Still Missing CO - Suzanne Morphew, 49, Chaffee Co, 10 May 2020 *arrest* #88

[sk716]

Tasty tidbit from the PH. Agent Kenneth Harris on the stand discussing texts between Suzanne and SO:

DA LINDSEY: Okay, if we can go to 5, please. I want to focus on the -- Agent Harris, there's a discussion that says “He kept telling me his phone is off -- is going to be off because he didn't have enough battery.” Is that also a concern expressed by Ms. Morphew during the course of the text messages about the phone -- Mr. Morphew's phone?


EYTAN: Objection, Your Honor. I'm having a hard time trying to understand the relevance of this to an accusation of murder in the first degree. I object to relevance.


MURPHY: All right. I think I already covered that about 10 minutes ago so I'm going to overrule the objection. ​

The "already covered" bit Murphy refers to:

MURPHY: Right. So the objection, Agent Harris, is it, says 'he'. And you're testifying that that's Barry Morphew from your understanding. So to lay a foundation I need to know how you believe that the 'he' referred to those in these texts is Barry Morphew.

HARRIS: I spoke with SO about these texts and so that's her understanding of this context and that she and Suzanne are talking specifically about Barry and their marriage. So, Sheila Oliver said so.

MURPHY: All right, so that's sufficient foundation.
​

"Sheila Oliver said so," should go on a t-shirt.

 

[mrjitty]

RSBM. BBM. This is precisely the possibility that the motion describes, that the prosecution's response does not refute, and that Judge M specifies in his opinion as problematic. I think it's a safe bet that Colorado courts allow this.

From my own experience as a subpoenaed person in U.S. District Court, a witness can ask the judge (through his or her own counsel if s/he chooses) to quash the subpoena or, in the alternative, to limit the scope of testimony. This request is normally considered in a separate hearing before the trial, but it is the witness's counsel - not the defense attorney - that argues the motion. I imagine that if the testimony is limited, the witness's counsel would be able at trial to object to prosecution questions that exceed the limit.

I guess so?

This is a bit of a strange situation in that the witness is effectively hostile, so may well try to squirm during Evidence in Chief.

I suppose this is why such a motion never arose in a criminal contextual before.

 

[Whitneyh]

Judge Murphy has granted the request to disqualify himself.

https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/11th_Judicial_District/Chaffee/cases of interest/21CR78/4855_001.pdf

Just seen this! Wow, this is a foolish move by the defense as Judge Murphy was so incredibly fair. I’m surprised they went this route as this case is going to largely come down to what evidence is admissible and what comes into trial I’m shocked they wanted him off the case I think this is good news for the prosecution though.

 

[Momofthreeboys]

Just seen this! Wow, this is a foolish move by the defense as Judge Murphy was so incredibly fair. I’m surprised they went this route as this case is going to largely come down to what evidence is admissible and what comes into trial I’m shocked they wanted him off the case I think this is good news for the prosecution though.

I think they had to and the judge pretty much is quoted as saying he understood. I have always thought there is no benefit to defense for delays.

 

[CGray123]

I guess so?

This is a bit of a strange situation in that the witness is effectively hostile, so may well try to squirm during Evidence in Chief.

I suppose this is why such a motion never arose in a criminal contextual before.

Actually, it is not uncommon in criminal cases for witnesses to ask the court to protect their rights by quashing subpoenas or limit the scope of a subpoena to documents that are relevant to the charges. This arises most often when the defendant subpoenaes the victim's diary, Facebook account information, email, cell phone records, computer hard drives, or Google searches, each of which is likely to contain personal information.

Protecting Victims' Privacy: Moving to Quash Pretrial Subpoenas Duces Tecum for Non-privileged Information in Criminal Cases

I could not find a specific case in which a possible conspirator or accessory sought to quash a subpoena to protect her 5th Amendment rights in the prime suspect's case, but it seems perfectly logical to me that this could happen. MOO, it's not strange at all.

 

[Momofthreeboys]

Actually, it is not uncommon in criminal cases for witnesses to ask the court to protect their rights by quashing subpoenas or limit the scope of a subpoena to documents that are relevant to the charges. This arises most often when the defendant subpoenaes the victim's diary, Facebook account information, email, cell phone records, computer hard drives, or Google searches, each of which is likely to contain personal information.

