Still Missing CO - Suzanne Morphew, 49, Chaffee Co, 10 May 2020 *arrest* #99

[ar3593]

I don't.

It's that kind of voluntary blindness that builds guys like BM.

Would have to agree..enablers is what they call them!

 

[ar3593]

https://twitter.com/marcsallinger/status/1512501983944462337?s=21&t=KgHtEZXwjDqWQGe2coBKGg

BREAKING: Judge in Suzanne Morphew case declines to dismiss murder charges against Barry Morphew. Barry’s defense had asked judge multiple times to dismiss charges against him, citing insufficient evidence and wrongdoings by prosecutors. Trial is set to begin 4/28/22

This trial cannot come soon enough.. Bring it on and let's all watch BM go down! JMO

 

[Seattle1]

Until it's clear to me if the 14/16 expert witnesses denied to testify as experts, pursuant to the Court granting the defense motions, can still testify as laymen, and what they can and can't say on their subjects as laymen, I'm very uncertain whether or not the prosecution can or wants to move forward to trial under these circumstances -- especially if they have an option to seek reversal of all or some of the sanctions. (i.e., get back some experts -- they only have two)!

It will be interesting to learn whether or not the prosecution has filed a petition under C.A.R. 21, seeking review of the order for sanctions, and if the Supreme Court will hear the petition.

I guess we wait and see.

 

[Seattle1]

Just noticed on Page 15 regarding the March 30 hearing where Spence testified, there is a footnote #10 saying the Judge did not have the Court transcript when he wrote today’s Order— just relied on his notes.
SMH

https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/11th_Judicial_District/Freemont/Morphew/ORDER RE_ DEFENDANT'S RENEWED MOTION FOR DISCOVERY AND CONTEMPT SANCTIONS AND FORTHWITH HEARING [D-17A] SUPPLEMENT [D-17B] SUPPLEMENT [D-17-C] SUPPLEMENT AND [D-17D] SUPPLEMENT.pdf

Thank you @Cindizzi. Sitting on my hands!

(And not because of his decision -- but the procedural error)!

 

[Lyanna]

No, I don't think you are wrong.

Today's Court Order actually cites an interesting case where the Supreme Court ruled that the court's order sanctioning the prosecution [i.e., such as taking away 14/16 expert witnesses] was the equivalent of a dismissal!

I'm wondering if the prosecution might take an approach similar to the prosecution in the case cited below.

Court Order [D17] -- Pg 5 of/20:

In the absence of willful misconduct, dismissal as a sanction for a discovery violation is usually beyond the discretion of the trial court. People v. Daley, 97 P.3d 295, 298 (Colo. App. 2004).

From the citation above, I looked it up and offer the following for consideration:

In the PEOPLE v DALEY:

The trial court found that the prosecution had violated Crim. P. 16 by its careless handling of the evidence. The court determined that the clothing might have led to exculpatory evidence because the paint transfer analysis could have shown that defendant's vehicle was not involved in the accident. The court found no bad faith by the CSP or the prosecution.

Defense motion for dismissal denied:

The court determined that dismissal of the case as a sanction would not be granted because that remedy was "far too severe . . . because there is no bad faith." Instead, it imposed the following sanctions.

Prosecution response:

The prosecution filed a petition under C.A.R. 21, seeking review of the order for sanctions. However, the supreme court denied the petition.

What happened at trial:

When the case was called for trial, the prosecution informed the trial court that, as a result of the sanctions, it had insufficient witnesses and evidence to proceed to trial.

Defendant then moved to dismiss because the speedy trial time would expire if trial did not begin that day. The trial court granted the motion, stating, "I find the People will not present evidence at trial, and the motion to dismiss is granted."

App Court's Decision:

The order imposing sanctions equivalent to dismissal is reversed, and the case is remanded to the trial court to reinstate the information and schedule trial consistent with defendant's speedy trial rights as set forth in this opinion.

The trial court must also reconsider whether, given the date of the new trial, defendant can have the clothing tested, thus eliminating the need for sanctions, and if she cannot conduct the tests, what curative sanctions are appropriate.

