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

[Seattle1]

Referencing the defense motion regarding pretrial publicity, he noted that “the court can enforce its own orders, it doesn’t always have to go through contempt. Then we have the issue of who prosecutes or hears the contempt – it’s a wheel within a wheel. If you refile it with an affidavit, the allegations in there are included in paragraph 2 – it’s just one sentence. I’d require a lot more detail in the motion to issue a contempt citation.”

Moving to a defense motion to hold Chaffee County and Sheriff John Speeze in contempt, he denied the motion procedurally.

^^bbm

A gold schilling...

When the defense alleged DA Stanley and Sheriff Speeze violated the pretrial publicity Order, Judge Murphy reminded the defense that the court could enforce its own Orders, and thank you very much.

But this courtesy reminder did not stop the defense from repeating the errors of her ways when IE repeated the motion with a brand new Judge Lama (i.e., misrepresented statement by DA Stanley that was actually a direct response to a reporter's specific question).

We all know what happened here. Judge Lama parrotted the defense's motion -- used the very same sentence in his response.

I trust that somebody spoke some words of wisdom to Judge Lama after his response since he conveniently failed to mention anything about the alleged pretrial violation in his April 8 Order [D-17] summarizing the violations by the prosecution.

(Fortunately, Judge Murphy previously denied the defense motion to hold Sheriff Speeze in contempt at the 12/14 hearing).

MOO

 

[al66pine]

OK Sleuthers!
Book?
Movie?
Origin, please:

"The woman who walked in to doors?"​

Don't recall reading/seeing it myself, but I heard about somehow/somewhere...​

HELP?!?

@BDAJAG bbm
Google is Our Friend;
Wikipedia is the BFF of many for questions like this ^.

A search w the "[phrase title/topic] wikipedia" often gives relevant results. For ex, this may be what you're looking for.
The Woman Who Walked into Doors - Wikipedia
See also:
https://www.amazon.com/Woman-Who-Walked-into-Doors/dp/0140255125/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_product_top?ie=UTF8
"Paula Spencer is a thirty-nine-year-old working-class woman struggling to reclaim her dignity after marriage to an abusive husband and a worsening drinking problem... "
Hope this helps answer your question. my2ct.

 

[Knox]

@MassGuy - Haven't had time to keep up with all hearings and rulings lately. Just one question, IYO will Barry be convicted or is this case in trouble?

 

[MassGuy]

@MassGuy - Haven't had time to keep up with all hearings and rulings lately. Just one question, IYO will Barry be convicted or is this case in trouble?

The odds of an acquittal go way up if these sanctions hold (expert witnesses).

There's no telling how this is going to play out, but to me, it appears this judge has effectively crippled the case.

There are a lot of caveats here, as there are a lot of unknowns.

Hopefully he reconsiders, or this can be appealed to a higher court.

Or (less likely), this isn't as big a deal as it appears.

If these witnesses aren't able to fully explain the evidence, then I'd much rather have the case dismissed without prejudice.

All the pieces are there, but you need to be able to present them to a jury.

This judge doesn't seem to be allowing that.

These next few weeks should be very interesting.

 

[mrjitty]

Well what a cluster.

Hopefully someone will write the well researched book at the end of all this so we can learn what the experts would have said.

Feels like the trial will now just be a rehash of what we already know.

I hope the prosecution does appeal these rulings, as in any event, such an important issue should be examined at appellate level, and in accordance with precedent.

 

[susiQ]

The odds of an acquittal go way up if these sanctions hold (expert witnesses).

There's no telling how this is going to play out, but to me, it appears this judge has effectively crippled the case.

There are a lot of caveats here, as there are a lot of unknowns.

Hopefully he reconsiders, or this can be appealed to a higher court.

Or (less likely), this isn't as big a deal as it appears.

If these witnesses aren't able to fully explain the evidence, then I'd much rather have the case dismissed without prejudice.

All the pieces are there, but you need to be able to present them to a jury.

This judge doesn't seem to be allowing that.

These next few weeks should be very interesting.

Given the extreme sanctions imposed by this judge, could not the prosecution file a motion against his orders in an attempt to level the playing field?

 

[susiQ]

Has a final witness list been made public yet?

