Found Deceased CO - Suzanne Morphew, 49, Chaffee Co, 10 May 2020 *Case dismissed w/o Prejudice* #101

[Cindizzi]

District Court Judge Ramsey Lama announces resignation, effective July 25 – Canon City Daily Record

[ ]

Jon Sarché, the Deputy Public Information Officer for the Colorado Judicial Department, said that about a year ago, Judge Lama began to consider stepping down from the bench.

"Prior to making his announcement at that time, Judge Lama was assigned a number of murder cases in Fremont County and agreed to see those cases through," Sarché said in an email to the Daily Record on Friday. "When People v. Barry Morphew was reassigned by the Chief Justice, Judge Lama agreed to take that case and intended to make it one of his last assignments on the bench."

The District Attorney's Office dropped the charges against Barry Morphew on April 19, just days before he was set to go to trial for the alleged murder of his wife, Suzanne Morphew.



After July 25, Sarché said Lama will be returning to private practice.

At some point in the next week or two, he said the department will issue a formal vacancy announcement setting out the deadline for people to apply for the position and the date the 11th Judicial District Nominating Commission will meet to interview applicants. Then they will select two or three candidates to recommend to the governor who will then have 15 days to choose one of those nominees to fill the position.

[. ]

 

[tmar]

Wow and :
Google:
After more than six years on the bench, 11th Judicial District Judge Ramsey Lama is stepping down “partly for health reasons.” The judge who would have presided over Barry Morphew's murder trial has resigned from the 11th Judicial District, citing health reasons. 13hours ago

Yes, after the distructive decisions, following Defence all the way.
Good riddance.
Pity this didn't come sooner.
Is this to avoid further actions against the drastic work by the judge?
Am I being too harsh, worrying BM is free........?

 

[Diddian]

MOO its lack of prep on DA's part. Not making deadlines. Everything in the E&N playbook is completely predictable, and available for strategic planning by studying the Tom Fallis case.

Remember this is my opinion only.
I don't like that this is what I think, I was hoping the DA was going to bring this together successfully.
But I don't see competence in the state's prep.

Many of the motions in this case were not available for public view, so one had to discern what those motions asserted as fact from the judge's eventual order on the motions, after he'd received the prosecution's response and/or heard witnesses on the matter. Do you know if it was the same throughout the Fallis trial?

 

[Seattle1]

Delaying delivery of discovery limits the preparation timeline for the other side. It is a known tactic and why it's a big deal, intentional or not, a pattern of delay will get big penalties.

Actually, the Colo Criminal Statute specifically provides for this (defense prep time) in the statute by defining that evidence has to be discovered to the other party not later than 35 days before trial.

Any other deadline dates for discovery imposed by the Court are at the discretion of the Judge, and not the law. Anytime the deadline is a judgment call by the Court, I think it's fair game to question.

However, these discretionary dates ordered by the Court were agreed to by the prosecution (as well as the defense) and they rightfully needed to answer for their failures which they did. It's unfortunate that nobody reported on the deadline failures of the defense-- ironically similar to the prosecution.

(See the prosecution's motion to reconsider sanctions -- only available by select MSM and not on the Court site).

MOO

 

[Momofthreeboys]

This is what I'm challenging.

Just because Iris said it, and just because the judge regurgitated it, IMO doesn't make it true.

Only truth makes it true.

Iris convinced the first judge that the Prosecution withheld DNA that was exculpatory. They did not and it was not.

Iris convinced the second judge that a dog picked up Suzanne's scent by the bike and followed it. Not true, not exculpatory.

IMO furthermore, neither interfered with Barry's right to a fair trial.

Never mind that the Prosecution no longer intended to call the handler as a witness. Paring down the 500. Pre-game decision not to call -- and all the handler would offer if called is that the dog never located Suzanne's scent -- no hidden evidence! That's bad for Barry! It doesn't exonerate him! It implicates him!

But Iris got the judge to smell the imaginary log.

Iris invented a livestream breach. Never happened. But the judge believed it, all but boxing out the public's right to be there and the media's ability to report on it.

Iris invented breaches by the DA. calling her remarks outrageous, prejudicial-- but 1. the DA made her remarks before any gag orders or admonitions and 2. she didn't say anything prejudicial! She indicated the fact that the defendant wasn't answering questions and sought an attorney. Fact. Beyond that, she wouldn't discuss particulars of the case. As we'd expect.

Iris is a magician.

