Still Missing CO - Suzanne Morphew, 49, Chaffee Co, 10 May 2020 *arrest* #98

[Cindizzi]

I dug up Spoto a thread or two ago.

The decision makes sense. I just don't agree with the precedents as they currently stand as regards DV.

The evidence is prejudicial for good reason. Indeed that is the whole point. So saying we are going to exclude it because people think it makes Barry look more guilty is an odd result IMO

And I say this as someone who is against propensity reasoning in criminal cases....

IANAL and don’t really understand the HOW of the reasoning, but I guess I have to respect the WHY the rules are applied.

What I find especially upsetting is that on February 10 the Judge said :

"(The information) is relevant and raises great suspicion, but only if I use it in a prohibited purpose," Lama said before revealing his decision, citing several legal analysis techniques he used to make his decision.
Judge denies motions in Barry Morphew hearing | 9news.com

Then on March 10 the Judge said:

https://twitter.com/ashleykktv/status/1502025238661402628?s=21
One witness was a DV expert.

The judge prohibited any discussion of any possible prior DV instances in this case during trial.

The judge said introducing this could be extremely dangerous as "this is a case where there is a lack of evidence."

So after saying this information is relevant and highly suspicious, he rules that there is no evidence of it. Isn’t the reason there will be no evidence of it is BECAUSE he won’t allow it to be evidence??

This just seems so unfair. JMO

 

[Momofthreeboys]

IANAL and don’t really understand the HOW of the reasoning, but I guess I have to respect the WHY the rules are applied.

What I find especially upsetting is that on February 10 the Judge said :

"(The information) is relevant and raises great suspicion, but only if I use it in a prohibited purpose," Lama said before revealing his decision, citing several legal analysis techniques he used to make his decision.
Judge denies motions in Barry Morphew hearing | 9news.com

Then on March 10 the Judge said:

https://twitter.com/ashleykktv/status/1502025238661402628?s=21
One witness was a DV expert.

The judge prohibited any discussion of any possible prior DV instances in this case during trial.

The judge said introducing this could be extremely dangerous as "this is a case where there is a lack of evidence."

So after saying this information is relevant and highly suspicious, he rules that there is no evidence of it. Isn’t the reason there will be no evidence of it is BECAUSE he won’t allow it to be evidence??

This just seems so unfair. JMO

Suspicion is not evidence though. My guess is if prosecution has evidence and isn’t relying on characterization or hearsay to make that case the end result might be different. That burden is squarely on prosecution.

 

[Cindizzi]

Suspicion is not evidence though. My guess is if prosecution has evidence and isn’t relying on characterization or hearsay to make that case the end result might be different. That burden is squarely on prosecution.

The Judge didn’t say there was just a suspicion. He said he found the information relevant and it raises great suspicion.

 

[mom2chloe]

The Judge didn’t say there was just a suspicion. He said he found the information relevant and it raises great suspicion.

So what changed? Also confirming that you are referring only to Judge Lama and not Murphy? TIA. This is making me absolutely crazy! Anyone else?

 

[mom2chloe]

DV doesn’t only apply to women. I gave a speech in the late 80’s or early 90’s in college specifically about DV crimes and at that time the number one reason homosexual males were reporting to ERs across the country was DV. My comment was met with an audible gasp from the entire room of males and females. I wish I still had all that information available. I do know there is a national clearinghouse that details all of the info.
Why does the law differ from the facts in this case? Is the judge disallowing this information because of law or something else? Surely he has a sister or niece maybe even a gay cousin who has experienced DV. Who doesn’t know someone who has been impacted by DV if not themselves surely someone they know. Sadly it is rampant and I can’t imagine any other human not knowing the experiences of others. Again denying based on the law or facts? We need change. Everyone is a potential victim and certainly not confined to women only. IMO

 

[Cindizzi]

So what changed? Also confirming that you are referring only to Judge Lama and not Murphy? TIA. This is making me absolutely crazy! Anyone else?

Yes Judge Lama.
In 2 different Motions Hearings. February 10 and March 10.

What I find especially upsetting is that on February 10 the Judge said :

"(The information) is relevant and raises great suspicion, but only if I use it in a prohibited purpose," Lama said before revealing his decision, citing several legal analysis techniques he used to make his decision.
Judge denies motions in Barry Morphew hearing | 9news.com

Then on March 10 the Judge said:

https://twitter.com/ashleykktv/status/1502025238661402628?s=21
One witness was a DV expert.

The judge prohibited any discussion of any possible prior DV instances in this case during trial.