People v. Daley, 97 P.3d 295 | Casetext Search + Citator

Thank you!

 

[Love Never Fails]

Until it's clear to me if the 14/16 expert witnesses denied to testify as experts, pursuant to the Court granting the defense motions, can still testify as laymen, and what they can and can't say on their subjects as laymen, I'm very uncertain whether or not the prosecution can or wants to move forward to trial under these circumstances -- especially if they have an option to seek reversal of all or some of the sanctions. (i.e., get back some experts -- they only have two)!

It will be interesting to learn whether or not the prosecution has filed a petition under C.A.R. 21, seeking review of the order for sanctions, and if the Supreme Court will hear the petition.

I guess we wait and see.

Thank you. I haven’t seen this so close to trial before. As s lay person I am shocked the judge has stricken 14 experts from testifying. I can’t imagine the prosecution wanting to go forward with the case to trial.

 

[Lyanna]

No, I don't think you are wrong.

Today's Court Order actually cites an interesting case where a higher Court ruled that the District Court's order sanctioning the prosecution [i.e., such as taking away 14/16 expert witnesses] was the equivalent of a dismissal!

I'm wondering if the prosecution might take an approach similar to the prosecution in the case cited below.

Court Order [D17] -- Pg 5 of/20:

In the absence of willful misconduct, dismissal as a sanction for a discovery violation is usually beyond the discretion of the trial court. People v. Daley, 97 P.3d 295, 298 (Colo. App. 2004).

From the citation above, I looked it up and offer the following for consideration:

In the PEOPLE v DALEY:

The trial court found that the prosecution had violated Crim. P. 16 by its careless handling of the evidence. The court determined that the clothing might have led to exculpatory evidence because the paint transfer analysis could have shown that defendant's vehicle was not involved in the accident. The court found no bad faith by the CSP or the prosecution.

Defense motion for dismissal denied:

The court determined that dismissal of the case as a sanction would not be granted because that remedy was "far too severe . . . because there is no bad faith." Instead, it imposed the following sanctions.

Prosecution response:

The prosecution filed a petition under C.A.R. 21, seeking review of the order for sanctions. However, the supreme court denied the petition.

What happened at trial:

When the case was called for trial, the prosecution informed the trial court that, as a result of the sanctions, it had insufficient witnesses and evidence to proceed to trial.

Defendant then moved to dismiss because the speedy trial time would expire if trial did not begin that day. The trial court granted the motion, stating, "I find the People will not present evidence at trial, and the motion to dismiss is granted."

App Court's Decision:

The order imposing sanctions equivalent to dismissal is reversed, and the case is remanded to the trial court to reinstate the information and schedule trial consistent with defendant's speedy trial rights as set forth in this opinion.

The trial court must also reconsider whether, given the date of the new trial, defendant can have the clothing tested, thus eliminating the need for sanctions, and if she cannot conduct the tests, what curative sanctions are appropriate.

People v. Daley, 97 P.3d 295 | Casetext Search + Citator

The casetext link is much appreciated. (Enjoying reading through the 'opinion' tab)
If prosecution in Suzanne's case do take a similar approach and their case is remanded back to trial court and another trial is rescheduled will they get to reintroduce all evidence and all expert witnesses, or will there be limitations on what they can/who they can reintroduce?
Sorry, ianal and its confusing to me thanks for being patient with my questions

 

[Seattle1]

Thank you. I haven’t seen this so close to trial before. As s lay person I am shocked the judge has stricken 14 experts from testifying. I can’t imagine the prosecution wanting to go forward with the case to trial.

I find it really unprecedented, let alone for a no-body homicide.

Criminal Law 101 -- the burden of proof is on the prosecution, taking all the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution!

IMO, leaving the prosecution with only two expert witnesses is indeed the equivalent of dismissing the case.

Seems to me that a higher court might agree, essentially deciding that not only did the District Court take away the prosecution's bench, they also soiled the prosecution's side of the field-- just before the game was set to begin!

