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

[Momofthreeboys]

Not familiar with technicalities so apologies - but would he have to pay the costs up front to bring a civil case?

Depends on the agreement. If the civil attorneys took it on a contingency basis there isn't large upfront costs and lawyer's fees are paid from the settlement.

 

[Seattle1]

Not familiar with technicalities so apologies - but would he have to pay the costs up front to bring a civil case?

Unlike criminal cases where contingent fees are not permitted, such an agreement is very likely in civil cases where attorney fees are often recoverable in the financial settlement. (No upfront payment).

Chalat Law Contingency Fees Denver, CO

 

[waldojabba]

Not familiar with technicalities so apologies - but would he have to pay the costs up front to bring a civil case?

I am also not understanding what the basis of a civil suit would be. I am not sure how they can argue unlawful or frivolous arrest or rush to judgement etc when you have a judge acknowledge in the Prelim that there is enough to go to trial. Remember too though that they have that LOI to sue all the LE individually so I suppose they can try something there. I guess we will have to wait to see how it all unfolds. The D has covered all their bases but IMO they have nothing to hang their hats on but a lot of billable hours and a prosecution that has been very slow out of the gate for whatever reason. IMO

 

[WildOrchid]

They’re slow out of the gate but you’d think they would have realized that long before now and beefed up their game. Bring on more help, get organized, present a stronger front, fix the errors, etc. I’m not understanding why it’s still such a mess. Every time I feel that this isn’t going to end in a conviction, @MassGuy has posts to show ongoing confidence though and his judgement is always better than mine (especially on this case). Trying to remain hopeful but I’m secretly worried and rather appalled at the lopsidedness I see so far.

I am also not understanding what the basis of a civil suit would be. I am not sure how they can argue unlawful or frivolous arrest or rush to judgement etc when you have a judge acknowledge in the Prelim that there is enough to go to trial. Remember too though that they have that LOI to sue all the LE individually so I suppose they can try something there. I guess we will have to wait to see how it all unfolds. The D has covered all their bases but IMO they have nothing to hang their hats on but a lot of billable hours and a prosecution that has been very slow out of the gate for whatever reason. IMO

 

[MassGuy]

They’re slow out of the gate but you’d think they would have realized that long before now and beefed up their game. Bring on more help, get organized, present a stronger front, fix the errors, etc. I’m not understanding why it’s still such a mess. Every time I feel that this isn’t going to end in a conviction, @MassGuy has posts to show ongoing confidence though and his judgement is always better than mine (especially on this case). Trying to remain hopeful but I’m secretly worried and rather appalled at the lopsidedness I see so far.

Don't get me wrong, this case isn't a slam dunk by any means, but I'd much rather be the prosecution than the defense.

We just have to hope that the jury is a rational and logical bunch.

 

[Tumbleweed]

So, I'm seeing a new document released on FB '2022-03-08-MORPHEW-Pleadings-D-17e-Supp-to-Discovery-Sanctions.pdf', a 53 pager SUPPLEMENT TO MOTION FOR DISCOVERY SANCTIONS – FEBRUARY 28, 2022 - MARCH 8, 2022 DISCOVERY PRODUCTION. It is still not on the court website, so I can't provide a link, but is out there if you want to look for it.

It contains texts, emails, and notes amongst LE.

 

[Cindizzi]

https://twitter.com/laurenscharftv/status/1507064814278959113?s=21

You can read the motions filed by #BarryMorphew defense counsel this month in this article. I am still waiting to get the 17 exhibits that were supposed to be attached to the D-17 (e) motion from the Fremont County Court.


Morphew’s defense files motion to dismiss murder case again | FOX21 News Colorado

 

[K9Enzo]

Morphew’s defense files motion to dismiss murder case again | FOX21 News Colorado

Thank you! There's the motions. Off to read...

 

[waldojabba]

They’re slow out of the gate but you’d think they would have realized that long before now and beefed up their game. Bring on more help, get organized, present a stronger front, fix the errors, etc. I’m not understanding why it’s still such a mess. Every time I feel that this isn’t going to end in a conviction, @MassGuy has posts to show ongoing confidence though and his judgement is always better than mine (especially on this case). Trying to remain hopeful but I’m secretly worried and rather appalled at the lopsidedness I see so far.