The judge said introducing this could be extremely dangerous as "this is a case where there is a lack of evidence."

So after saying this information is relevant and highly suspicious, he rules that there is no evidence of it. Isn’t the reason there will be no evidence of it is BECAUSE he won’t allow it to be evidence??

This just seems so unfair. JMO

 

[mom2chloe]

Yes Judge Lama.
In 2 different Motions Hearings. February 10 and March 10.

What I find especially upsetting is that on February 10 the Judge said :

"(The information) is relevant and raises great suspicion, but only if I use it in a prohibited purpose," Lama said before revealing his decision, citing several legal analysis techniques he used to make his decision.
Judge denies motions in Barry Morphew hearing | 9news.com

Then on March 10 the Judge said:

https://twitter.com/ashleykktv/status/1502025238661402628?s=21
One witness was a DV expert.

The judge prohibited any discussion of any possible prior DV instances in this case during trial.

The judge said introducing this could be extremely dangerous as "this is a case where there is a lack of evidence."

So after saying this information is relevant and highly suspicious, he rules that there is no evidence of it. Isn’t the reason there will be no evidence of it is BECAUSE he won’t allow it to be evidence??

This just seems so unfair. JMO

We need a lawyer to weigh in on this. @Kristin Esq. and @Seattle1. Please and thank you. What are we misunderstanding here?

 

[Cindizzi]

We need a lawyer to weigh in on this. @Kristin Esq. and @Seattle1. Please and thank you. What are we misunderstanding here?

I’m not a lawyer, but Lama cited People v. Soto in his decision.
The way I understand it is that the admission of prior acts does not outweigh the prejudice it would cause to the Defendant. JMO

People v. Spoto

 

[Warwick7]

Sheriff now saying they don’t suspect foul play.

Human remains recovered in Jefferson County
Just after noon, the sheriff’s office updated that it had successfully recovered the remains and did not suspect foul play.

Hikers find human remains in Clear Creek Canyon


The remains were found too late in the day to mount a recovery operation Saturday, sheriff’s spokeswoman Jenny Fulton said Sunday. She said the death appeared to have happened at least months, and perhaps years ago.

“We don’t know the circumstances,” she said. “…We’re not treating it as a homicide at this point, it could be an accidental death, a suicide, a medical issue.”

Yet, someone's family will now have closer...

 

[mom2chloe]

I’m not a lawyer, but Lama cited People v. Soto in his decision.
The way I understand it is that the admission of prior acts does not outweigh the prejudice it would cause to the Defendant. JMO

People v. Spoto

I understand and IMO it is wrong to not allow admission of prior acts. Barry in his own words admitted to clipping her nose. I still don’t completely understand why this is not allowed. I think what I am needing is an understanding of why it is not allowed especially when BM admitted it. I also doubt that was the only incident of DV since we know the master bedroom door was breached. It would indeed be interesting exactly what all DV Barry had subjected Suzanne to in the past. If stalking your wife and her friend in your own home under the pretense of oh I just smelled bad after hunting for a week and didn’t want to be seen/smelled that way is a justification for stalking and creeping them out then why not just text Suzanne and hey I smell really bad could you please let me in discreetly for a long shower so I can join you ladies for some conversation? It these statements are not allowed I would rather see a judge admit them and deal with appeals issues later. Why are DV victims including children silenced from historical events that they experienced? It’s wrong and the truth is the truth no matter how prejudiced it may appear. I hope I’m being clear. If a child is victim of abuse whether DV or otherwise why are their testaments not allowed within the law? There is something wrong when the law doesn’t permit the truth or evidence of the truth to be admitted. It is up to the jurors to decide what they believe to be the truth or most likely believable. I supposed I am chapped the most by what the judge is refusing to be admitted. It is a disservice to every victim IMO. Suzanne’s voice needs to be acknowledged and heard and I feel she is being additionally victimized by this judge’s decision. Love and respect you Cindizzi and hope I’m not coming across the wrong way. Cheers!

 

[MemPat]

It has to start somewhere that women who experience domestic violence speak of it the very first time it occurs. Tell somebody. Use the Morphew case as a reason to discuss the topic on social media and pound home the point that it's inexcusable!

My first memories as a child are of the screaming voice of my father berating my mother.
The memory of him throwing a coffee cup at her and making her leg bleed has been frozen in my mind for 65 years. Do you think we ever discussed it or she called the police or even told her family? No.

Ten years later when teenaged me had to get a butcher knife to keep him from cutting her throat do you think the police were called? No, again. The good news is that my mother finally got a divorce. (The attorney had to pull a gun from his desk drawer to make my bullying father sign!)

