Found Deceased CO - Suzanne Morphew, 49, Chaffee Co, 10 May 2020 *Case dismissed w/o prejudice* #106

[mrjitty]

^^rsbm
It's very clear to me why the defense fought so hard to keep the prosecution from admitting BM's interviews in their entirety to be played during the trial.

Yes - noticeable once more that IE claims thing BM said but doesn't include the actual quotes

 

[mrjitty]

Pg 56
No. 309 and no. 310 - is it me, or are these reading contradictory? 309 JL advises that he deletes whatsapp/linkedin as he doesn't want Barry, Suzanne's daughters, his wife etc to find out about their affair, but in 310 its omitted from AA that he purposefully deleted these apps because he didn't want the affair to be found out?
But it's not been omitted because he did say he deleted them because of that reason in the point above which is in the AA

Am I misreading it or something because right now, it makes absolutely no bloody sense.

moo

Welcome to the world of IE

 

[mrjitty]

Yes -- and according to the defense, Grusing's behavior was so egregious that there's not even a law on the books to account for his actions!

51. Congress has provided no adequate remedy for the constitutional violations committed by Defendant Grusing.

What really annoys me is she keeps claiming Grusing gave barry a pin map that was lies - but the pin map actually plotted the actual data

the defence can come up with reasons to explain why the data was incorrect, but the actual data points are a fact. - they are not 'false and misleading" nor did the CAST expert say they were.

I hope the FBI drop a brick on this case - it really is outrageous to have this filed against a top agent

ETA the CAST expert makes the point i have made previously - if you look at other nights, you might get an idea if the phone did drift around or whether GPS was relatively accurate.

 

[mrjitty]

@Seattle1 how did the prosection deal with this running at 50mph stuff at the prelim? I notice IE offers no source for that claim - she just tosses it in there as if it were proven.

 

[Seattle1]

Pg 56
No. 309 and no. 310 - is it me, or are these reading contradictory? 309 JL advises that he deletes whatsapp/linkedin as he doesn't want Barry, Suzanne's daughters, his wife etc to find out about their affair, but in 310 its omitted from AA that he purposefully deleted these apps because he didn't want the affair to be found out?
But it's not been omitted because he did say he deleted them because of that reason in the point above which is in the AA

Am I misreading it or something because right now, it makes absolutely no bloody sense.

moo

Nope, it's not you.

Sadly, this is what became typical in the criminal case where IE repeatedly filed motions using her version that completely disregarded the facts.

A good example is how Judge Murphy would have to remind IE that not being able to access a Discovery file received from the prosecution was not the equivalent of telling the Court the prosecutor failed to provide the file.

Unfortunately, in the end, the Court (replacement) made decisions without considering the People's response to such false allegations.

It became extremely time-consuming having to parse every word of the defense motions for the countless 'gotchas.' And a big thank you here to @mrjitty!

 

[CGray123]

^^rsbm


Respectfully, the Enhance Law Enforcement Integrity Act capping the judgment award and/or settlement by Officers and Agents at a mere $25,000 completely misrepresents the true liability weighing on the heads and shoulders of any Officer, Agent, etc. ever named in a civil complaint pursuant to the Act.

Clearly, this doesn't take into account the unspoken costs and damages each defendent begins racking up from the moment they are served. And even if a defendent is dismissed from the suit-- they've already lost thousands just responding to the complaint -- let alone defending themselves.

RSBM. I respectfully disagree.

Peace officers are only on the hook personally for defense costs and other expenses if their employer acts against them. Otherwise, it is the employer (and its state insurer) who bears these costs. In most cases, unions will pick up the cost of defending an internal investigation if a complaint is filed with the peace officer's employer (which is not a cost created by the Enhance Law Enforcement Integrity Act).

If there are personal costs to peace officers created by the Act that I have not described, please identify them specifically so we can discuss.

If there is a reason we should be concerned about protecting a peace officer whose employer has disciplined him for misconduct, please explain.

 

[Seattle1]

@Seattle1 how did the prosection deal with this running at 50mph stuff at the prelim? I notice IE offers no source for that claim - she just tosses it in there as if it were proven.

If I remember correctly, this was one of the cross-examinations where the defense was using their own expanded report (using a third-party application) implying BM was running through walls at 50mph, and where Grusing calmly responded that the defense had to teach him how to join the defense version to the prosecutions standard analysis prepared from the raw data the Prosecution shared with the defense.