And it's very stinky. MOO

More from the citation: People v. Daley, 97 P.3d 295, 298 (Colo. App. 2004). Court Order [D-17] dated 4-8-22:

This discretion, however, is not unlimited. In imposing sanctions, the trial court should be cautious not to affect the evidence to be introduced at trial or the merits of the case more than necessary. In the absence of willful misconduct or a pattern of neglect demonstrating a need for modification of a party's discovery practices, a court should use sanctions only as a means to cure the prejudice resulting from the discovery violation. People v. Lee, 18 P.3d 192 (Colo. 2001).

When fashioning sanctions for a discovery violation, the trial court should consider the reasons the disclosure was not made; the extent of the prejudice, if any, to the opposing party; the feasibility of rectifying that prejudice by a continuance; and any other relevant circumstances.

People v. Castro, supra. A court should impose the least severe sanction that will adequately remedy the violation. People v. Mandez, 997 P.2d 1254 (Colo.App. 1999).

People v. Daley, 97 P.3d 295 | Casetext Search + Citator

If the prosecution fails to disclose evidence in violation of Crim. P. 16, the trial court must fashion a remedy that will "restore as nearly as possible the level playing field that existed before the discovery violation." People v. District Court, 808 P.2d 831, 837 (Colo. 1991).

In fashioning its order, the trial court should impose the least severe sanction that will adequately remedy the violation. On appeal, we review the trial court's decision only to determine if the trial court abused its discretion by entering an order that is manifestly arbitrary, unreasonable, or unfair. People v. Loggins, 981 P.2d 630 (Colo.App. No. 96CA0154, Oct. 29, 1998) (1998 WL 772996).

 

[Love Never Fails]

I find it really unprecedented, let alone for a no-body homicide.

Criminal Law 101 -- the burden of proof is on the prosecution, taking all the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution!

IMO, leaving the prosecution with only two expert witnesses is indeed the equivalent of dismissing the case.

Seems to me that a higher court might agree, essentially deciding that not only did the District Court take away the prosecution's bench, they also soiled the prosecution's side of the field-- just before the game was set to begin!

And it's very stinky. MOO

More from the citation: People v. Daley, 97 P.3d 295, 298 (Colo. App. 2004). Court Order [D-17] dated 4-8-22:

This discretion, however, is not unlimited. In imposing sanctions, the trial court should be cautious not to affect the evidence to be introduced at trial or the merits of the case more than necessary. In the absence of willful misconduct or a pattern of neglect demonstrating a need for modification of a party's discovery practices, a court should use sanctions only as a means to cure the prejudice resulting from the discovery violation. People v. Lee, 18 P.3d 192 (Colo. 2001).

When fashioning sanctions for a discovery violation, the trial court should consider the reasons the disclosure was not made; the extent of the prejudice, if any, to the opposing party; the feasibility of rectifying that prejudice by a continuance; and any other relevant circumstances.

People v. Castro, supra. A court should impose the least severe sanction that will adequately remedy the violation. People v. Mandez, 997 P.2d 1254 (Colo.App. 1999).

People v. Daley, 97 P.3d 295 | Casetext Search + Citator

If the prosecution fails to disclose evidence in violation of Crim. P. 16, the trial court must fashion a remedy that will "restore as nearly as possible the level playing field that existed before the discovery violation." People v. District Court, 808 P.2d 831, 837 (Colo. 1991).

In fashioning its order, the trial court should impose the least severe sanction that will adequately remedy the violation. On appeal, we review the trial court's decision only to determine if the trial court abused its discretion by entering an order that is manifestly arbitrary, unreasonable, or unfair. People v. Loggins, 981 P.2d 630 (Colo.App. No. 96CA0154, Oct. 29, 1998) (1998 WL 772996).

Again, in my opinion, Judge Lama has the appearance of favoring the defense attorneys without reviewing the case history. Stinky, yes. It leaves a bad taste in my mouth. I would rather see the case dismissed and the judge replaced. If that is a possibility.

 

[MemPat]

A witness literally said just that, and it's clear from the AA that Barry thinks he's the smartest man in the room.

