Found Deceased CO - Suzanne Morphew, 49, Chaffee Co, 10 May 2020 *Case dismissed w/o prejudice* *found in 2023* #115

[Tragg]

Interesting discussion!

I fault myself for using the word "plan", which has no relevance to the question whether Morphew is guilty of murder in the first degree. Whether there was a "plan" can be in the eye of the beholder: it can be anything from an intention to a specific and detailed set of steps leading to the accomplishment of an objective.

The law avoids that kind of ambiguity. For their decision, the Morphew jury will be asked to answer the specific questions:

Did he intend to cause her death?

if so, did he cause her death?

and if the above are true, did he deliberate beforehand?

What do you think?

 

[GOBliaison]

Bluff.

Utter bluff.

Barry deposed would be a disaster for his own defense. IMO

Anything she can do to stall arrest and trial benefits Barry. IMO that's all this is.

Bluster.

JMO

Oh THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU @Megnut !
So ecstatic, this week I'll get off my duff and set about replacing my water-[not tear]-stained USD JD sheepskin. True, the intervening forty-nine years had toned it alot, as well. But I'm springing for $25.00 and mailing costs. Can't resist.
So, read this and eat your heart out, my dear fellow-alumna Iris.

 

[FromGermany1]

Interesting discussion!

I fault myself for using the word "plan", which has no relevance to the question whether Morphew is guilty of murder in the first degree. Whether there was a "plan" can be in the eye of the beholder: it can be anything from an intention to a specific and detailed set of steps leading to the accomplishment of an objective.

The law avoids that kind of ambiguity. For their decision, the Morphew jury will be asked to answer the specific questions:

Did he intend to cause her death?

if so, did he cause her death?

and if the above are true, did he deliberate beforehand?

What do you think?

He, who listened to True Crime stories, even when hunting, afaik, he shouldn't have thought about "freeing himself of a mental and financial burden" before the date of May 10th in 2020? I can't believe it.
I think, his vague plans grew, when the family left Indiana (to start a new life without his old burdens like perhaps a former affair). When BM borrowed $500.000 from his wife, maybe his vague plans were put on the back burner a bit. But when Suzanne had enough of her toxic marriage and wanted her money back and when he had met a new tough companion at some dumpster, maybe his vague option of how to free himself without divorce developed to a more structured plan. At least it would make sense to me.
His plan would have had to be (details of it to clarify spontaneously just like daredevils do):
make your daughters get out of the way for some days,
make Suzanne missing, in fact forever,
have some work object at the same time far enough away (alibi),
let other people find out the "missing" wife (if it would have been the daughters, then be it in God's name),
return to your hometown after the missing report,
make a statement to police (not much to say as you were absent obviously),
let police unsuccessfully search for some time -
case closed for an early conclusion.
FREE to start a new life with money, that no one would demand! The girls full of compassion for their poor father, who lost his angelic wife (a little bible study and a few tears would have helped to gain sympathy)!
All MOO of course. It feels good to say it again.

 

[Nikynoo]

I am losing faith that Barry will ever get his just desserts. It seems so wrong that LS has been punished more than he has.

IMO the two are completely different. LS, has just got her just desserts first.

 

[girlhasnoname]

Interesting discussion!

I fault myself for using the word "plan", which has no relevance to the question whether Morphew is guilty of murder in the first degree. Whether there was a "plan" can be in the eye of the beholder: it can be anything from an intention to a specific and detailed set of steps leading to the accomplishment of an objective.

The law avoids that kind of ambiguity. For their decision, the Morphew jury will be asked to answer the specific questions:

Did he intend to cause her death?

if so, did he cause her death?

and if the above are true, did he deliberate beforehand?

What do you think?

Legally, intent can be formed in the blink of an eye. BM intended to kill Suzanne no doubt about it in my mind.

I think he deliberately formed intent the moment she told him it was over and "let's just handle this civilly" on that Wednesday IIRC. I think that was the first time Suzanne forcefully and convincingly told BM she was moving on and he believed her, and thus began his p iss poor planning.

Good thing he's as dumb as a box of rocks and can't keep his mouth shut. Grusing played him like a broken down pawn shop fiddle.

JMO

 

[Nikynoo]

Bluff.

Utter bluff.

Barry deposed would be a disaster for his own defense. IMO

Anything she can do to stall arrest and trial benefits Barry. IMO that's all this is.

Bluster.