I believe the defense attorney threw her hands up in frustration that Grusing wasn't biting -- let alone swallowing these defense nuggets in whole-- and/or without chewing! MOO

 

[CGray123]

Again, the defense fought to prevent you from seeing/hearing this at trial. Why do you think that? The prosecution wanted the interviews played in their entirety during the trial.

My recollection is that the defense wanted the interviews to be played in their entirety. Do you have a link that will document and resolve this?

 

[CGray123]

ADMIN REMINDER:

Thread is not about Linda Stanley.

Unless your post is directly related to the Morphew case, it is off topic.

Respectfully, I request that you clarify for the group whether criticism of individual prosecutors, investigators, defense attorneys, and judges is also prohibited by operation of the same principle. If such criticism is OK, please let us know specifically and explain. I think this will help everyone moving forward. I know it will help me.

 

[CGray123]

PDF copy here.

CO - Suzanne Morphew, 49, Chaffee County, 10 May 2020 , MEDIA,MAPS,TIMELINE *NO DISCUSSION*

https://www.kktv.com/2023/05/02/barry-morphew-files-lawsuit-against-chaffee-county-officials-cbi-fbi-alleging-damages/?fbclid=IwAR21kZLtMeLuKqg6d6Fgcp-hfuenzHflzOASEaDqMQunQS6GzmOOw4VFCGo&mibextid=Zxz2cZ#lh768nl4deza2xayst Federal Complaint by BM - Pdf...

www.websleuths.com

THANK YOU! Now we can know what we're talking about. If we can stay awake long enough to read it...

At the outset, I think we should note that IE is not listed as lead counsel for BM. Lead counsel is Jan Fisher-Byrialsen of Fisher and Byrialsen, which is affiliated with the appellate firm also listed, Samler and Whitson. I believe Fisher and Byrialsen filed the Notice of Claim with the state, and one of the appellate lawyers attended the preliminary hearing and may have participated.

Just noting that we have a new player who should be taking center stage, for whatever that's worth.

 

[Seattle1]

RSBM. I respectfully disagree.

Peace officers are only on the hook personally for defense costs and other expenses if their employer acts against them. Otherwise, it is the employer (and its state insurer) who bears these costs. In most cases, unions will pick up the cost of defending an internal investigation if a complaint is filed with the peace officer's employer (which is not a cost created by the Enhance Law Enforcement Integrity Act).

If there are personal costs to peace officers created by the Act that I have not described, please identify them specifically so we can discuss.

If there is a reason we should be concerned about protecting a peace officer whose employer has disciplined him for misconduct, please explain.

Stop the cart! It makes no sense that the employer or union would pick up any personal liability that is the subject of the entire Act!

Please link the final senate bill and/or the Act and I'll help you out. Too busy right now with the Stauch trial.

From memory, this legislation assumes the employer indemnifies the "Peace Officer" for any liability incurred for any judgment or settlement against the officer (i.e., immunity applies), EXCEPT when the employer determines the PO was in violation.

This ^^ (in violation) is when the ban on qualified immunity applies and the subject that the Act.

 

[CGray123]

Stop the cart! It makes no sense that the employer or union would pick up any personal liability that is the subject of the entire Act!

Please link the final senate bill and/or the Act and I'll help you out. Too busy right now with the Stauch trial.

From memory, this legislation assumes the employer indemnifies the "Peace Officer" for any liability incurred for any judgment or settlement against the officer (i.e., immunity applies), EXCEPT when the employer determines the PO was in violation.

This ^^ (in violation) is when the ban on qualified immunity applies and the subject that the Act.

OK! I got the cart stopped!!!!!!!!

But please, don't misrepresent what I said. Unions provide representation when the officers are under internal investigation. I think that is clear enough in my post.

Here is a link to the Act in its entirety. The pertinent section is 13-21-131, CRS, on page 11 of the bill. Subsection (4) says:

""A PEACE OFFICER'S EMPLOYER SHALL INDEMNIFY ITS PEACE OFFICERS FOR ANY LIABILITY INCURRED BY THE PEACE OFFICER AND FOR ANY JUDGMENT OR SETTLEMENT ENTERED AGAINST THE PEACE OFFICER FOR CLAIMS ARISING PURSUANT TO THIS SECTION..."