I mean, he would be, if that room was full of small children.

.....or tranquilized chipmunks.

 

[Quiet Time]

Help me understand this...

Just because the judge won't be allowing these 16-17 people to testify as experts, at least they will still be testifying. What's so wrong w/that?

Their answers will still be worth something, right?

 

[Cindizzi]

Morphew case a question mark just weeks before trial

In a 20-page order, the judge in the Barry Morphew case gave a scathing rebuke to the prosecution Friday for what he called a "sloppy" and "reckless" pattern of discovery violations so brazen, the judge maintained an earlier order excluding 14 of the State's 16 experts. Ousted from testifying as experts are witnesses who were going to give their opinions as to cellphone records, DNA, and telematix, which is vehicle movement.

Despite the intense scolding, 11th Judicial District Judge Ramsey Lama ordered that the trial investigating the two-year disappearance of 49-year-old Suzanne Morphew will happen as scheduled. Jury selection begins in Canon City April 28.

"This is one of the most severe admonishments I've ever seen, especially in a high-profile murder case," said Denver defense attorney Eric Faddis. Faddis, a former Arapahoe County felony deputy district attorney, said the rulings have handcuffed the prosecution and reshaped the entire case.

Deputy District Attorney Grant Grosgebauer filed a motion April 1 asking the judge to reconsider allowing the crucial expert testimony. In a pleading obtained by The Gazette, the prosecution told the judge that if he doesn't reconsider and allow this testimony, their case will be so crippled, the sanctions would be "...tantamount to dismissal, with the defendant suffering a complete windfall."

[. ]


On Tuesday, prosecutor Mark Hurlbert filed a motion asking Lama to exclude any mention of mixed DNA profiles which were found on the glovebox of the Range Rover and not to allow testimony about alternate suspects during trial. He also asked the court not to go into inappropriate character evidence of Suzanne Morphew, including any mention of alleged prescription drugs she took because this would be based entirely on speculation. Judge Lama has yet to rule on these issues.

There is a chance the prosecution could appeal the judge's ruling excluding expert witness testimony. The trial is is expected to last as long as five weeks. Barry Morphew’s next pretrial hearing is scheduled for April 19 in Cañon City.

 

[mom2chloe]

Thank you. I am expecting my wine consumption to rise during the trial!!

We need a countdown clock ! Tick tock,Barry.

I was contemplating Courtroom Charcuteries for trial. No mess no fuss, pairs nicely with wine or whatever. Easy prep and cleanup. Refrigerate leftovers and bring to room temp as needed. A side of homicide lasagna would also come in handy as a more filling alternative. Stay hydrated friends. Justice for Suzanne!

 

[MassGuy]

Morphew case a question mark just weeks before trial

In a 20-page order, the judge in the Barry Morphew case gave a scathing rebuke to the prosecution Friday for what he called a "sloppy" and "reckless" pattern of discovery violations so brazen, the judge maintained an earlier order excluding 14 of the State's 16 experts. Ousted from testifying as experts are witnesses who were going to give their opinions as to cellphone records, DNA, and telematix, which is vehicle movement.

Despite the intense scolding, 11th Judicial District Judge Ramsey Lama ordered that the trial investigating the two-year disappearance of 49-year-old Suzanne Morphew will happen as scheduled. Jury selection begins in Canon City April 28.

"This is one of the most severe admonishments I've ever seen, especially in a high-profile murder case," said Denver defense attorney Eric Faddis. Faddis, a former Arapahoe County felony deputy district attorney, said the rulings have handcuffed the prosecution and reshaped the entire case.

Deputy District Attorney Grant Grosgebauer filed a motion April 1 asking the judge to reconsider allowing the crucial expert testimony. In a pleading obtained by The Gazette, the prosecution told the judge that if he doesn't reconsider and allow this testimony, their case will be so crippled, the sanctions would be "...tantamount to dismissal, with the defendant suffering a complete windfall."

