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

[Pyrite]

^^bbm



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

Would the defense be slacking on the job is they did not mention on the record discovery violations (real or imagined) by the prosecution? If a protest or objection is not made doesn’t that mean no appeal later on the discovery violation?

 

[osu]

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?

I’m not sure how close this area is to Puma Path but this shows a natural snow base of 64” on Monarch Mountain.

UPDATED: 09:58AM, APRIL 20, 2022

Snow Fall Overnight
“
24 HOURS
“
48 HOURS
“
7 DAYS
“
BASE DEPTH
64”

SEASON TOTAL
248”

Conditions - Monarch Mountain

 

[BDAJAG]

I am glad I made the decision in recent days not to agonize about all these pre-trial motions

_________________________________________
And a very, VERY good on you !

Don't be startled to consider you just added a meaningful amount to this Life.. Surely, it's quality, anyway..
...'tho do consider, too, that startling has its own down-side...
Nah. No worries. I'm sure you'll take in in stride.
Enjoy! Reserved startling

 

[WestGL]

If Linda Stanley is so in over her head, can she be recalled? Removed from office? How to get that started?

 

[otto]

In my opinion they were sloppy and did a terrible job. The judge came down on them hard for their sloppiness. I think this is a good thing as they now know what will happen unless they get their act together. .. to get her! I am not optimistic about finding the body as it will be so badly decomposed I am unsure if it will be helpful at this stage. RIP SM. I am so sorry this happened.

The location of the body will tell a story, as will any evidence of toxins in hair samples, and condition of the body. I think there are three crime scenes: the home (murder), the bike (alibi), her body (evidence of murder).

Either she had an accident, or she was murdered. Body location answers that. If she was murdered, who is the suspect and why.

I don't fully understand why the charges were dropped. I thought it was because investigators had discovered the location of the body and needed time to remove 5 feet of snow. Another reason I've read here is that charges were dropped because the prosecutors violated the rights of the suspect. Did they? Some articles are locked - can't read the details from a reliable source.

 

[TIGER0822]

The location of the body will tell a story, as will any evidence of toxins in hair samples, and condition of the body. I think there are three crime scenes: the home (murder), the bike (alibi), her body (evidence of murder).



Either she had an accident, or she was murdered. Body location answers that. If she was murdered, who is the suspect and why.

I don't fully understand why the charges were dropped. I thought it was because investigators had discovered the location of the body and needed time to remove 5 feet of snow. Another reason I've read here is that charges were dropped because the prosecutors violated the rights of the suspect. Did they? Some articles are locked - can't read the details from a reliable source.

The prosecutor asked the judge to dismiss the case (without prejudice). The judge agreed too. BM attorneys were fighting to have it dismissed with prejudice so they could not refile.

 

[otto]

The prosecutor asked the judge to dismiss the case (without prejudice). The judge agreed too. BM attorneys were fighting to have it dismissed with prejudice so they could not refile.

Mutual dismissal request; with or without prejudice was the decision. Judge ruled in favour of allowing the prosecution to file charges in the future, without prejudice.

Seems like a good outcome.

Why did the prosecution want to dismiss the case? What reasons were given?

 

[TIGER0822]

Mutual dismissal request; with or without prejudice was the decision. Judge ruled in favour of allowing the prosecution to file charges in the future, without prejudice.

Seems like a good outcome.

Why did the prosecution want to dismiss the case? What reasons were given?[/QUOTE

I think the main issue is the judge would not let 14 of 16 expert witnesses testify, without it would have been impossible to win. The judge punished them for being sloppy with evidence. They hopefully will come back with a more organized case.

 

[otto]

I think the main issue is the judge would not let 14 of 16 expert witnesses testify, without it would have been impossible to win. The judge punished them for being sloppy with evidence. They hopefully will come back with a more organized case.

The prosecution withdrew charges because they had, by omission, failed to appeal a ruling to exclude those witnesses? If the ruling by the judge was to exclude the witnesses, the judge cannot admonish the prosecution for respecting the Judge's pre-trial decision. How is that sloppy with evidence?

Assuming the file should be more organized, is the only problem that the prosecution failed to appeal a pre-trial ruling? Who would they appeal too? Is it the same Judge, or a higher court. Can lawyers appeal to a higher court about a pre-trial decision?

 

[rainbowshummingbird]

Mutual dismissal request; with or without prejudice was the decision. Judge ruled in favour of allowing the prosecution to file charges in the future, without prejudice.

Seems like a good outcome.

Why did the prosecution want to dismiss the case? What reasons were given?

The judge ruled that 12 investigators, including CBI and FBI employees, could not testify at as experts as punishment for late submissions.

With telematics and cell phone data, the investigators could not offer opinions on evidence.

 

[jakat]

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

She should get away from him while getting away is good. He's got her hoodwinked, too.

 

[otto]

The judge ruled that 12 investigators, including CBI and FBI employees, could not testify at as experts as punishment for late submissions.

With telematics and cell phone data, the investigators could not offer opinions on evidence.

Thank you! That makes more sense. Was it disclosure documents that were withheld?

 

[WingsOverTX]

Thank you! That makes more sense. Was it disclosure documents that were withheld?

I think this article about what happened before this week's motion to dismiss without prejudice was accepted by the court will help.

It includes a link to the now defunct motion to reconsider.

Barry Morphew prosecution team wants witnesses reinstated | 9news.com

 

[rainbowshummingbird]

Thank you! That makes more sense. Was it disclosure documents that were withheld?