Protecting Victims' Privacy: Moving to Quash Pretrial Subpoenas Duces Tecum for Non-privileged Information in Criminal Cases

I could not find a specific case in which a possible conspirator or accessory sought to quash a subpoena to protect her 5th Amendment rights in the prime suspect's case, but it seems perfectly logical to me that this could happen. MOO, it's not strange at all.

If LE sought warrants on a trespassing case to dig into SD’s life to try and find information about Barry the prosecution may have a uphill fight. If you recall the warrants were “broad” in scope. For a misdemeanor trespass? I still think this entire trial is going to hinge on what prosecution can actually get admitted at trial. And I don’t think defense is going to back off the prosecutorial misconduct motion that has been in play for months.

 

[marylamby]

If LE sought warrants on a trespassing case to dig into SD’s life to try and find information about Barry the prosecution may have a uphill fight. If you recall the warrants were “broad” in scope. For a misdemeanor trespass? I still think this entire trial is going to hinge on what prosecution can actually get admitted at trial. And I don’t think defense is going to back off the prosecutorial misconduct motion that has been in play for months.

"If you recall the warrants were 'broad' in scope."
Hey, what's fair is fair. I don't believe any prosecutorial misconduct will wash.

"For a misdemeanor trespass?"
Let's not forget, Shoshona trespassed FOR Barry Morphew - her boyfriend who's on trial for murder.
There are no coincidences as to who was chosen to represent Shoshona and why.
I've been thinking that a change of venue, maybe Denver, might be a good idea.

IMO

 

[DeDee]

Although it's doubtful, I may possess a rare treasure and searched for a Barry Morphew fan club earlier, to no avail.

As an escape during the unhappy marriage to a control freak, I began collecting stuff that I adored. Often, I would need to bid on auction items that were in a group in order to obtain the treasure sought.

So, it was the case with a HoBo Nickel. Back in the olden days, our HoBos would take a buffalo nickel and by using tools accessible to them, a new design would be created. I fell in love with this one masterpiece of Santa. Unfortunately, sometime more recent, someone painted the Santa with enamel but I coveted the piece anyway. It was sold in a lot with a Barry Goldwater 1964 presidential campaign pin.



Suzanne sought love in the arms of a long time friend while I sought love in tangible stuff, too. But, I cannot tell you how much I detest owning this long forgotten pin! Hence, the HoBo Santa will no longer be stored alongside the Barry pin and the pin shall heretofore be considered homeless.

#JusticeForSuzanne

 

[Love Never Fails]

"If you recall the warrants were 'broad' in scope."
Hey, what's fair is fair. I don't believe any prosecutorial misconduct will wash.

"For a misdemeanor trespass?"
Let's not forget, Shoshona trespassed FOR Barry Morphew - her boyfriend who's on trial for murder.
There are no coincidences as to who was chosen to represent Shoshona and why.
I've been thinking that a change of venue, maybe Denver, might be a good idea.

IMO

Denver is home base for the two defense attorneys. That would not bode well for LS.

 

[Momofthreeboys]

I do not think evidence from one trial can be brought over to a different trial but we need legal counsel on that issue.

 

[marylamby]

Denver is home base for the two defense attorneys. That would not bode well for LS.

I know it's their home base and almost added that. However, it's at least a big city. They can't know everyone.
How would that not bode well for LS? I don't understand. At least she wouldn't have to travel.

 

[marylamby]

I do not think evidence from one trial can be brought over to a different trial but we need legal counsel on that issue.

I'm not sure either. I'm thinking of it this way... if DNA or evidence is found in one case/one crime, is that evidence supposed to disappear when it may implicate someone in another crime? I haven't seen any notification that the protection order against Shoshona's been vacated. These cases are undeniably intertwined. IMO.
I would love to hear from our legal eagles regarding this.

 

[Momofthreeboys]

Denver is home base for the two defense attorneys. That would not bode well for LS.

She is just one of several reporters. If there is an issue with her ability to report I think would first be discussed with the station and their lawyers.I have her in my tweet list along with several other reporters.

 

[rainbowshummingbird]

Denver is home base for the two defense attorneys. That would not bode well for LS.