JMO

I actually disagree. I dont think this law suit is about keeping BM out of jail or avoiding court proceedings, but is to further the ambitions of IE and those she works with.

It appears that she is passionate about ensuring that those with power do not take advantage of those who do not.

Can you explain why deposing BM would be a disaster for his own defence? As far as I can see, the civil trial was around abuse of process. If that is the case, I would imagine that leading questions around any crime (allegedly) committed by BM would be off the table?

 

[mrjitty]

I actually disagree. I dont think this law suit is about keeping BM out of jail or avoiding court proceedings, but is to further the ambitions of IE and those she works with.

It appears that she is passionate about ensuring that those with power do not take advantage of those who do not.

Can you explain why deposing BM would be a disaster for his own defence? As far as I can see, the civil trial was around abuse of process. If that is the case, I would imagine that leading questions around any crime (allegedly) committed by BM would be off the table?

I’ve posted about this extensively before but one reason is that a key part of BMs claim is that he was tricked into saming incriminating things to law enforcement eg in relation to the supposed manufactured pushpin map.

In pleadings I guess that is a line you can walk. But IMO in depos it becomes extremely difficult because the state can obviously just ask BM of his answers were the truth. How he then answers could become admissible in any future criminal trial.

 

[Nikynoo]

I’ve posted about this extensively before but one reason is that a key part of BMs claim is that he was tricked into saming incriminating things to law enforcement eg in relation to the supposed manufactured pushpin map.

In pleadings I guess that is a line you can walk. But IMO in depos it becomes extremely difficult because the state can obviously just ask BM of his answers were the truth. How he then answers could become admissible in any future criminal trial.

But, if it comes to depositions, he will be coached and the attorney is there to step in if they feel boundaries are being crossed. I agree that the line is fine, but there are boundaries that cannot be crossed. The civil trial is not about whether BM is guilty of murder, but how various government agencies went about collecting their evidence and whether there was an abuse of process.

I guess this is all academic. I do not think that the civil trial will progress in any form. I also think that in any future criminal proceedings there will be new evidence that underpins the prosecutions case. Well, I hope so anyway. I would hope that future prosecutors would want to avoid any claims that evidence is 'fruit of the poisonous tree'.

 

[K9Enzo]

But, if it comes to depositions, he will be coached and the attorney is there to step in if they feel boundaries are being crossed. I agree that the line is fine, but there are boundaries that cannot be crossed. The civil trial is not about whether BM is guilty of murder, but how various government agencies went about collecting their evidence and whether there was an abuse of process.

I guess this is all academic. I do not think that the civil trial will progress in any form. I also think that in any future criminal proceedings there will be new evidence that underpins the prosecutions case. Well, I hope so anyway. I would hope that future prosecutors would want to avoid any claims that evidence is 'fruit of the poisonous tree'.

Following your thought - BM might not be a key witness in the civil case. I would also assume he would invoke the 5th amendment not to self -incriminate himself? The defense has to know the risks and filed anyway. imo

 

[Tragg]

The challenge for the civil case has always been the court-created immunity doctrine. If it couldn't get past that barrier, there would be no discovery phase, no opportunity for a fishing expedition, no chance to file a motion in limine to protect Morphew from difficult lines of inquiry, no chance to hone his story and explain away all the lies, the trash dumps, the phony work project, and the telemetric data.

The voluminous complaint was designed to create the appearance of a mountain of provable facts showing bad acts by investigators and prosecutors, with the hoped-for disciplinary decisions adding outside credibility to their claims. If they were lucky, such a complaint could burden a busy judge or magistrate to the extent that he or she would rely on the alleged bad acts and deny the motions to dismiss and let the discovery phase begin - reasoning that immunity could be raised at any time and the abused plaintiff deserved at least a chance at discovery. Dismissal at the outset is an extraordinary remedy, after all.

I speculate that the attorneys may have failed to note that, for purposes of the motion to dismiss the judge could rely on the arrest affidavit attached as an exhibit. The judge was able to align its allegations with the enumerated facts alleged in the body of the complaint and discern that Morphew did not contest the affidavit in its entirety. Concluding that the uncontested facts in the AA were sufficient to establish probable cause for Morphew's arrest, he invoked immunity to dismiss the case.

I think the civil case arises in part from the attorneys' sense of mission, in part from Morphew's hubris, greed, and desire for vindicating headlines, but mostly from the real malfeasance, misfeasance, and nonfeasance that led to adverse rulings in the criminal proceedings. They gave these zealous attorneys (who have had success in other cases) hope that that the high court will abrogate or limit its immunity doctrine as unjust in the face of manifest wrongdoing. It's a long shot, but the attorneys knew they'd face it sooner or later.