I’d really love someone who has worked for the prosecution in some capacity to weigh in on this – if we have anybody ?
My assumption is, it looks lop sided because it is. I think the state is just buried by this case in addition to all their others. All the motions by D are exhausting. It would seem the state does not have the bandwidth economically or manpower wise to respond in a timely fashion to it all. I don’t know how they solve that. There are budgets I assume and nobody can find help these days.
I think the judge should understand this since he worked the prosecution side at one time but I am not sure it matters but I have no experience in this arena.
It is just not an even playing field IMO
As far as I can tell, Iris and her squad are counting on overwhelming the prosecution and then sanctioning the H out of them about discovery when they drop a ball. Or even if there is a perception they have dropped a ball. Its all they have.

It’s a real eye opener for me

 

[FromGermany1]

double

 

[Boxer]

DA Stanley. The 2017 censure for failing to file correctly matches the current sanction for failing to provide discovery correctly.
Revealing confidences matches going on YT and talking to much about specifics of the case.


People v. Linda Stanley. 18PDJ058. May 16, 2019.
The Presiding Disciplinary Judge approved the parties’ conditional admission of misconduct
and publicly censured Linda Stanley (attorney registration number 45298), effective May 16,
2019.
In February 2017, Stanley agreed to represent a client in a civil case. Eight days after she
executed the engagement letter, Stanley accepted employment as a hearing officer for the
Colorado Department of Revenue. She began working for the state ten days thereafter. But
Stanley did not advise the client that she left private practice. Instead, Stanley sent the client
a past-due invoice, assessing late fees. When the client learned of Stanley’s new position in
April 2017 from a third-party, the client asked Stanley about her new employ. Stanley merely
replied that the client owed fees and stated that she would find substitute counsel. When
the client had not paid the invoice by April 30, Stanley threatened to send his account to
collections and told the client that she could not in good faith refer his case to another
lawyer.
In June 2017, Stanley’s client expressed concerns to the court about Stanley’s
representation. By this time, a three-day jury trial had been set in the case. The next month,
Stanley attempted to withdraw from the client’s case but her filing was rejected due to
errors in the caption and an improper form. She tried that same month to file another
motion to withdraw, but that motion too was rejected, this time because she had filed it in
the wrong court. She did not successfully file a motion to withdraw until August 2017.
As of August 2017, Stanley had not given the client actual notice of her intent to withdraw.
The client filed a pro se motion to terminate her representation, and the court set a hearing
on the motion for October 2, 2017. Stanley failed to appear, however, so the court ordered
her to personally appear at a hearing set for late October 2017. Before that hearing, Stanley
filed a response to the court’s order, in which she revealed numerous client confidences.
Three days before the hearing, the court considered Stanley’s response and granted her
motion to withdraw.
Through her conduct, Stanley violated Colo. RPC 1.3 (a lawyer shall act with reasonable
diligence and promptness when representing a client); Colo. RPC 1.4(a)(3) (a lawyer shall
keep a client reasonably informed about the status of the matter); Colo. RPC 1.6(a) (a lawyer
shall not reveal information relating to the representation of a client unless the client gives
informed consent); Colo. RPC 1.16(d) (a lawyer shall protect a client’s interests upon
termination of the representation, including by giving reasonable notice to the client).
The case file is public per C.R.C.P. 251.31.

 

[CGray123]

They’re slow out of the gate but you’d think they would have realized that long before now and beefed up their game. Bring on more help, get organized, present a stronger front, fix the errors, etc. I’m not understanding why it’s still such a mess. Every time I feel that this isn’t going to end in a conviction, @MassGuy has posts to show ongoing confidence though and his judgement is always better than mine (especially on this case). Trying to remain hopeful but I’m secretly worried and rather appalled at the lopsidedness I see so far.