This is an excerpt from the bill summary on the legislative site. BBM.

"The act allows a person who has a constitutional right secured by the bill of rights of the Colorado constitution that is infringed upon by a peace officer to bring a civil action for the violation. A plaintiff who prevails in the lawsuit is entitled to reasonable attorney fees, and a defendant in an individual suit is entitled to reasonable attorney fees for defending any frivolous claims. Qualified immunity is not a defense to the civil action. The act requires a political subdivision of the state to indemnify its employees for such a claim; except that if the peace officer's employer determines the officer did not act upon a good faith and reasonable belief that the action was lawful, then the peace officer is personally liable for 5 percent of the judgment or $25,000, whichever is less, unless the judgment is uncollectible from the officer, then the officer's employer satisfies the whole judgment. A public entity does not have to indemnify a peace officer if the peace officer was convicted of a criminal violation for the conduct from which the claim arises."

 

[waldojabba]

U.S. District Court - District of Colorado​

District of Colorado (Denver)​

CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:23-cv-01108-KLM​

Morphew v. Chaffee County et al Assigned to: Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix Cause: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

Date Filed: 05/02/2023 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other Jurisdiction: Federal Question

Plaintiff
Barry Morphew	represented by​	Jane Holse Fisher-Byrialsen Fisher & Byrialsen PLLC 4600 South Syracuse Street 9th Floor Denver, CO 80237 303-256-6345 Fax: 303-954-0573 Email: [email protected] LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

​

Date Filed	#	Docket Text
05/02/2023	1​	COMPLAINT against All Plaintiffs (Filing fee $ 402,Receipt Number ACODC-9078209), filed by Barry Morphew. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A)(Fisher-Byrialsen, Jane) (Entered: 05/02/2023)
05/02/2023	2​	ADVISORY NOTICE OF NONCOMPLIANCE WITH COURT RULES/PROCEDURES:Attorney or pro se has used an incorrect signature format in violation of D.C.COLO.LCivR 5.1(a) and 4.3(a) of the Electronic Case Filing Procedures (Civil cases). DO NOT REFILE THE DOCUMENT. In the future, the filer must affix an electronic s/signature and s/followed by a typed, not an inked, signature to all future documents.(Text Only Entry) (jcharl, ) (Entered: 05/02/2023)
05/02/2023	3​	Case assigned to Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix. Text Only Entry. (jcharl, ) (Entered: 05/02/2023)
05/02/2023	4​	Magistrate Judge consent form issued pursuant to D.C.COLO.LCivR 40.1, direct assignment of civil actions to full time magistrate judges. No Summons Issued. (jcharl, ) (Entered: 05/02/2023)

CM/ECF - U.S. District Court:cod

ecf.cod.uscourts.gov

Question for those who are familiar with Colorado Law and timing for cases like this :
The case has been assigned to Magistrate Judge Kristen Mix. She was appointed 8/6/2007 and her term expires 8/5/2023. Do Magistrate Judges ever get reappointed for second terms ? Is it likely that this case will be resolved by the end of her term on 8/6/2023 ?
thanks in advance


Kristen L. Mix is a federal magistrate judge for the United States District Court for the District of Colorado. She was appointed to this position on August 6, 2007, and her current term will expire on August 5, 2023.

Kristen Mix - Ballotpedia​

 

[k-mac]

IE picked a poor moment to go after our FBI Agent Grusing.
He is a very calm measured stand up guy.

His thorough outstanding performance in Gannon's investigation demonstrates he is a stickler for the detail.


<modsnip>

 

[Sillybilly]

Respectfully, I request that you clarify for the group whether criticism of individual prosecutors, investigators, defense attorneys, and judges is also prohibited by operation of the same principle. If such criticism is OK, please let us know specifically and explain. I think this will help everyone moving forward. I know it will help me.

It's fine to respectfully critique, discuss, and question what the judiciary / officers of the court are doing related to the Morphew case. The type of discussion I was referring to were, for example, a lengthy article about LS that did not have any content whatsoever in relation to the Morphew case. (It was about Fremont County being the only county having issues with LS, and the very tiny reference to the fact that Spezze and Salida County had no issues and were not involved in any complaint.) The Morphew case wasn't even mentioned, and as the article was unrelated to the Morphew case, that type of article is off limits.