I note that the 12th District investigators and prosecutors are taking a very low public profile and Suzanne's family are, too. They don't want to be part of Morphew's public circus for good reason. They don't want to feed his publicity campaign, but strategically, they want to have Morphew's story on the record under oath before they file (they will have a better opportunity to counter it), and they don't want even the appearance of impropriety to affect their case.

On the question of the Fruit of the Poisonous Tree Doctrine, there is no reason to believe it will apply. I can't remember any arguments in the 11th JD case that evidence should be suppressed because it was illegally obtained. The arguments were about sanctions for discovery violations, the credentials of experts, and in at least one case, about the balance between the value of an expert's testimony to the jury versus unfair prejudice to the plaintiff.

Morphew may argue in the new case that his previous statements to investigators should not be admitted because he was unfairly interrogated, but that would be a new argument that once again, flies in the face of existing precedent. There is no question the Morphew's statements were voluntary, and investigators are allowed to lie about the evidence they have in order to secure adverse statements and confessions from the subject.

 

[K9Enzo]

The challenge for the civil case has always been the court-created immunity doctrine. If it couldn't get past that barrier, there would be no discovery phase, no opportunity for a fishing expedition, no chance to file a motion in limine to protect Morphew from difficult lines of inquiry, no chance to hone his story and explain away all the lies, the trash dumps, the phony work project, and the telemetric data.

The voluminous complaint was designed to create the appearance of a mountain of provable facts showing bad acts by investigators and prosecutors, with the hoped-for disciplinary decisions adding outside credibility to their claims. If they were lucky, such a complaint could burden a busy judge or magistrate to the extent that he or she would rely on the alleged bad acts and deny the motions to dismiss and let the discovery phase begin - reasoning that immunity could be raised at any time and the abused plaintiff deserved at least a chance at discovery. Dismissal at the outset is an extraordinary remedy, after all.

I speculate that the attorneys may have failed to note that, for purposes of the motion to dismiss the judge could rely on the arrest affidavit attached as an exhibit. The judge was able to align its allegations with the enumerated facts alleged in the body of the complaint and discern that Morphew did not contest the affidavit in its entirety. Concluding that the uncontested facts in the AA were sufficient to establish probable cause for Morphew's arrest, he invoked immunity to dismiss the case.

I think the civil case arises in part from the attorneys' sense of mission, in part from Morphew's hubris, greed, and desire for vindicating headlines, but mostly from the real malfeasance, misfeasance, and nonfeasance that led to adverse rulings in the criminal proceedings. They gave these zealous attorneys (who have had success in other cases) hope that that the high court will abrogate or limit its immunity doctrine as unjust in the face of manifest wrongdoing. It's a long shot, but the attorneys knew they'd face it sooner or later.

I note that the 12th District investigators and prosecutors are taking a very low public profile and Suzanne's family are, too. They don't want to be part of Morphew's public circus for good reason. They don't want to feed his publicity campaign, but strategically, they want to have Morphew's story on the record under oath before they file (they will have a better opportunity to counter it), and they don't want even the appearance of impropriety to affect their case.

On the question of the Fruit of the Poisonous Tree Doctrine, there is no reason to believe it will apply. I can't remember any arguments in the 11th JD case that evidence should be suppressed because it was illegally obtained. The arguments were about sanctions for discovery violations, the credentials of experts, and in at least one case, about the balance between the value of an expert's testimony to the jury versus unfair prejudice to the plaintiff.

Morphew may argue in the new case that his previous statements to investigators should not be admitted because he was unfairly interrogated, but that would be a new argument that once again, flies in the face of existing precedent. There is no question the Morphew's statements were voluntary, and investigators are allowed to lie about the evidence they have in order to secure adverse statements and confessions from the subject.

I appreciate the open discussion you've brought to this thread. I’m curious what you think about Linda Stanley’s role in all this -do you think her public interviews, the sanctions, and the discovery issues actually help whatever's left of BM's civil case?

 

[Nikynoo]

The challenge for the civil case has always been the court-created immunity doctrine. If it couldn't get past that barrier, there would be no discovery phase, no opportunity for a fishing expedition, no chance to file a motion in limine to protect Morphew from difficult lines of inquiry, no chance to hone his story and explain away all the lies, the trash dumps, the phony work project, and the telemetric data.

