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

[BDAJAG]

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!

<VR bolded by subscriber merely to segue , infra.>

Concur, in spades, Mom 2 Chlo':
- my youngest daughter's name as well; 36 in Aug? Oy! -

Your well-founded argument keys to the inherently vexatious process whereby we hope to "discover truth" from a pitched adversarial, almost cripplingly-structured contest.

It was while searching for some support as to my evidence classroom recollection/ dream(?) - posted earlier - that "Every person owes their testimony to the State/Crown", that I was rewarded by discovering this observation by Stanley Baldwin, thrice British Prime Minister, uniquely so, during the momentous years between the World Wars.

"I am not struck so much by the diversity of testimony
as by the many-sidedness of truth."​

Stanley Baldwin, (1867 - 1947)
1st Earl Baldwin of Bewdley
KG, PC, PC (Can), JP, FRS

[Oh, to have for the merest moment, in some single consideration, such a degree of perception as this...
And to recognize that moment.
And express it.
Before it slips away.
'cause it was nap time.]

​

​

 

[FromGermany1]

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.”

Why not first of all suspect MURDER, and if it is really not, then find the closest possible reason, why a dead person might be dead (suicide, accident)??
I would find it much more useful given the many undetected murders. MOO

 

[FromGermany1]

I wouldn't like to see her on the stand myself either. Lauren said she was sobbing her heart out in a recent hearing as I recall. But I dont think it would harm the prosecution's actual case, which is what the original post was saying.

bbm

How does she think to make it through the whole trial procedure, poor girl? And MM1 as well? I am very sorry for them. Though honestly I'm not so much sorry in that moment, when they are walking with their father to the court. But basically they are in a very baaad situation, and I see their future life screwed up forever. For that BM should actually be punished at the same time as hopefully for the (alleged*) murder of their mother.

* = just for the sake of order

 

[Kemug]

Well, I'm not yet ready to accept that the recently found remains are not those of SM. Not until they have been properly examined. They likely aren't hers, but let's not jump the gun.

 

[mrjitty]

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.

The Spoto test weighs the probative value of the evidence against prejudicial effect

So the problem in this case (according to the judge) was that the allegations by SM were too general and lacked specific timings.

Had SM sad something like "BM punched me last week and I am scared" then it would likely have been allowed, according to the judge

 

[al66pine]

All the Evidence?

... Let the prosecution use ALL of their evidence. It's for the jury to decide what's suspicious and what's relevant. IMO

@marylamby sbm for focus Seems ^ post is saying in this criminal trial, the prosecution should not have to follow CO. Rules of Evidence* (or not have to follow CRE as this judge interprets and rules on them).

If so, it's a very broad statement. Seems then, this defendant/defense atty should not have to follow CO. Rules of Evidence* (or not have to follow CRE as this judge interprets and rules on them).
Should def./def atty be allowed to "use all their evidence" too?

If no party has to follow CO. R/E, then why bother w those pesky rules at all? Like I said, ^ OP statement "Let the prosecution use ALL of their evidence" is verrry broad.

Or is ^ post disagreeing only w this judge's interp of R/E on admissibility of BM's alleged acts which prosecution wants to offer to prove domestic violence? If so, then I can see basis for OP's disagreement. my2ct
____________________________
* CO Rules of Evidence
https://leg.colorado.gov/sites/default/files/images/olls/crs2018-court-rules.pdf
https://www.hmichaelsteinberg.com/files/the-colorado-rules-of-evidence.pdf

 

[mrjitty]

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

I think we have to really careful pulling together various out of context comments from the Judge when we don't have his full reasoning. The Judge apparently spoke at length about his reasoning in applying Spoto.

In general the judge was worried about propensity reasoning. So if there is some evidence that BM is the kind of guy who hits his wife, the jury might be inclined to think that makes him more likely guilty. But the problem is the evidence of the DV is generalised, therefore the risk of propensity reasoning is too high, compared to the value of the evidence.

Now IMO, this kind of thinking is out of date.

On the one hand it is true that of the many 1000s of women who suffer some kind of DV/DA in their lives each year, almost none of them get killed. So that is the propensity risk - the existence of DV doesn't predict murder.

However, where there has been a murder or serious domestic assault that can no longer be concealed you will frequently find prior evidence. DV doesn't actually work in the popular conception of a man "snapping". Almost always there is a cycle of abusive behaviour with escalations.

So what we see - especially for those of us on this thread who followed the Pistorius case - is that it is common for Judges to discount clear warnings from the victim as just 'usual relationship stuff" that doesn't help prove anything, and which is also highly prejudicial.