[. ]


On Tuesday, prosecutor Mark Hurlbert filed a motion asking Lama to exclude any mention of mixed DNA profiles which were found on the glovebox of the Range Rover and not to allow testimony about alternate suspects during trial. He also asked the court not to go into inappropriate character evidence of Suzanne Morphew, including any mention of alleged prescription drugs she took because this would be based entirely on speculation. Judge Lama has yet to rule on these issues.

There is a chance the prosecution could appeal the judge's ruling excluding expert witness testimony. The trial is is expected to last as long as five weeks. Barry Morphew’s next pretrial hearing is scheduled for April 19 in Cañon City.

They'd better appeal, and they'd better win. This is almost exactly like that case @Seattle1 cited, and we do know the prosecution did ultimately win that argument.

Although you didn't include it, Carol also made reference to that debunked phone call that Suzanne's phone supposedly made. That never happened, and phone records proved that.

It was almost certainly a "push notification."

 

[waldojabba]

I find it really unprecedented, let alone for a no-body homicide.

Criminal Law 101 -- the burden of proof is on the prosecution, taking all the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution!

IMO, leaving the prosecution with only two expert witnesses is indeed the equivalent of dismissing the case.

Seems to me that a higher court might agree, essentially deciding that not only did the District Court take away the prosecution's bench, they also soiled the prosecution's side of the field-- just before the game was set to begin!

And it's very stinky. MOO

More from the citation: People v. Daley, 97 P.3d 295, 298 (Colo. App. 2004). Court Order [D-17] dated 4-8-22:

This discretion, however, is not unlimited. In imposing sanctions, the trial court should be cautious not to affect the evidence to be introduced at trial or the merits of the case more than necessary. In the absence of willful misconduct or a pattern of neglect demonstrating a need for modification of a party's discovery practices, a court should use sanctions only as a means to cure the prejudice resulting from the discovery violation. People v. Lee, 18 P.3d 192 (Colo. 2001).

When fashioning sanctions for a discovery violation, the trial court should consider the reasons the disclosure was not made; the extent of the prejudice, if any, to the opposing party; the feasibility of rectifying that prejudice by a continuance; and any other relevant circumstances.

People v. Castro, supra. A court should impose the least severe sanction that will adequately remedy the violation. People v. Mandez, 997 P.2d 1254 (Colo.App. 1999).

People v. Daley, 97 P.3d 295 | Casetext Search + Citator

If the prosecution fails to disclose evidence in violation of Crim. P. 16, the trial court must fashion a remedy that will "restore as nearly as possible the level playing field that existed before the discovery violation." People v. District Court, 808 P.2d 831, 837 (Colo. 1991).

In fashioning its order, the trial court should impose the least severe sanction that will adequately remedy the violation. On appeal, we review the trial court's decision only to determine if the trial court abused its discretion by entering an order that is manifestly arbitrary, unreasonable, or unfair. People v. Loggins, 981 P.2d 630 (Colo.App. No. 96CA0154, Oct. 29, 1998) (1998 WL 772996).

Great information thank you -

 

[Seattle1]

The casetext link is much appreciated.
If prosecution in Suzanne's case do take a similar approach and their case is remanded back to trial court and another trial is rescheduled will they get to reintroduce all evidence and all expert witnesses, or will there be limitations on what they can/who they can reintroduce?
Sorry, ianal and its confusing to me thanks for being patient with my questions

What I know for certain is that if the higher Court remands the case back to trial court to be rescheduled, it's because the higher Court decided that the district/trial court violated its duty to apply discretion when imposing the sanctions.

IMO, common sense dictates that if a game is played with 11 players on each side, and although you have 16 total players, 14 of them will only be allowed to play for one minute each before they are pulled out of the game for good, you essentially only have 2 players to play the entire game against your opponent (i.e., assuming that 14 experts get to testify as laymen witnesses, the equivalent of 1 minute of game time).

Does that sound like a level playing field?

I think most would understand and agree that this is a team being forced to forfeit the game.

I think the district/trial court would be required to remedy their error by applying sanctions only as a means to cure the prejudice resulting from the discovery violation.

I don't believe it's a complete do-over but a review and assessment of each alleged violation where at the conclusion, one side is not forced to forfeit the game because they don't have enough players.