JMO

The point was not the content or the voracity of the content as much as the late delivery over and over and over. It started with info they had prior to preliminary but didn’t deliver until after the preliminary and then it continued. Both Murphy and Lama put off sanctions each time something came up late or missing but I think missing the court set date after an extension for the expert testimony documents was the end of the line. In my opinion if prosecution had done their job honestly and with intent we’d be starting a trial. The case was always alittle weak, the rebuttals to the motions were weak, the excuses were weak so in my opinion prosecution themselves killed their own case. It never was the content that killed the case in my opinion.

 

[Seattle1]

I have questions.
Judge Lama gave 90 days notice and his last day is July 25.

BM has a status conference on May 26 for case D82021CR85 ( Forgery , Mail Fraud and Attempting to Influence A Public Servant) .
Will Judge Lama preside on this case?

Also, what exactly happens at a status conference?
Is it just plea negotiations?
Could the case actually be resolved and a ruling made at this status conference?
If a ruling is made, is sentencing then scheduled for a different hearing ( usually 4-6 weeks later ) ?

I recall the forgery case remains in Chaffee County. I don't recall a motion for this case to have a venue change but little has been reported on this case.

I doubt BM will go to trial and this case will probably be pleaded with a period of probation. A former party chair went to trial and even after being convicted by a jury, the defendant was only sentenced to probation. IMO, a precedent was already set in Colorado.

 

[Seattle1]

I think missing the court set date after an extension for the expert testimony documents was the end of the line.

^^rsbm

Honest question: did OP actually read the prosecution's response (i.e., request for reconsideration of the sanctions) and subsequent responses by the parties?

Parties are allowed to respond to allegations for a reason. For example, just because IE declares it doesn't make it true. And same with Judge Lama believing the defense, and making a decision before reading a pending motion.

Personally, I think Judge Lama had much support from the District to resign as soon as possible.

 

[Boxer]

Actually, the Colo Criminal Statute specifically provides for this (defense prep time) in the statute by defining that evidence has to be discovered to the other party not later than 35 days before trial.

Any other deadline dates for discovery imposed by the Court are at the discretion of the Judge, and not the law. Anytime the deadline is a judgment call by the Judge, it's fair game to question.

However, these discretionary dates ordered by the Court were agreed to by the prosecution (as well as the defense) and they rightfully needed to answer for their failures which they did. It's unfortunate that nobody reported on the deadline failures of the defense-- ironically similar to the prosecution.

(See the prosecution's motion to reconsider sanctions -- only available by select MSM and not on the Court site).

MOO

You know, it would be good to see these issues side by side in a T chart.
MOO It's what the judge or his staff should have done to evaluate a complex situation, maybe they did.

 

[EyeCandy]

only reading this case now Have authorities ever commented further on the DNA found in her vehicle that matched some other crimes? Could this person have been hired to kill her? I can't figure if the person is even known? All I read it was a crime tied to several crimes. Could he have been one of those people hired by Morphew and paid cash

 

[Cindizzi]

Continuing...

At least once, if memory serves me, Iris represented to the court that discovery was withheld when she already in fact had it.

Motion cyclone.

And didn't she whine that the Prosecution hadn't turned over the enhanced audio from the spy pen? They had the actual audio.

Follow any of her cases. She's following a script. It's noisy. But that doesn't make it true.

What is sad to me is that I am a solid supporter of a rigorous defense. A trial is supposed to be about the search for the truth. It's not supposed IMO to be a theatre of illusion.

JMO

IE also wasted a lot of the Court’s time by not addressing what the hearings were scheduled for. Imo

Motions Hearing Covers 1 Out Of Many In The Murder Case Against Barry Morphew
SALIDA, Colo. (CBS4) – It was a long day of mainly confusion during motions hearing for the murder case against Barry Morphew. He awaits trial for the disappearance and murder of his wife, Suzanne.

Barry’s defense team filed numerous motions ahead of next year’s trial date in an effort to have the case thrown out.


On Tuesday, a number of those motions were expected to be addressed by Judge Patrick Murphy, but discussions from prosecutors on relevancy of some of the arguments presented, followed by long-winded explanations from the defense, ate up more time than the judge anticipated.


Judge Murphy said the motions hearing would have to continue another day.

The judge wanted to address the motion regarding discovery violations, violations of a court order to limit pre-trial publicity, a second case involving a lawsuit filed by Barry Morphew’s attorneys against nearly everyone involved in the investigation, in addition to other items, but was only found time to address one motion.

