doctrine of res judicata bars not only what was actually decided in the first action but also whatever could have been decided.

To be clear, I DO NOT believe the prosecution's decision to dismiss the case without prejudice was based on bad faith.

I believe Dan May was very clear that in his opinion, the "uphill battle" was specific to getting the judge to agree to allow the previously court-barred experts to testify -- and not overcoming claims of bad faith. (See Court Order [D-17] linked below).

Specific to this case, while the prosecution requested reconsideration of the court sanctions ordered by the court, IMO, as Dan May also implied, the proper remedy to remove the obstacle from clouding the retrial was for the higher court to reverse the Court Ordered sanctions that prohibited 14/16 expert witnesses from testifying at the trial.

While the Colorado Supreme Court may have refused to hear the prosecutor's petition, I believe the prosecution had a very strong case for the higher court's consideration-- given that IMO, the district court's Order for sanctions was essentially the equivalent of dismissing the prosecution's case.

Since I previously stated that I was not going to cite applicable Colorado Rules of Criminal Procedure-- or any rules for that matter, I don't have a problem with OP disagreeing with my modern view and/or interpretation of res judicata doctrine promoting fairness, especially since I think Dan May's specific reference to the court-barred experts (and not bad faith) aligns with my interpretation here (and where the dismissal by the prosecution wasn't necessarily voluntary).

ORDER RE: [D-17] DEFENDANT’S RENEWED MOTION FOR DISCOVERY AND CONTEMPT SANCTIONS AND FORTHWITH HEARING; [D-17A] SUPPLEMENT; [D-17B] SUPPLEMENT; [D-17C] SUPPLEMENT; AND [D-17D] SUPPLEMENT.

https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/11th_Judicial_District/Freemont/Morphew/ORDER RE_ DEFENDANT'S RENEWED MOTION FOR DISCOVERY AND CONTEMPT SANCTIONS AND FORTHWITH HEARING [D-17A] SUPPLEMENT [D-17B] SUPPLEMENT [D-17-C] SUPPLEMENT AND [D-17D] SUPPLEMENT.pdf

Seattle, I would like your opinion as of tonight. Do you think the State will refile this case, with or without a body?

 

[IslandGirlTC]

I'm joining in late. That's a lot of excluding of what sounds like important evidence. I can't see challenges from the pandemic causing the case to fall apart like that. What's going on here?

 

[crhedBngr]

Yes and Yes

I fear for some others now, IMO

Me, too!

 

[DeDee]

Former 4th Judicial District Attorney Dan May weighs in :

Former DA: Morphew case would have resulted in 'not guilty' verdict - KRDO

Respectful Dan May says the Prosecutors should have filed an appeal on the elimination of evidence. Now, it's too late. That horse has left the barn.

Indeed. I cannot express my deep disappointment in this travesty of Justice without risking my membership at WS. However, the name Morphew carries with it a stigma that cannot be erased in this generation.

I shiver to consider Suzanne's innocent grandchildren will know their grandfather was arrested and charged with Murder1 of their precious grandmother. Life is not fair but it didn't have to end this way.
.

 

[jakat]

kemug added a few more the other day as the one we had could not keep up with producing enough manure.

LOLOL

 

[tmar]

I just have too much time on my hands. And insomnia.
( I always make jokes when complimented)

Seriously, thanks so much for making my day with your very kind and generous words.
The respect is mutual.

You really are terrific.
Thanks to all your work.

 

[Seattle1]

I hate that the prosecution missed deadlines. I wonder if this judge would have let it slide were it not for the defense calling it all out? And even so, why such harsh sanctions? He has to know Barry is guilty.

^^bbm

Prosecutors do this frequently (fail to disclose discovery or experts in a timely manner). I guess this judge wasn’t going to allow it.

It sucks. But it’s a serious due process issue.

I agree with @gitana1 that prosecutors frequently fail to meet discovery deadlines, and where right or wrong, they typically rely on the statutory deadline written in Rule 16 that specifically states: In no case shall such disclosure be less than 35 days before trial for a felony trial, or 7 days before trial for a non-felony trial, except for good cause shown.

I believe E & N's strategy from their very first date before the District Court was to frustrate the prosecution (and the Judge too)-- specifically with discovery motions and requests for sanctions for discovery violations.

In fact, I'd bet my home if the defense failed to mention on the court record one time, an allegation of discovery violations by the prosecution! JMO

 

[jakat]

ETA it’s the MOUNTAIN Mail based in Salida.


Finally a Mtn Mail article that is not behind a paywall!
They always have more details than other media.

Morphew Murder Case Dismissed

Nice picture of those two smootching!

 

[BDAJAG]

Anyone have an idea where this could be? 5 feet of snow seems like a lot even for a place that gets a lot of snow. Where is there a location closer to the house that would still have that much snow on the ground? I wonder if that is a location that would have been searched when Andy did the search? Must be really high in elevation and if it's a more dangerous terrain, then maybe not a place a regular search team would have went?

_________________________________________

But/And recall:

Barry, his slung rifle, verbal warnings to Andy-team-searchers that, " ... they were nearing the boundary" of his property...
All while he was his fine-tuning his surveillance cameras?

Quit "chilling", imo...
"Uh-Uh... careful... I'm searching my land for 'oh Suzannne'. I've got the search covered over here - on my property...
{There be no way you relatives and well-meaning out-of-town dolts are comin' onto my sand box...}

And his "...too soon"?
Was not that Barry's seemingly non-responsive public statement to an inquirer.
Oh. And, "No one knows the truth."
----------------------------------------------

Nope. Sorry, Mr. B.L. Morphew.
'Dem chickens? well, you're nature's son.
They always try to return to their roost.

 

[Spartygirl]

Nice picture of those two smootching!

YIKES...wonder what SD thinks of that??

 

[katydid23]

RSBM

That image may come back to haunt her IMO.

I hope this image pisses off Barry's girlfriend, who then decides to get back at him by talking to the DA, about a few secrets she was holding on to.