 

[mrjitty]

Given the extreme sanctions imposed by this judge, could not the prosecution file a motion against his orders in an attempt to level the playing field?

Yes. These pre-trial decisions about admissibility of evidence etc are appealable.

Whether they appeal or not, may be down to why prosecution was missing deadlines in the first place.

@Seattle1 has explained why the sanctions may go against established precedent, a defacto dismissing of the case.

Politically, it will likely help if Prosecution can paint a picture of COVID woe (for example), rather than general ineptitude.

 

[Seattle1]

Ashley Franco@ashley_franco13

@heekejack
will be taking over the #BarryMorphew case, so follow him for updates!! Jack is a class act and an incredibly intelligent reporter.
Quote Tweet

Jack Heeke KKTV

@heekejack
· Apr 8
#BarryMorphew will stand trial for murder at the end of this months despite several motions by the defense to dismiss. Judge Ramsey Lama wrote that dismissal is a drastic sanction that should only be used when the court has no other options.

Watch again -- news video at Tweet Link

0:00
266 views


5:41 PM · Apr 8, 2022·

 

[Seattle1]

@Seattle1 What are your thoughts regarding if and when the Prosecution could and/ or would appeal Lama’s decisions? Is it even possible? IMO if the Judge refuses even a cell phone expert’s testimony what are we left with? I hate to sound so defeated but seriously what are we left with? Thanks in advance!

Yes, the prosecution may request a review of the Court's Order for sanctions, and I don't disagree with you about how losing Kevin Hoyland (FBI phone/data forensic expert) as an expert witness will be a travesty of justice.

What a difference a week makes! Exactly one week ago, I posted that I thought the defense wasn't giving up on trying to get the case dismissed, and if they fail to convince the Court to dismiss the case pretrial, they will move for dismissal when the prosecution rests -- on the grounds that the state failed to prove its case.

While I haven't changed my mind about the defense's strategy, after the Court Order [D-17] was filed/released on Friday, 4/8, I'm also inclined to believe that the prosecution may be filing a petition under C.A.R. 21, seeking review of the Court's Order for sanctions-- where granting the defense's motions, resulting in the loss of 14/16 prosecution witnesses, is the equivalent of a dismissal.

If the Supreme Court denies the petition, I think the prosecution might go for the hail mary play similar to the case cited below [People v Daly]. This case was actually cited by the Court in its [D-17] order.

In People v Daley, 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.

In the end, the appellate decision was in favor of the prosecution, the higher court reversed the district court's order for sanctions, and the case was remanded back to the trial court to reinstate the information, and schedule a trial consistent with defendant's speedy trial rights as set forth in this opinion. MOO

Rule 21 - Procedure in Original Proceedings, Colo. R. App. P. 21 | Casetext Search + Citator

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

 

[mrjitty]

Yes, the prosecution may request a review of the Court's Order for sanctions, and I don't disagree with you about how losing Kevin Hoyland (FBI phone/data forensic expert) as an expert witness will be a travesty of justice.

What a difference a week makes! Exactly one week ago, I posted that I thought the defense wasn't giving up on trying to get the case dismissed, and if they fail to convince the Court to dismiss the case pretrial, they will move for dismissal when the prosecution rests -- on the grounds that the state failed to prove its case.

While I haven't changed my mind about the defense's strategy, after the Court Order [D-17] was filed/released on Friday, 4/8, I'm also inclined to believe that the prosecution may be filing a petition under C.A.R. 21, seeking review of the Court's Order for sanctions-- where granting the defense's motions, resulting in the loss of 14/16 prosecution witnesses, is the equivalent of a dismissal.

If the Supreme Court denies the petition, I think the prosecution might go for the hail mary play similar to the case cited below [People v Daly]. This case was actually cited by the Court in its [D-17] order.

In People v Daley, 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.

In the end, the appellate decision was in favor of the prosecution, the higher court reversed the district court's order for sanctions, and the case was remanded back to the trial court to reinstate the information, and schedule a trial consistent with defendant's speedy trial rights as set forth in this opinion. MOO

Rule 21 - Procedure in Original Proceedings, Colo. R. App. P. 21 | Casetext Search + Citator

Hopefully something like this happens!