“I’d like to have something productive come out of this hearing,” Murphy told the court at one point.


The judge, going just past his 5 p.m. cut off time Tuesday, asked the defense for a specific list of missing items and ordered both sides to meet for clarification on the issues that need to be addressed.

Murphy was briefly able to comment on the issue of pre-trial publicity. While the defense alleges the prosecution crossed a line, the judge said it would have to wait for Dec. 14 at 1 p.m.

 

[Diddian]

only reading this case now Have authorities ever commented further on the DNA found in her vehicle that matched some other crimes? Could this person have been hired to kill her? I can't figure if the person is even known? All I read it was a crime tied to several crimes. Could he have been one of those people hired by Morphew and paid cash

There is NO DNA hit or match. None of the DNA gathered hit on sexual offenses that had been entered into CODIS. The supposed "hits" were partial genetic matches to events entered into individual state or local LE systems and found by contacting other states and locales and asking them to check their records.

What's more, in the supposed "hits" in question (one in Tempe and another in Phoenix, AZ; another in Chicago, and another in Maryland), only a small number of loci matched the select records that had been entered into some other locales in relation to sexual offenses. The number of loci that corresponded to these records were inadequate to qualify as a genetic "match."

Regardless, each of those was tracked down to the actual case related to the record. In the Chicago case, there was no sexual assault; a woman had reported a sexual assault because she didn't want her husband/significant other to know she had been with a boyfriend ("Munchie"). In one of the Arizona cases, a woman had reported a sexual assault by her husband (i.e. it was not a stranger to stranger event and IIRC, the claim had been later withdrawn by the woman). I cannot remember what disqualified the other two beyond the lack of sufficient number of matching loci. Maybe someone else here does.

ETA: Lauren and her panel addressed this issue in her recent YouTube presentation and one of the two former NY officers answered the issue (question asked around 14:00 in the video):

 

[Boxer]

only reading this case now Have authorities ever commented further on the DNA found in her vehicle that matched some other crimes? Could this person have been hired to kill her? I can't figure if the person is even known? All I read it was a crime tied to several crimes. Could he have been one of those people hired by Morphew and paid cash

IIRC the foreign DNA appeared in only that one place, hard to see how that could happen.
Touch DNA can be transferred on hands from doors, railings etc. The DNA in the glovebox was mixed with daughters DNA.

 

[waldojabba]

^^rsbm

Honest question: did OP actually read the prosecution's response (i.e., request for reconsideration of the sanctions) and subsequent responses by the parties?

Parties are allowed to respond to allegations for a reason. For example, just because IE declares it doesn't make it true. And same with Judge Lama believing the defense, and making a decision before reading a pending motion.

Personally, I think Judge Lama had much support from the District to resign as soon as possible.

BBM Thank you for this. Also my take away. It is no coincidence that his decision came only one week after the case was dismissed. What was his rush? He had signed on to see the Morphew case through so that would put him into June at the very least. IMO

 

[Megnut]

I've been thinking about the shoelaces. I can't believe I ever wasted a minute of my life trying to tie shoelaces to the commission of this crime. I forgot to factor for the deception machine the former defendant fed it through. Straight up lie meant to distract.

Same thing he did with chipmunks.

Barry brought boots into the hotel and presumably they're gone.

Barry was racing around his house. He put a weapon in his narrative; LE didn't.

Where are your boots, Barry?

Why?

I'll give him this-- he is distracting.

The facts aren't.

JMO

 

[waldojabba]

only reading this case now Have authorities ever commented further on the DNA found in her vehicle that matched some other crimes? Could this person have been hired to kill her? I can't figure if the person is even known? All I read it was a crime tied to several crimes. Could he have been one of those people hired by Morphew and paid cash

Lauren Scharf recently had a youtube roundtable on this case. If you are interested in a good explanation on the dna this video will give you an education. But the short answer is that the dna has no bearing on the case.

 

[Seattle1]

Many of the motions in this case were not available for public view, so one had to discern what those motions asserted as fact from the judge's eventual order on the motions, after he'd received the prosecution's response and/or heard witnesses on the matter. Do you know if it was the same throughout the Fallis trial?

Unfortunately, the Fallis case is probably not a good apples-to-apples comparison since the 2012 murder of Ashley Fallis (first alleged as a suicide) was not charged until a 2014 grand jury indictment. Nonetheless, I recall there was also drama by E & N (Iris) from the beginning.