But whereas BM having a prior conviction for a violent assault in a bar would be properly excluded (IMO), warnings from the victim are indeed highly probative IMO, given a murder. Unfortunately the nature of DV just isn't well understood in the judiciary IMO.

 

[mrjitty]

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.

RSBM

We lack a bit of clarity as to what the judge ruled inadmissible.

My understanding is he ruled the complaints of DV made to Shiela as inadmissible as far as Sheila's testimony goes. That is because the complaints are technically hearsay and the witness is not available, and allegations general, therefore the probative value was assessed as low. So Shiela can't be asked about that.

That has nothing to do with statements made by BM to law enforcement in recorded interviews. Those will be admissible IMO. The witness himself (i.e the accused) can himself testify as to what he meant.

 

[mrjitty]

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!

There is a high profile case in the UK recently where a victim filed/recorded her own DV and rape.

It seems this is what victims need to do in order to be believed.

 

[mrjitty]

As sometimes happens, we are going down an evidentiary rabbit hole we already went down a month ago

Some of the relevant issues were already discussed by posters including @Seattle1 in this thread

Still Missing - CO - Suzanne Morphew, 49, Chaffee Co, 10 May 2020 *arrest* #95

 

[al66pine]

Contradiction?
@Cindizzi said at post 93: ↑
"Sheriff now saying they don’t suspect foul play. Human remains recovered in Jefferson County. ... 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 ....“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.” "bbm

Why not first of all suspect MURDER, and if it is really not, then find the closest possible reason, why a dead person might be dead (suicide, accident)??

@FromGermany1 bbm and @Cindizzi Thx for your ^ posts which I can reconcile as not directly contradicting each other.
Post by @Cindizzi w quote by Sheriff's office does not specifically say they've ruled out homicide. Just says they are "not treating it as a homicide at this point" (bbm) and are considering alternatives.
It's also possible sheriff is investigating as a homicide but not publicly disclosing that.

@FromGermany1 Yes, agreeing that LE should remain open to homicide as MoD, until they can rule out it out. And as I just said, maybe they are. Well, I hope so. my2ct.

 

[Seattle1]

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."

^^rsbm

Specific to this ruling, again, I think the forum is being crippled by the Court's failure to publicly release the Motions and Orders, as well as its decision to prohibit live reporting of the hearings!

Unlike Nicole Brown-Simpson that made numerous phone calls to police reporting domestic violence by O.J., kept journals, and saved photographic evidence, under Colorado law, this case lacks any direct [admissible] evidence of domestic violence admissible pursuant to CRE 402 and CRE 403.

Prosecutors did not [could not] provide any dates or specific times the alleged incidents took place, saying only they believe they all happened in the time since the Morphews moved to Colorado from Indiana. They also did not [could not] provide any circumstantial information about what led up to the alleged incidents.

IMO, Judge Lama's statement about "this is a case where there is a lack of evidence" is not only being taken out of context, but I also think it's impacting the reader's understanding that Judge Lama correctly applied People v Spoto where the rule requires a four-part analysis to determine whether evidence of prior acts is admissible.

While it's clear from media that the Court acknowledged relevant hearsay evidence by SM, the self-incriminating statements by BM to Agent Grusing about striking his wife, in comparison to what SM shared with SO, under Colorado law, even relevant evidence may be excluded, however, "if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice."

From 9news linked report, Judge Lama spent nearly 30 minutes detailing his method for determining whether or not to grant the prosecution's motion to allow the information to be admissible during the trial (but excluded Lama's lengthy four-part analysis from their media report).

Judge denies motions in Barry Morphew hearing | 9news.com

People v. Spoto

 

[mrjitty]

^^rsbm

Specific to this ruling, again, I think the forum is being crippled by the Court's failure to publicly release the Motions and Orders, as well as its decision to prohibit live reporting of the hearings!

RSBM - Agreed - it's really annoying!

 

[BeckyF]

The Spoto test weighs the probative value of the evidence against prejudicial effect

So the problem in this case (according to the judge) was that the allegations by SM were too general and lacked specific timings.

Had SM sad something like "BM punched me last week and I am scared" then it would likely have been allowed, according to the judge

Makes sense. Thanks for the insight.

 

[Niner]

@Seattle1 - do you know if they (DA) had to take off the
"amended (5/18/21) to add domestic violence as sentencing enhancement. "

I still have this on my notes - and wondering if this should be taken off.

TIA!

 

[Love Never Fails]

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!

Mom2Chloe, this is a really good post. The judge should read this. Thank you for posting.

 

[Love Never Fails]

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!

MemPat, I’m so sorry and agree with you a thousand percent!

 

[Momofthreeboys]

Mom2Chloe, this is a really good post. The judge should read this. Thank you for posting.