 

[Seattle1]

Reading the latest released order now...

"It is important to note that Chief Judge Murphy did not learn about the unknown foreign male DNA and CODIS matches in the Arrest Affidavit or through the People’s elicited testimony at the PEPG and Preliminary Hearing. Over four days of testimony, the People did not discuss the CODIS matches throughout their case-in-chief. Chief Judge Murphy learned about the evidence because the defense presented it by calling and examining Agent Cahill. Shortly after his testimony, the District Attorney contacted CBI to express their displeasure with Mr. Cahill’s testimony at the Preliminary Hearing."

Oof.

^^bbm

Don't be fooled, people!

Things are not always as written by the defense, and I dispute that Judge Murphy learned about evidence that could have changed the outcome of the PH after Cahill testified.

We have the benefit of Judge Murphy's own words in the quoted post below.

Take note that on this very CODIS and DNA match issue, Judge Murphy was compelled to twice remind BM's defense attorney of her purpose during the hearing (i.e., trying to link Cahill's testimony to a discovery violation), and to remind them he didn't want one of the defense's speeches.

In other words, I have no doubt the motion provided to Judge Lama (most likely parrotted in Order [D-17], was nothing short of one of the defense's speeches! MOO

Agent Joe Cahill, confirmed that a detective from the Tempe, AZ Police Dept. had reached out to them about the Chaffee County Morphew case before they got a CBI report back, but that delays in getting info back is not uncommon.

Murphy reminded defense that “you’re trying to link this testimony to what is at hand which is a discovery violation.” Eaton responded that “… I’m establishing all the communications that we didn’t have with Agent Cahill.”

[..]

The judge asked whether that was in the communications log and how the defense might know which conversations were recorded or reported?

The prosecution pointed out that while the defense doesn’t like the judge’s order, “Your order said we didn’t have to write everything down.

[..]

“She got that info before the last hearing and this court said fine.”

Murphy said he would apply Rule 16, which says that in this situation, there were a lot of discussions “that were more questions, hypotheticals, asking what did it mean when there was a match? One was more substantive; the Aug. 20 with Lindsey, Mark [Jospeh] Cahill; they walked through a CODIS 1010 and the hierarchy of what a keyboard match was.”

[..]

“It probably would have helped if we had had that….. what does it mean if there was a CODIS match [CODIS is the acronym for the Combined DNA Index System] – when I made my ruling,” he continued. “I focused a lot on this that there was this CODIS match, the prosecution didn’t present much evidence to me that they didn’t do that. The fundamental thing is you are trying to say that every time there is a contact that a report needs to be written between law enforcement and this lab.”

Eytan attempted to respond with a lengthy answer and Murphy stopped her saying, “We’re not doing speeches,” but allowed her to get to her point; which was that defense believes there are meetings going on for which there are no notes.

The prosecution responded by saying, “They had the info, judge. If there hadn’t been this computer glitch they would have gotten this as well.

[..]

Asked about the possible Tempe, AZ connection and whether reports were filed after an Oct. 2 and Oct. 6 conversation about DNA, the judge reminded the defense that “What we have bumped into is that the motion got filed in August and it was much more general than the topics today.” He indicated that if Eaton was able to determine which ones she didn’t get, that the prosecution would be asked to provide them.

[..]

^^rsbm

 

[mrjitty]

^^bbm

Don't be fooled, people!

Things are not always as written by the defense, and I dispute that Judge Murphy learned about evidence that could have changed the outcome of the PH after Cahill testified.

RSBM

This is all feeling very Advocate Roux and Judge Masipa in the Pistorius case.

Roux consistently misled the Court, especially by claiming things were supported by exhibits when such was not the case. We mostly picked up on these things on the web where we have time to comb through - to be fair it is hard for the prosecution to object in real time.

 

[Seattle1]

Has a final witness list been made public yet?

No, not to my knowledge.

As of Nov 9, the Morphew case file was supposed to be made public. However, the public court site (County District Court Cases of Interest tab), is void of these files that were only available by MSM in four date batches:

May – June, 2021

June – July, 2021

Sept.-Oct., 2021

Oct. 15 – Nov. 5, 2021

To my knowledge, the last prosecution Endorsed Witness List publically available for viewing was dated Oct 29, 2021.