The voluminous complaint was designed to create the appearance of a mountain of provable facts showing bad acts by investigators and prosecutors, with the hoped-for disciplinary decisions adding outside credibility to their claims. If they were lucky, such a complaint could burden a busy judge or magistrate to the extent that he or she would rely on the alleged bad acts and deny the motions to dismiss and let the discovery phase begin - reasoning that immunity could be raised at any time and the abused plaintiff deserved at least a chance at discovery. Dismissal at the outset is an extraordinary remedy, after all.

I speculate that the attorneys may have failed to note that, for purposes of the motion to dismiss the judge could rely on the arrest affidavit attached as an exhibit. The judge was able to align its allegations with the enumerated facts alleged in the body of the complaint and discern that Morphew did not contest the affidavit in its entirety. Concluding that the uncontested facts in the AA were sufficient to establish probable cause for Morphew's arrest, he invoked immunity to dismiss the case.

I think the civil case arises in part from the attorneys' sense of mission, in part from Morphew's hubris, greed, and desire for vindicating headlines, but mostly from the real malfeasance, misfeasance, and nonfeasance that led to adverse rulings in the criminal proceedings. They gave these zealous attorneys (who have had success in other cases) hope that that the high court will abrogate or limit its immunity doctrine as unjust in the face of manifest wrongdoing. It's a long shot, but the attorneys knew they'd face it sooner or later.

I note that the 12th District investigators and prosecutors are taking a very low public profile and Suzanne's family are, too. They don't want to be part of Morphew's public circus for good reason. They don't want to feed his publicity campaign, but strategically, they want to have Morphew's story on the record under oath before they file (they will have a better opportunity to counter it), and they don't want even the appearance of impropriety to affect their case.

On the question of the Fruit of the Poisonous Tree Doctrine, there is no reason to believe it will apply. I can't remember any arguments in the 11th JD case that evidence should be suppressed because it was illegally obtained. The arguments were about sanctions for discovery violations, the credentials of experts, and in at least one case, about the balance between the value of an expert's testimony to the jury versus unfair prejudice to the plaintiff.

Morphew may argue in the new case that his previous statements to investigators should not be admitted because he was unfairly interrogated, but that would be a new argument that once again, flies in the face of existing precedent. There is no question the Morphew's statements were voluntary, and investigators are allowed to lie about the evidence they have in order to secure adverse statements and confessions from the subject.

I agree with a lot of what you say, BUT, I do not believe that this civil suit is anything funded by BM. I just don't think that anyone who has (allegedly) murdered their wife, and, as things currently stand, got away with it, would put themselves out there in the legal arena again. I think this civil action is all to do with the attorneys involved fighting an injustice against the current criminal legal system and wanting to find an arena to fight that battle (see the conclusion to Domenico's judgement).

I also believe that IF any prosecution against BM is brought in the future, any evidence will be repackaged and/or re-analysed by different 'experts' (an 'expert' is an 'expert' until they are not). They will need to distance themselves from the previous trial and give it a new spin (so to speak) and KISS (Keep it Simple ...). This is a simple case IF the evidence is pulled together and presented in a way where there can be no doubt as to guilt.

Whichever way you look at the past criminal case (and we can argue all days about that), the prosecution pulled the trigger before they were ready (and able) and they themselves brought the 'circus' to town and let a (allegedly) guilty man go free. Unless there is a 'smoking gun' my fear is that as time passes, those witesses, 'experts' and evidence will be 'lost'.

 

[mrjitty]

One example on the depo.

Some of the particular claims would require Barry to recant his statements about the left turn and the elk and replace it with a new story. But that would be highly dangerous in a new trial where he might not want to testify. So he presumably needs to plead the 5th which would make a joke of his civil claim on those points.

This is why I generally agree this was never supposed to go to trial and especially not now.

i agree on the more procedural stuff he would not be a key witness eg the supposed discovery violations.

 

[Momofthreeboys]

But, if it comes to depositions, he will be coached and the attorney is there to step in if they feel boundaries are being crossed. I agree that the line is fine, but there are boundaries that cannot be crossed. The civil trial is not about whether BM is guilty of murder, but how various government agencies went about collecting their evidence and whether there was an abuse of process.

I guess this is all academic. I do not think that the civil trial will progress in any form. I also think that in any future criminal proceedings there will be new evidence that underpins the prosecutions case. Well, I hope so anyway. I would hope that future prosecutors would want to avoid any claims that evidence is 'fruit of the poisonous tree'.