I tell all this to make the point that Barry's controlling rages were most likely everyday fare throughout the girls' lives. Suzanne probably minimized it all and built him up to them. Add the messages from their church that men control the universe and we have another generation primed for abuse.

Suzanne's legacy may be that the judicial system in Colorado will be altered or at least that her girls vow to never let anyone "clip" them even once!

 

[marylamby]

IANAL and don’t really understand the HOW of the reasoning, but I guess I have to respect the WHY the rules are applied.

What I find especially upsetting is that on February 10 the Judge said :

"(The information) is relevant and raises great suspicion, but only if I use it in a prohibited purpose," Lama said before revealing his decision, citing several legal analysis techniques he used to make his decision.
Judge denies motions in Barry Morphew hearing | 9news.com

Then on March 10 the Judge said:

https://twitter.com/ashleykktv/status/1502025238661402628?s=21
One witness was a DV expert.

The judge prohibited any discussion of any possible prior DV instances in this case during trial.

The judge said introducing this could be extremely dangerous as "this is a case where there is a lack of evidence."

So after saying this information is relevant and highly suspicious, he rules that there is no evidence of it. Isn’t the reason there will be no evidence of it is BECAUSE he won’t allow it to be evidence??

This just seems so unfair. JMO

100%. Judge Lama has made his mind up before the trial has begun. Isn't that special.

IMO

 

[mom2chloe]

100%. Judge Lama has made his mind up before the trial has begun. Isn't that special.

IMO

This is exactly what is chapping me. I don’t understand the why. Do you? Does anyone?

 

[marylamby]

DV doesn’t only apply to women. I gave a speech in the late 80’s or early 90’s in college specifically about DV crimes and at that time the number one reason homosexual males were reporting to ERs across the country was DV. My comment was met with an audible gasp from the entire room of males and females. I wish I still had all that information available. I do know there is a national clearinghouse that details all of the info.
Why does the law differ from the facts in this case? Is the judge disallowing this information because of law or something else? Surely he has a sister or niece maybe even a gay cousin who has experienced DV. Who doesn’t know someone who has been impacted by DV if not themselves surely someone they know. Sadly it is rampant and I can’t imagine any other human not knowing the experiences of others. Again denying based on the law or facts? We need change. Everyone is a potential victim and certainly not confined to women only. IMO

I agree completely. I do know he has an ex-wife.

 

[marylamby]

Suspicion is not evidence though. My guess is if prosecution has evidence and isn’t relying on characterization or hearsay to make that case the end result might be different. That burden is squarely on prosecution.

And who is he to try the case. Let the prosecution use ALL of their evidence. It's for the jury to decide what's suspicious and what's relevant.
IMO

 

[Momofthreeboys]

100%. Judge Lama has made his mind up before the trial has begun. Isn't that special.

IMO

What? Now the conversation is derailing and blind accusations with no substance are coming up. The judge is not making an emotional decision. Here is the Spoto case that the judge used when citing his decision. The judge isn’t blazing new trails here like some sort of loose cannon. People v. Spoto

 

[marylamby]

I’m not a lawyer, but Lama cited People v. Soto in his decision.
The way I understand it is that the admission of prior acts does not outweigh the prejudice it would cause to the Defendant. JMO

People v. Spoto

Let's see, an abusive man is suspected of and charged with murdering his wife who was about to leave him.
I don't give a damn about the Spoto case, no offense intended. One case, IMO, does not represent the precedence of DV turned murder make. It sure is convenient tho.
IMO

 

[marylamby]

What? Now the conversation is derailing and blind accusations with no substance are coming up. The judge is not making an emotional decision. Here is the Spoto case that the judge used when citing his decision. The judge isn’t blazing new trails here like some sort of loose cannon. People v. Spoto

I'm simply going off what Judge Lama said himself, that "there is no evidence in this case". That's not derailing or an accusation with no substance. It is fact.

 

[BeckyF]

Let's see, an abusive man is suspected of and charged with murdering his wife who was about to leave him.
I don't give a damn about the Spoto case, no offense intended. One case, IMO, does not represent the precedence of DV turned murder make. It sure is convenient tho.
IMO

Yeah really! 1 case?? 1? I bet I could find trials where a defendant was convicted of murder and prior evidence of DV was allowed in.

 

[BeckyF]

Yeah really! 1 case?? 1? I bet I could find trials where a defendant was convicted of murder and prior evidence of DV was allowed in.

Guess I shouldn’t have said that. IANAL so will wait for one of our attorneys to comment.