The prosecution failed to submit the investigators’ bios and CV’s before the submission deadline. With the case being largely circumstantial and the evidence more “tech” based, it would’ve been tough for the prosecution to put on its best case.

At least this way, they may have another chance to re-try. Also, prosecution has indicated that they believe they know where Suzanne’s remains are located, but that location is still covered in 5 feet of snow.

 

[Bridger]

The prosecutors were clear about why they moved to dismiss the charges—they don’t have enough evidence for a conviction. If the trial was held this month they would lose. In fact, they appear to have no real evidence even that Suzanne is dead (I believe she is, but they can’t prove it), much less that Barry killed her. And the evidence they do have implicates people other than Barry. The arrest was extremely premature and prosecutors are now paying the price for their reckless arrest. I suspect heads will eventually roll for this one.

https://www.thedenverchannel.com/ne...s-motion-to-dismiss-barry-morphew-murder-case

 

[otto]

I think this article about what happened before this week's motion to dismiss without prejudice was accepted by the court will help.

It includes a link to the now defunct motion to reconsider.

Barry Morphew prosecution team wants witnesses reinstated | 9news.com

Thank you. Violation of discovery rules is a definite violation of the rights of the accused ... in my humble opinion. The prosecution is required to disclose all documents supporting criminal charges within a specific number of days after charges are laid. If the prosecution cannot produce their evidence, the charges are not supported. Isn't that true? Then charges must be dismissed.

If 12/14 prosecution witnesses did not have their evidence ready after charges are laid, that suggests that the prosecution case is full of holes.

So, if I understand correctly, the prosecution did not have a solid case - regardless of their claims about who those experts were - witnesses were unable to produce evidence even after charges were laid.

This is not about being organized. One or two witnesses out of 14 might be disorganized, but not 12/14.

 

[Cindizzi]

The prosecution withdrew charges because they had, by omission, failed to appeal a ruling to exclude those witnesses? If the ruling by the judge was to exclude the witnesses, the judge cannot admonish the prosecution for respecting the Judge's pre-trial decision. How is that sloppy with evidence?

Assuming the file should be more organized, is the only problem that the prosecution failed to appeal a pre-trial ruling? Who would they appeal too? Is it the same Judge, or a higher court. Can lawyers appeal to a higher court about a pre-trial decision?

Here is the Prosecution’s Motion to Dismiss in case you have not seen it :

https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/11th_Judicial_District/Freemont/Morphew/2022-04-19 08-49-34 Motion to Dismiss Without Prejudice.pdf

The Judge said in the hearing on Tuesday April 19 that the Prosecution was not acting in bad faith and it was reasonable and granted their Motion.

Prosecutors say they are close to finding the body of Suzanne Morphew, who disappeared in Chaffee County in 2020
Barry Morphew’s defense attorney, Iris Eytan, argued in court Tuesday that the case should be dismissed with prejudice so that it could not be refiled. She said Stanley was acting in bad faith and dismissing the case to avoid the steep sanctions over the discovery violations. She accused the prosecution of “judge shopping.”

“They’re going to try this case again, they’re going to evade the court’s ruling,” Eytan argued in court.

Lama rejected that argument, saying he did not find bad faith and that it was reasonable for the prosecution to reassess their case after he limited their expert witnesses.

 

[Aloe]

If Linda Stanley is so in over her head, can she be recalled? Removed from office? How to get that started?

I think IE may know.

 

[WingsOverTX]

The prosecutors were clear about why they moved to dismiss the charges—they don’t have enough evidence for a conviction. If the trial was held this month they would lose. In fact, they appear to have no real evidence even that Suzanne is dead (I believe she is, but they can’t prove it), much less that Barry killed her. And the evidence they do have implicates people other than Barry. The arrest was extremely premature and prosecutors are now paying the price for their reckless arrest. I suspect heads will eventually roll for this one.

https://www.thedenverchannel.com/ne...s-motion-to-dismiss-barry-morphew-murder-case

Untrue.

They needed their experts to be able to testify as such before the jury. When that was jeopardized by the judge's sanction for missing deadlines, they chose to seek dismissal rather than be forced to weaken their case.

If you have followed this thread you would see just how good the circumstantial evidence is, especially when bolstered by phone data recovered and vehicle telematics.

The DNA is nothing. Once again, read the thread and you can see the defense is all talk, no substance when it comes to partial match DNA that has been proven irrelevant.

You are making a lot of assumptions. The prosecution made some unforced errors but whether the punishment fits their "crimes" is truly debatable.

If the machinations of ALL parties in this case are enough to ultimately let a killer go free, it will be a cold day in hell for justice in Colorado. And something will need to change to fix the systemic injustices that have us where we are right now. MOO, of course.

 

[WingsOverTX]

Thank you. Violation of discovery rules is a definite violation of the rights of the accused ... in my humble opinion. The prosecution is required to disclose all documents supporting criminal charges within a specific number of days after charges are laid. If the prosecution cannot produce their evidence, the charges are not supported. Isn't that true? Then charges must be dismissed.

If 12/14 prosecution witnesses did not have their evidence ready after charges are laid, that suggests that the prosecution case is full of holes.

So, if I understand correctly, the prosecution did not have a solid case - regardless of their claims about who those experts were - witnesses were unable to produce evidence even after charges were laid.

This is not about being organized. One or two witnesses out of 14 might be disorganized, but not 12/14.

Please clarify how your statement "If 12/14 prosecution witnesses did not have their evidence ready after charges are laid"
leads to this conclusion: "that suggests that the prosecution case is full of holes."

Because I don't get the nexus.

Thank you.