I tend to agree the civil suit will wind down eventually and I agree that it would not be the "gotcha" moment that some would like to have happen. If by some chance it gets to deposition stage it will be very managed and I agree it will be about the "process" that lead him to be arrested, the arrest affidavit written and him being jailed for 4 months without bond.

 

[mrjitty]

I agree with a lot of what you say, BUT, I do not believe that this civil suit is anything funded by BM. I just don't think that anyone who has (allegedly) murdered their wife, and, as things currently stand, got away with it, would put themselves out there in the legal arena again. I think this civil action is all to do with the attorneys involved fighting an injustice against the current criminal legal system and wanting to find an arena to fight that battle (see the conclusion to Domenico's judgement).

I agree with this. For instance I never believed the FBI would settle a suit claiming it's officers lied to the defendant based on a fabricated pushpin map. It's clear Grusing acted entirely within the boundaries of the law here and he was perfectly entitled to confront BM with the actual data. So no surprises that IE ultimately agreed to dismiss it because on a policy basis the FBI was never going to roll on that.

IMO her point was to grandstand like you say, knowing full well that the State (as opposed to the FBI) would be sensitive on some of the issues involving LS. Only it turned out the myriad of instututions and LE defendants were not so happy to roll over for her.

I also believe that IF any prosecution against BM is brought in the future, any evidence will be repackaged and/or re-analysed by different 'experts' (an 'expert' is an 'expert' until they are not). They will need to distance themselves from the previous trial and give it a new spin (so to speak) and KISS (Keep it Simple ...). This is a simple case IF the evidence is pulled together and presented in a way where there can be no doubt as to guilt.

Whichever way you look at the past criminal case (and we can argue all days about that), the prosecution pulled the trigger before they were ready (and able) and they themselves brought the 'circus' to town and let a (allegedly) guilty man go free. Unless there is a 'smoking gun' my fear is that as time passes, those witesses, 'experts' and evidence will be 'lost'.

I find it hard to say why they don't go again. It might well be for reasons we don't know about.

For me the biggest potential challenge is IE tries to claim the sanctions ought to apply to any new indictment - so perhaps they simply want as much new evidence as possible in a do-over.

 

[mrjitty]

The challenge for the civil case has always been the court-created immunity doctrine. If it couldn't get past that barrier, there would be no discovery phase, no opportunity for a fishing expedition, no chance to file a motion in limine to protect Morphew from difficult lines of inquiry, no chance to hone his story and explain away all the lies, the trash dumps, the phony work project, and the telemetric data.

The voluminous complaint was designed to create the appearance of a mountain of provable facts showing bad acts by investigators and prosecutors, with the hoped-for disciplinary decisions adding outside credibility to their claims. If they were lucky, such a complaint could burden a busy judge or magistrate to the extent that he or she would rely on the alleged bad acts and deny the motions to dismiss and let the discovery phase begin - reasoning that immunity could be raised at any time and the abused plaintiff deserved at least a chance at discovery. Dismissal at the outset is an extraordinary remedy, after all.

I speculate that the attorneys may have failed to note that, for purposes of the motion to dismiss the judge could rely on the arrest affidavit attached as an exhibit. The judge was able to align its allegations with the enumerated facts alleged in the body of the complaint and discern that Morphew did not contest the affidavit in its entirety. Concluding that the uncontested facts in the AA were sufficient to establish probable cause for Morphew's arrest, he invoked immunity to dismiss the case.

I think the civil case arises in part from the attorneys' sense of mission, in part from Morphew's hubris, greed, and desire for vindicating headlines, but mostly from the real malfeasance, misfeasance, and nonfeasance that led to adverse rulings in the criminal proceedings. They gave these zealous attorneys (who have had success in other cases) hope that that the high court will abrogate or limit its immunity doctrine as unjust in the face of manifest wrongdoing. It's a long shot, but the attorneys knew they'd face it sooner or later.

I think iris and co knew that weakness, they just hoped the Judge would be more taken by the discovery issues and perhaps buy in to the 'fabrications'.

I note that the 12th District investigators and prosecutors are taking a very low public profile and Suzanne's family are, too. They don't want to be part of Morphew's public circus for good reason. They don't want to feed his publicity campaign, but strategically, they want to have Morphew's story on the record under oath before they file (they will have a better opportunity to counter it), and they don't want even the appearance of impropriety to affect their case.