The fact that the defense says there is a problem doesn't mean there's a problem. They claim that they haven't received certain documents, but the prosecution says they have delivered them. The prosecution's response tends to get lost in all the defense drama, which gets attention because the press loves drama.

 

[CGray123]

https://twitter.com/laurenscharftv/status/1507064814278959113?s=21

You can read the motions filed by #BarryMorphew defense counsel this month in this article. I am still waiting to get the 17 exhibits that were supposed to be attached to the D-17 (e) motion from the Fremont County Court.


Morphew’s defense files motion to dismiss murder case again | FOX21 News Colorado

Thanks for this! From what I read, these filings are attempts to make a mountain out of a molehill and generate media coverage that may prejudice the jury pool. This case will not be dismissed. The defense may try to use some of these arguments during the trial. We'll see if the jury is in the market for eyewash.

 

[mrjitty]

As far as I can tell, Iris and her squad are counting on overwhelming the prosecution and then sanctioning the H out of them about discovery when they drop a ball. Or even if there is a perception they have dropped a ball. Its all they have.

It’s a real eye opener for me

RSBM

I think we can get overexcited about "winning" pre trial motions which in fact have little or no impact on the trial. e.g the defence went on a huge fishing expedition about the range rover DNA trying to find some huge cover up or conspiracy and now we think this may not even be a live issue at trial.

As far as we know, the core of the prosecution case is 100% intact.

 

[mrjitty]

The fact that the defense says there is a problem doesn't mean there's a problem. They claim that they haven't received certain documents, but the prosecution says they have delivered them. The prosecution's response tends to get lost in all the defense drama, which gets attention because the press loves drama.

Exactly.

None of this will matter at trial.

 

[Megnut]

Regarding the new motion: WHO deceived the Court?

The DEFENSE represented at the prelim that there was outstanding DNA evidence linking to legitimate SODDIs.

It got bail for their client.

It wasn't even kind of true.

I stand by Grusing.

Remember when Barry asked about immunity, in case he was falsely convicted? Classic Grusing:
You won't be falsely convicted.

Amen.

P. 78 AA


Colorado Judicial Branch - Chaffee - Cases of Interest - People of the State of Colorado v. Barry Lee Morphew

 

[waldojabba]

Exactly.

None of this will matter at trial.

Thanks @mrjitty and @CGray123
It seems it's histonics from the D again since it appears IMO that the defense gave a draft copy to AF to report on a day in advance of the actual filing being posted on the court's judicial website.
If you read the filing and take it at face value, the defense makes the prosecution look totally dysfunctional at best. Most people will not read the filing. They will grab onto the sound bites and headlines.
Pretty soon we’ll see Daily mail weigh in “ Victim’s Bro suspects Meth Head Coworker !!!
Perhaps a Nancy Grace “bombshell” MORE DNA !!

More reinforcement IMO that the D has nothing

 

[MrsWatson]

Things I remind myself:
Just because the defense says something doesn't make it true.
Creating bother in an empty room. Master class. Ted Talk worthy.

Maybe the prosecution enjoys being perceived as bumbling underdogs.

But every dog has it's day.

(I'll show myself out.)

 

[Seattle1]

So, I'm seeing a new document released on FB '2022-03-08-MORPHEW-Pleadings-D-17e-Supp-to-Discovery-Sanctions.pdf', a 53 pager SUPPLEMENT TO MOTION FOR DISCOVERY SANCTIONS – FEBRUARY 28, 2022 - MARCH 8, 2022 DISCOVERY PRODUCTION. It is still not on the court website, so I can't provide a link, but is out there if you want to look for it.

It contains texts, emails, and notes amongst LE.

https://twitter.com/laurenscharftv/status/1507064814278959113?s=21

You can read the motions filed by #BarryMorphew defense counsel this month in this article. I am still waiting to get the 17 exhibits that were supposed to be attached to the D-17 (e) motion from the Fremont County Court.


Morphew’s defense files motion to dismiss murder case again | FOX21 News Colorado

Thanks, @Cindizzi for the approved link to the Supplemental Motion by the defense [d17 (e)] albeit minus the Exhibits.