The 30+page list of witnesses, extracted from the document dump above, is linked below.

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

 

[Kemug]

In People v Daley, 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.

In the end, the appellate decision was in favor of the prosecution, the higher court reversed the district court's order for sanctions, and the case was remanded back to the trial court to reinstate the information, and schedule a trial consistent with defendant's speedy trial rights as set forth in this opinion. MOO

You give me hope!

 

[Seattle1]

RSBM

This is all feeling very Advocate Roux and Judge Masipa in the Pistorius case.

Roux consistently misled the Court, especially by claiming things were supported by exhibits when such was not the case. We mostly picked up on these things on the web where we have time to comb through - to be fair it is hard for the prosecution to object in real time.

I agree about both Roux and Judge Masipa, and the difficulty for the prosecution to object in real-time!

At the Dec 14, 2021 Motions hearing, carried over from Nov 9 Motions hearing that ran over longer than anticipated, Judge Murphy recognized that the prosecution was being imposed upon unfairly by the defense.

Another deja vu where Judge Murphy reminds the defense that during a motions hearing alleging discovery violations, Rule 16 governs in his courtroom, and not the US Constitution.

I recall Judge Murphy having to advise Iris of the very same during her initial appearance with BM before the Chaffee County District Court (it's her go-to response whenever she doesn't want to admit she's testing the waters or using the court's time to indulge in some fishing:

Judge Murphy denied the defense request to sequester the witnesses and pointed out that the new prosecution teams deserve time to get up to speed. “It sounds like their testimony MIGHT weave together, but mostly it’s separate actions. Also, as Mr. Hobart said at the beginning, he and Mr. Weiner are relative newcomers to this case.”

Prosecutor Hobart pointed out that “the restraining order is for any communications, this court has ordered and the rules state you don’t need to write anything down unless it relates to the restraining order….this is such a different turn from their other motions.”

“Ms. Eaton I’m curious about your response,” said Murphy. “Your motion was filed three months ago, and it was NOT heard for the reasons discussed in this motion. It doesn’t contain what you spoke of earlier – it’s a different issue. This is a surprise.”

[..]

“The certificate said we gave discovery to defense … I object,” responded the prosecution. “We never perpetrated a fraud upon this court.”

“So your point is that discovery was produced late, or not complete, or the new material wasn’t highlighted .. .is that what we are addressing in today’s hearing?” asked Murphy, trying to clarify the concern.

“No, it’s their violation of the constitution,” she responded.

Morphew Murder Trial Hearings Continue Dec. 14 - by Jan Wondra - Ark Valley Voice

 

[mrjitty]

I agree with @Seattle1 that the Judge's complaint about the CODIS matches and Judge Murphy seems odd.

Why would that info be in the AA?

And it does make some kind of sense that the discovered info would appear in X - i.e part of the defence case.

Overall, one would expect that the prosecution would deal with all of this via expert testimony at trial - which is the correct venue for it.

But now we have the Kafka scenario where the expert testimony won't be allowed, because the defence has pretended there is some kind of conspiracy to hide this supposed evidence.

 

[mrjitty]

I agree about both Roux and Judge Masipa, and the difficulty for the prosecution to object in real-time!

Remember the "missing extension cord"

(RSBM)

 

[Love Never Fails]

What is so obvious here is that after the defense failed to bamboozle Judge Murphy at the 11/9 and 12/14 Discovery motions where Cahill was left untouched, the defense renewed the allegations previously shut down by Judge Murphy but successfully sold to Lama.

Then under the same false assumptions, the Court essentially axed the only two DNA prosecution experts (Duge and Rogers)!

MOO

It appears, in my opinion as an observer, the only recourse now is for the prosecution to appeal to the Supreme Court of Colorado immediately and dismiss the case and start over. Why they would fail to do this, I could not understand. The people of Colorado do not desire for a murderer to be set free due to an errant judge and a willful defense only motivated by fame and money.

 

[Seattle1]

Remember the "missing extension cord"

(RSBM)

Yes... I always wanted to phone and inquire just how many deposed affidavits were collected for the missing extension cord! And wasn't this long after the crime scene i.e., the house sold?