On the question of the Fruit of the Poisonous Tree Doctrine, there is no reason to believe it will apply. I can't remember any arguments in the 11th JD case that evidence should be suppressed because it was illegally obtained. The arguments were about sanctions for discovery violations, the credentials of experts, and in at least one case, about the balance between the value of an expert's testimony to the jury versus unfair prejudice to the plaintiff.

Agreed. I don't see any 'poison'

Morphew may argue in the new case that his previous statements to investigators should not be admitted because he was unfairly interrogated, but that would be a new argument that once again, flies in the face of existing precedent. There is no question the Morphew's statements were voluntary, and investigators are allowed to lie about the evidence they have in order to secure adverse statements and confessions from the subject.

Yeah - that stuff is coming in all day long.

 

[Momofthreeboys]

One example on the depo.

Some of the particular claims would require Barry to recant his statements about the left turn and the elk and replace it with a new story. But that would be highly dangerous in a new trial where he might not want to testify. So he presumably needs to plead the 5th which would make a joke of his civil claim on those points.

This is why I generally agree this was never supposed to go to trial and especially not now.

i agree on the more procedural stuff he would not be a key witness eg the supposed discovery violations.

Why would he need to change the turning left story? Especially in light of the fact that her body was not found to the left? He turned left, he turnaround and headed to Broomfield. I must be missing the point?

 

[mrjitty]

Why would he need to change the turning left story? Especially in light of the fact that her body was not found to the left? He turned left, he turnaround and headed to Broomfield. I must be pissing the point?

He can’t allege he was duped in to his statement if it was true can he?

 

[Jo in Calif]

Why would he need to change the turning left story? Especially in light of the fact that her body was not found to the left? He turned left, he turnaround and headed to Broomfield. I must be pissing the point?

Sorry, I know what you meant but I did chuckle about you "pissing the point."

 

[Tragg]

I agree with a lot of what you say, BUT, I do not believe that this civil suit is anything funded by BM. I just don't think that anyone who has (allegedly) murdered their wife, and, as things currently stand, got away with it, would put themselves out there in the legal arena again. I think this civil action is all to do with the attorneys involved fighting an injustice against the current criminal legal system and wanting to find an arena to fight that battle (see the conclusion to Domenico's judgement).

I also believe that IF any prosecution against BM is brought in the future, any evidence will be repackaged and/or re-analysed by different 'experts' (an 'expert' is an 'expert' until they are not). They will need to distance themselves from the previous trial and give it a new spin (so to speak) and KISS (Keep it Simple ...). This is a simple case IF the evidence is pulled together and presented in a way where there can be no doubt as to guilt.

Whichever way you look at the past criminal case (and we can argue all days about that), the prosecution pulled the trigger before they were ready (and able) and they themselves brought the 'circus' to town and let a (allegedly) guilty man go free. Unless there is a 'smoking gun' my fear is that as time passes, those witesses, 'experts' and evidence will be 'lost'.

That DA Kelly will engage (probably has engaged) experts not associated with the Stanley prosecution is a very astute observation, and I agree. I also agree that over time, memories can fade, witnesses can vanish, evidence can be lost or degraded. I assume DA Kelly, the Moffat County Sheriff, the CBI, and the FBI are all taking what ever steps can be taken to prevent that since they still claim the investigation is open. But I cannot know that for a fact, and humans are fallible even at their best.

DA Kelly will no doubt be careful to avoid the mistakes of the past, but I doubt that she is waiting for evidence that leaves no doubt as to guilt. That is an impossible burden and beyond her professional responsibility. If she believes in good faith that the assembled evidence can establish Morphew's guilt in a jury's collective mind, she will file. I have reasoned that it is in the interest of such a prosecution to wait for the end of Morphew's civil case, but I could be wrong about that.

I am curious as to how in your jurisdiction a lawyer can bring a case in the name of the represented party without the party's consent. That would be unethical in Colorado. F&B undertook to represent Morphew in these claims when they filed the Notice of Claim with the state in October 2021. We don't know what the engagement terms are, but it would be typical for an attorney to require a substantial retainer to cover their initial fees of case preparation and the anticipated costs that they cannot ethically finance for the client. It's possible that a third party investor paid these with the expectation that any judgment or settlement would be shared, but the case is so speculative I don't see that happening.

It's possible that Morphew delegated authority to make decisions for him at the outset, but he has the authority to revoke such a delegation at any time and has not done so.

What are the rules about this in your part of the world?