I doubt Barry’s attorneys would request a change of venue to Denver County or any other of the metropolitan counties. Chaffee County would be more sympathetic to Barry than Denver.

 

[DeDee]

Since it is the beginning of a new year, I'd like to remind everyone of what Barry did to Suzanne on May 9 - 10 2021. What kind of person chases his children's mother, on Mother's Day Weekend, with a tranquilizer dart gun? I'd like to know if Agent Grusing considers Barry to be evil. I sure do!


'Since January 2021, Barry has admitted to: chasing a chipmunk with a gun around the house while Susan was outside sunbathing, shooting a deer with a tranquilizer dart to explain a dart and needle cap in the dryer, disposing of the tranquilizer solution during this trip to Broomfield, following a bull elk down Highway 50 in the 4:00 AM hour on the May 10th to explain why his truck would be headed west (where [a] helmet was discarded), and finally stating to the FBI on April 22, 2021 that he looks guilty from the evidence and God allowed these things to happen,' according to the affidavit.

Barry Morphew 'hunted and controlled' wife Suzanne and told cops he was 'chasing chipmunks' at home | Daily Mail Online

I wonder if Suzanne had her cell phone with her while Barry was chasing her with the tranquilizer dart gun. We know Barry was carrying his due to the "frantic pinging". Would the two phones' pings match during these terrifying moments of Suzanne's last moments alive?


On March 5 of this year, 10 months after the disappearance of Suzanne Morphew, her husband Barry asked two FBI agents, "What about immunity? Can you give me immunity if I just sit and open my life to you?"

... Grusing testified that he and Harris suspected the tranquilizer gun, described as .22 caliber, had been used on May 9 and asked a veterinarian who worked with Colorado Parks and Wildlife what effect a tranquilizer dart would have on a 120-pound woman.

The veterinarian said full sedation would occur within minutes and would last for about eight hours. The affected person would run for 2 to 3 minutes before they would start to feel wobbly and unstable, according to the testimony. The veterinarian told the FBI agents that the person's breathing would become difficult because of cerebral hypoxia -- when the brain doesn't get enough oxygen -- and would sound like a snore, Grusing testified.

Barry Morphew asked investigators: 'What about immunity?'

 

[mrjitty]

I do not think evidence from one trial can be brought over to a different trial but we need legal counsel on that issue.

Generally the prosecution can seek to introduce any evidence they see as relevant to the trial. It does not matter if it was used or gathered in a different investigation

The BM trial is not an opportunity to re-litigate the granting of the search warrants IMO

However BM's attorneys can of course oppose any evidence turned up via those warrants under the usual rules.

It is hard to comment at this stage, because we simply don't really know how the prosecution intend to make use of this witness. One can guess it will turn around BM's lack of concern for SM, and perhaps efforts to obstruct justice.

 

[mrjitty]

Actually, it is not uncommon in criminal cases for witnesses to ask the court to protect their rights by quashing subpoenas or limit the scope of a subpoena to documents that are relevant to the charges. This arises most often when the defendant subpoenaes the victim's diary, Facebook account information, email, cell phone records, computer hard drives, or Google searches, each of which is likely to contain personal information.

Protecting Victims' Privacy: Moving to Quash Pretrial Subpoenas Duces Tecum for Non-privileged Information in Criminal Cases

I could not find a specific case in which a possible conspirator or accessory sought to quash a subpoena to protect her 5th Amendment rights in the prime suspect's case, but it seems perfectly logical to me that this could happen. MOO, it's not strange at all.

Thanks for this - it's a great point.

 

[Whitneyh]

I think defense wants to challenge some of the search warrants that judge Murphy signed and that’s why they want a new judge. Jmo.

 

[303gmf]

Denver is home base for the two defense attorneys. That would not bode well for LS.

LS is based in Colorado Springs at Fox 21 news

 

[Momofthreeboys]

I think defense wants to challenge some of the search warrants that judge Murphy signed and that’s why they want a new judge. Jmo.

They don’t need a different judge to file motions. Whoever presides will hear the motions. From day one I have expected them to challenge admissibility of a number of things as the trial neared. The judge even told the prosecutor there were things in the AA that would probably not be admissible.