My guess is the judge is very familiar with Rule 404. DV in courts is evolving and in the last decade some states have been solidifying case law around what may be admitted and what cannot be admitted with regard to prior acts to address the issue of DV. We have no idea how prosecution crafted their argument here, any case law they cited, nor any rebuttal arguments from defense. On surface there just doesn't appear to be enough evidence to out weigh the decision the judge made in my opinion...operative word being "enough". In my opinion this would not be a case I would pick were I to try and set precedence in Colorado. It is also my opinion that prosecution does not need to give the defense more ammo for an appeal. They already have a published letter claiming Suzanne is deceased, although she has not been legally determined to be dead and that she was murdered by her husband with the DV angle, and he had not yet been found guilty. IMO, defense doesn't need "more" ammo.

 

[Love Never Fails]

I think we have to really careful pulling together various out of context comments from the Judge when we don't have his full reasoning. The Judge apparently spoke at length about his reasoning in applying Spoto.

In general the judge was worried about propensity reasoning. So if there is some evidence that BM is the kind of guy who hits his wife, the jury might be inclined to think that makes him more likely guilty. But the problem is the evidence of the DV is generalised, therefore the risk of propensity reasoning is too high, compared to the value of the evidence.

Now IMO, this kind of thinking is out of date.

On the one hand it is true that of the many 1000s of women who suffer some kind of DV/DA in their lives each year, almost none of them get killed. So that is the propensity risk - the existence of DV doesn't predict murder.

However, where there has been a murder or serious domestic assault that can no longer be concealed you will frequently find prior evidence. DV doesn't actually work in the popular conception of a man "snapping". Almost always there is a cycle of abusive behaviour with escalations.

So what we see - especially for those of us on this thread who followed the Pistorius case - is that it is common for Judges to discount clear warnings from the victim as just 'usual relationship stuff" that doesn't help prove anything, and which is also highly prejudicial.

But whereas BM having a prior conviction for a violent assault in a bar would be properly excluded (IMO), warnings from the victim are indeed highly probative IMO, given a murder. Unfortunately the nature of DV just isn't well understood in the judiciary IMO.

There has been so much learned in the last few years about domestic violence and the ways in which it occurs, that no judge should be blind or one sided. There are men of all walks of life who participate in this kind of violence to a degree and they appear to let other men off the hook for it. Suzanne spoke of it in a text, she spoke of fear of being alone with Barry, her daughter encouraged her to get a restraining order, and Barry even admitted to hitting her when he clipped her nose. Then you have emotional abuse from control. It’s all there. Barry didn’t have to beat her daily for the abuse to come through loud and clear.

Judge Murphy recused himself because of knowing SD and her attorney. If justice is not served because we have to wait additional time for a judge who is fair, so be it. I would like to see Judge L recuse himself, because although he can site one case for his decision, he cannot ignore the evidence leading up to the murder. IMO.

I’m not a lawyer, but I am a victim and will stand for the rights of the victim every time.

I am praying there is someone, anyone schooled in the law who will go to bat for Suzanne now so that Justice is served.

 

[BDAJAG]

bbm

How does she think to make it through the whole trial procedure, poor girl? And MM1 as well? I am very sorry for them. Though honestly I'm not so much sorry in that moment, when they are walking with their father to the court. But basically they are in a very baaad situation, and I see their future life screwed up forever. For that BM should actually be punished at the same time as hopefully for the (alleged*) murder of their mother.

* = just for the sake of order

May we have a show of hands? IOW "Opinion Poll" ?

Are not Etyan & Nielsen possibly the most self-absorbed, devil-take-the-hindmost officers of the court, nay ringmasters, you might care to imagine?

My point is this:
Those children, - I don't give a tinker's dam(n) what the Law, ["a ", you'll recall], defines as an "adult"-, Macy and Mallory should not be paraded up to and into the center ring of what in certitude shall devolve into chillingly heartless, unforgettable(- giveable, even) tortured attempt to "learn" why their tortured mom cannot ever again be with them. Essentially, from the children's perspective, the verdict is immaterial. The reality is their crushing loss. What call can there be to drive that reality home further?
In this publicly-obscured run-up to trial, such a publicly callous, manipulative (ring a bell?) display of the survivors of this accused's family is reprehensible. E & N should be ashamed. Were it the slightest bit possible, so should I'llcalltheshotsBar.

IMO:
His Honor should not wait for foreseeable disorder or chaos to erupt in his courtroom. [His Honor's mistrial concerns...?]
Rather, sua sponte, in chambers, he ought to direct defense counsel to ensure that this accused's daughters express their sentiments to their father at the courthouse door, and not beyond, and to thereupon retire from the premises.