By contrast for example, there is an April 18 article about IE having filed a complaint against LS and other attorneys involved in the Morphew case:

Barry Morphew’s attorney files complaint against DA, 6 other prosecutors in case

Nearly a year after charges were dismissed against Barry Morphew, who was accused of killing his wife Suzanne, his attorneys are filing a complaint against the District Attorney and prosecutors inv…

kdvr.com

As the above type of article relates directly to the Morphew case, it is allowed for discussion.

Before submitting a post, review it and ask yourself "What does this have to do with the Morphew case?" If the answer is "Nothing", it's not appropriate in this discussion. If the answer is "Yes", then make it very clear in your post how it relates directly to the Morphew case, or at least how you think it might relate.

Hope that clarifies. Any further questions, please ask them by jumping off any post to use the Report feature to ask.

SB

 

[waldojabba]

Here's a news clip from KRDO New Channel 13 from last night
Interesting to me that it states that everyone being sued in the civil case has a right to question Morphew under a deposition. Wondering if this is a written deposition, verbal deposition on tape or ?
This would seem to open up a can of worms related to the criminal case for Barry? As I understand it anything he says can be used against him. Does the same apply to the girls - they can be deposed too ?

 

[CGray123]

Here's a news clip from KRDO New Channel 13 from last night
Interesting to me that it states that everyone being sued in the civil case has a right to question Morphew under a deposition. Wondering if this is a written deposition, verbal deposition on tape or ?
This would seem to open up a can of worms related to the criminal case for Barry? As I understand it anything he says can be used against him. Does the same apply to the girls - they can be deposed too ?

I expect BM's civil counsel will do their utmost to restrict the defense from presenting the evidence that he murdered SM to a jury. They will want the case to be about the process and its flaws as they see them.

But I am certain the LE defendants will all want to ask him more questions under oath about all the artful dodging he did in his interviews, his whereabouts on the day SM disappeared and other uncomfortable questions. Will he take the 5th? We'll get to see.

 

[justtrish]

BIB

As I understand it yes. They are allowed to trick the defendant into making incriminating statements.

But in this case they did not do that. They simply asked him to explain suspicious facts.

And he willingly rambled on and on and on.

I'd love to know how many times he asked LE what they were doing to find Suzanne. How many times did he say, why are you talking to me, you should be looking for her? How many times has he called LE to ask if they have any new leads, any sightings, an tips?? I bet the answer is zero or very close to it.

Look at missing people cases and look at how many times family members calls the police asking for updates for anything. They are desperate to find their missing loved one. Barry was desperate to convince LE he didn't have anything to do with it.

 

[justtrish]

Oh maybe - I think I thought that the data did not show him turning left on Sunday morning but prosecutors were trying to account for the missing 15 miles. LE said data showed he turned left and then he offered up the elk spotting. I'll have to go back and take a look.

So even if data didn't show he went left and they were trying to see if he'd offer up where he did go, why would he say he saw an elk and went left and all that nonsense if it didn't happen? I am not nearly as concerned with their questions as I am his answers. They can't make him lie by asking a question or suggesting he went left. He decided all on his own to make up some story to explain a left turn. This was great for LE because an innocent man that woke up to his alarm, got showered and then left in his work truck to go to a job that morning has zero reason to make up a story about turning and following an elk unless he's trying to hide something. I can't come up with an innocent explanation for him lying about how he got to the job site that morning, especially one that includes following an elk before the sun was even up.

 

[Megnut]

So even if data didn't show he went left and they were trying to see if he'd offer up where he did go, why would he say he saw an elk and went left and all that nonsense if it didn't happen? I am not nearly as concerned with their questions as I am his answers. They can't make him lie by asking a question or suggesting he went left. He decided all on his own to make up some story to explain a left turn. This was great for LE because an innocent man that woke up to his alarm, got showered and then left in his work truck to go to a job that morning has zero reason to make up a story about turning and following an elk unless he's trying to hide something. I can't come up with an innocent explanation for him lying about how he got to the job site that morning, especially one that includes following an elk before the sun was even up.

Point of clarification:

IIRC he both woke up to an alarm and didn't wake up to an alarm.

I wager he didn't sleep at all.

Jmo