The Motion circulating on FB yesterday (w/exhibits) did not have the Court's E-System date stamp (evidence the document E-filed/served on the prosecutor ) and/or evidence that the Motion was legally available for public release pursuant to Colo R Crim Procedures 49.5.

IMO, the draft copy was intentionally leaked by the drafter (i.e., the defense). (Also, I think e-filing of criminal cases has been mandatory since about 2007). MOO

Rule 49.5 - Electronic Filing and Service System, Colo. R. Crim. P. 49.5 | Casetext Search + Citator

(b) E-Filing May be Mandated. With the permission of the Chief Justice, a chief judge may mandate E-Filing within a county or judicial district for specific case classes or types of cases. A judicial officer may mandate E-Filing and E-Service in that judicial officer's division for specific cases, for submitting documents to the court, and for serving documents on case parties. Where E-Filing is mandatory, the court may thereafter accept a document in paper form and the court shall scan the document and upload it to the E-System Provider. After notice to an attorney that all future documents are to be E-Filed, the court may charge a fee of $50 per document for the service of scanning and uploading a document filed in paper form. Where E-Filing and E-Service are mandatory, the chief judge or appropriate judicial officer may exclude pro se parties from mandatory E-Filing requirements.

[..]

(n) Document Security Level. Documents filed in a criminal case will not be electronically available to persons other than the parties until reviewed and provided by the clerk of court or his or her designee.

^^bbm

 

[Seattle1]

DA Stanley. The 2017 censure for failing to file correctly matches the current sanction for failing to provide discovery correctly.
Revealing confidences matches going on YT and talking to much about specifics of the case.


People v. Linda Stanley. 18PDJ058. May 16, 2019.
The Presiding Disciplinary Judge approved the parties’ conditional admission of misconduct
and publicly censured Linda Stanley (attorney registration number 45298), effective May 16,
2019.
In February 2017, Stanley agreed to represent a client in a civil case. Eight days after she
executed the engagement letter, Stanley accepted employment as a hearing officer for the
Colorado Department of Revenue. She began working for the state ten days thereafter. But
Stanley did not advise the client that she left private practice. Instead, Stanley sent the client
a past-due invoice, assessing late fees. When the client learned of Stanley’s new position in
April 2017 from a third-party, the client asked Stanley about her new employ. Stanley merely
replied that the client owed fees and stated that she would find substitute counsel. When
the client had not paid the invoice by April 30, Stanley threatened to send his account to
collections and told the client that she could not in good faith refer his case to another
lawyer.
In June 2017, Stanley’s client expressed concerns to the court about Stanley’s
representation. By this time, a three-day jury trial had been set in the case. The next month,
Stanley attempted to withdraw from the client’s case but her filing was rejected due to
errors in the caption and an improper form. She tried that same month to file another
motion to withdraw, but that motion too was rejected, this time because she had filed it in
the wrong court. She did not successfully file a motion to withdraw until August 2017.
As of August 2017, Stanley had not given the client actual notice of her intent to withdraw.
The client filed a pro se motion to terminate her representation, and the court set a hearing
on the motion for October 2, 2017. Stanley failed to appear, however, so the court ordered
her to personally appear at a hearing set for late October 2017. Before that hearing, Stanley
filed a response to the court’s order, in which she revealed numerous client confidences.
Three days before the hearing, the court considered Stanley’s response and granted her
motion to withdraw.
Through her conduct, Stanley violated Colo. RPC 1.3 (a lawyer shall act with reasonable
diligence and promptness when representing a client); Colo. RPC 1.4(a)(3) (a lawyer shall
keep a client reasonably informed about the status of the matter); Colo. RPC 1.6(a) (a lawyer
shall not reveal information relating to the representation of a client unless the client gives
informed consent); Colo. RPC 1.16(d) (a lawyer shall protect a client’s interests upon
termination of the representation, including by giving reasonable notice to the client).
The case file is public per C.R.C.P. 251.31.

The keyword here is CIVIL CASE...