MOO

More from the citation: People v. Daley, 97 P.3d 295, 298 (Colo. App. 2004). Court Order [D-17] dated 4-8-22:

This discretion, however, is not unlimited. In imposing sanctions, the trial court should be cautious not to affect the evidence to be introduced at trial or the merits of the case more than necessary. In the absence of willful misconduct or a pattern of neglect demonstrating a need for modification of a party's discovery practices, a court should use sanctions only as a means to cure the prejudice resulting from the discovery violation. People v. Lee, 18 P.3d 192 (Colo. 2001).

 

[waldojabba]

Morphew case a question mark just weeks before trial

In a 20-page order, the judge in the Barry Morphew case gave a scathing rebuke to the prosecution Friday for what he called a "sloppy" and "reckless" pattern of discovery violations so brazen, the judge maintained an earlier order excluding 14 of the State's 16 experts. Ousted from testifying as experts are witnesses who were going to give their opinions as to cellphone records, DNA, and telematix, which is vehicle movement.

Despite the intense scolding, 11th Judicial District Judge Ramsey Lama ordered that the trial investigating the two-year disappearance of 49-year-old Suzanne Morphew will happen as scheduled. Jury selection begins in Canon City April 28.

"This is one of the most severe admonishments I've ever seen, especially in a high-profile murder case," said Denver defense attorney Eric Faddis. Faddis, a former Arapahoe County felony deputy district attorney, said the rulings have handcuffed the prosecution and reshaped the entire case.

Deputy District Attorney Grant Grosgebauer filed a motion April 1 asking the judge to reconsider allowing the crucial expert testimony. In a pleading obtained by The Gazette, the prosecution told the judge that if he doesn't reconsider and allow this testimony, their case will be so crippled, the sanctions would be "...tantamount to dismissal, with the defendant suffering a complete windfall."

[. ]


On Tuesday, prosecutor Mark Hurlbert filed a motion asking Lama to exclude any mention of mixed DNA profiles which were found on the glovebox of the Range Rover and not to allow testimony about alternate suspects during trial. He also asked the court not to go into inappropriate character evidence of Suzanne Morphew, including any mention of alleged prescription drugs she took because this would be based entirely on speculation. Judge Lama has yet to rule on these issues.

There is a chance the prosecution could appeal the judge's ruling excluding expert witness testimony. The trial is is expected to last as long as five weeks. Barry Morphew’s next pretrial hearing is scheduled for April 19 in Cañon City.

As others have stated - Just Wow ! Talk about predjudical on the judge's part towards the prosecution - if he does not back off on the ruling re expert testimoney in some fashion I really think the prosecution will appeal. Even the judge's selection of adjectives describing the prosectution seem over the top and not even handed. "Scathing rebuke" I think equals - the judge went too far IMO

 

[O.Incandenza]

So if I'm reading this ruling correctly, the prosecution missed the disclosure deadline for all of their expert witnesses, then belatedly filed a motion asking for an extension, were granted two extra weeks, and then missed that new deadline for most of them (pp. 14-15)

 

[Megnut]

I don't know what the specific bodycam shows, regarding officer to officer's observations about a dog's actions that night, but my heart is struck by the portrait of that night. Mother's Day evening, everyone gathered, desperate to find Suzanne, believing however briefly that she'd disappeared from that location, everyone hopeful the dog would find her.... believing she was findable.

Everyone but one.

The one who was too quick to throw her to the m-m-mount-t-tain liiiiiiiiiion.

There were people there that night who wanted Suzanne to come home, wanted her found.

And someone who didn't. He made sure of it.

JMO

 

[Megnut]

They'd better appeal, and they'd better win. This is almost exactly like that case @Seattle1 cited, and we do know the prosecution did ultimately win that argument.

Although you didn't include it, Carol also made reference to that debunked phone call that Suzanne's phone supposedly made. That never happened, and phone records proved that.

It was almost certainly a "push notification."

Which goes to show that Suzanne never turned her phone off.

Barry did.

JMO