For example, the accused had left the state after his wife's death (moved to Bloomington, IN). He didn't fight extradition but after posting $500K bond in Colorado, I recall Iris motioned for the defendant to be able to return to IN.

In typical Iris fashion, I recall she took her specious argument to three courts -- including the Supreme Court before ending up back in the appellate court where the case was heard, and denied.

As expected, the court ruled that it was reasonable that a defendant charged in Colorado to remain in Colorado (when they're a flight risk (duh)), and that the Court did not abuse its discretion in imposing the bond condition.

Linking the appellate case if you want to read IE's arguments.

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/us/5c1b382f342cca46890c7304

 

[Seattle1]

Lauren Scharf recently had a youtube roundtable on this case. If you are interested in a good explanation on the dna this video will give you an education. But the short answer is that the dna has no bearing on the case.

Yes -- it was great to hear several guests and a DNA expert familiar with the case all opine that the DNA, resulting in heavy sanctions, has no bearing on this case. I think the same was said for how IE did everything possible to add her spin about the DNA for circular confusion.

LS's YT recap on the dog handler testimony was also excellent (and also conformed with tweets/articles by other reporters in the courtroom). Nonetheless, I was glad to have my notes from the recap and LS's interpretation when Judge Lama's written Order was released. IMO, Lama clearly missed the part where the handler was getting upset with Iris for taking his testimony out of context and twisting his words to fit her narrative!

Sadly, Judge Lama must have taken a mental break or was daydreaming about the defense's motion because he obviously did not hear the witness. MOO

 

[Love Never Fails]

Unfortunately, the Fallis case is probably not a good apples-to-apples comparison since the 2012 murder of Ashley Fallis (first alleged as a suicide) was not charged until a 2014 grand jury indictment. Nonetheless, I recall there was also drama by E & N (Iris) from the beginning.

For example, the accused had left the state after his wife's death (moved to Bloomington, IN). He didn't fight extradition but after posting $500K bond in Colorado, I recall Iris motioned for the defendant to be able to return to IN.

In typical Iris fashion, I recall she took her specious argument to three courts -- including the Supreme Court before ending up back in the appellate court where the case was heard, and denied.

As expected, the court ruled that it was reasonable that a defendant charged in Colorado to remain in Colorado (when they're a flight risk (duh)), and that the Court did not abuse its discretion in imposing the bond condition.

Linking the appellate case if you want to read IE's arguments.

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/us/5c1b382f342cca46890c7304

As far as Fallis and Morphew, it sickens me Tom Fallis lives in Bloomington and Morphew may also come back to Indiana. Having two known murderers living in my State and both represented by IE makes me so ill.

 

[Diddian]

Yes -- it was great to hear several guests and a DNA expert familiar with the case all opine that the DNA, resulting in heavy sanctions, has no bearing on this case. I think the same was said for how IE did everything possible to add her spin about the DNA for circular confusion.

LS's YT recap on the dog handler testimony was also excellent (and also conformed with tweets/articles by other reporters in the courtroom). Nonetheless, I was glad to have my notes from the recap and LS's interpretation when Judge Lama's written Order was released. IMO, Lama clearly missed the part where the handler was getting upset with Iris for taking his testimony out of context and twisting his words to fit her narrative!

Sadly, Judge Lama must have taken a mental break or was daydreaming about the defense's motion because he obviously did not hear the witness. MOO

I agree. It was like the judge read the defense's claims, made his decision, and just went through the motions of having that witness actually testify.

Why? Because although the testimony of that witness (the actual dog handler) contradicted what IE was representing about his experiences with his dog that day - and the witness specifically corrected what IE was misrepresenting, it was IE's misrepresentations that made it into the judge's order as evidence to support his finding.

I still think it is completely ridiculous that a report would even be necessary from a dog handler whose dog was brought onsite but found nothing. The report of the LE officer attending the scene at the same time should have been enough. But, the judge was outraged that the prosecution did not seek a report from him. However, if the prosecution was negligent in not seeking a report from a dog handler whose dog found nothing, then wouldn't the prosecution also be considered negligent that they didn't obtain a report from every single professional (LE, Search and Rescue, Dept of Corrections searchers, water recovery teams, etc.) who searched for SM and found nothing? But, of course it would have been ridiculous to gather all those reports documenting nothing was found. (However, it would have resulted in loads of paperwork through which IE could comb to find some individual who awkwardly worded something that IE could bellow into a huge puff of smoke.)

 

[Honeynut]

Anyone watching CBS 48 Hours?