Found Deceased CO - Suzanne Morphew, 49, Chaffee County, 10 May 2020 #63 *ARREST*

[10ofRods]

Here's my uneducated opinion.

The media's public records request isn't going away whatever BM does.

Right now, the judge's order limiting access to the AA is limited in both time and scope. Rule 55.1 allows for issuance of a redacted document if the Judge determines that doing so protects a substantial interest that he identifies, that the substantial interest supersedes in importance the public's right to know, and that there is no other way to protect that interest. His plan is to issue the affidavit after he determines what - if anything - must be redacted. The main purpose of the current order is to allow the time necessary

My guess is Judge Murphy has been working out his own views on redaction from the day he saw the affidavit. I don't know if he's done with that task, but he needs to hear from the parties and consider their views before he makes a final decision. If they don't agree, he will have to allow time for them to brief the disputed issue and time to write his decision. This seems (to me) the main focus of his current order.

That could change, though, if BM files an argument that pretrial publicity of the salacious case in a small community would so prejudice the jury pool that the court must either keep the affidavit sealed or transfer the case to another jurisdiction. If a motion alleging this and other new grounds for limiting access to the AA was filed at the last moment before the prelim begins, and BM waives his right to a hearing, we go back to square one and the judge has to make another decision on the new arguments.

I like to think he will release the affidavit in redacted form, but I don't know...

At this point, every time that Barry's team contests one or another of the Judge's decisions, they keep Barry in jail without trial for a longer period of time. Perhaps that's a strategy.

If his side does file for a change of venue, then we can probably add at least a year to the timeline for trial (especially right now, with the COVID backlog).

Is that what Barry wants? He's just chillin' like a villain in jail, and that's better than going to trial? As soon as the defense's road show comes to the new county, there will be tons of publicity and everything all of us have already read on the internet...is still out there.

And will be pored over in the new place (almost any other county would have more reporters/TV stations than Salida does).

At some point, all of this will be settled, but if the defense wants to, they can delay trial for quite some time.

This could become a very long case.

 

[steeltowngirl]

At this point, every time that Barry's team contests one or another of the Judge's decisions, they keep Barry in jail without trial for a longer period of time. Perhaps that's a strategy.

If his side does file for a change of venue, then we can probably add at least a year to the timeline for trial (especially right now, with the COVID backlog).

Is that what Barry wants? He's just chillin' like a villain in jail, and that's better than going to trial? As soon as the defense's road show comes to the new county, there will be tons of publicity and everything all of us have already read on the internet...is still out there.

And will be pored over in the new place (almost any other county would have more reporters/TV stations than Salida does).

At some point, all of this will be settled, but if the defense wants to, they can delay trial for quite some time.

This could become a very long case.

If Barry is content to sit in jail and delay trial, then he must be very comfortable that they won’t locate Suzanne’s body in the meantime. It could also indicate that the prosecution has a very strong case against him without a body. Else, he would want to get to trial quickly and be acquitted on a no-body case and walk free. He’s simply sitting in jail and delaying going to prison. He knows he will never again be a free man.

 

[marylamby]

If Barry is content to sit in jail and delay trial, then he must be very comfortable that they won’t locate Suzanne’s body in the meantime. It could also indicate that the prosecution has a very strong case against him without a body. Else, he would want to get to trial quickly and be acquitted on a no-body case and walk free. He’s simply sitting in jail and delaying going to prison. He knows he will never again be a free man.

Well, we know he enjoys peanut butter.

 

[steeltowngirl]

Well, we know he enjoys peanut butter.

 

[Momofthreeboys]

View attachment 303320

I have always wondered why people say that he likes peanut butter lol where did that come from?

 

[DizzyB]

Is a change of venue even a thing anymore? I don’t live anywhere Colorado but I’ve read a ton about the case. Honestly the internet has made news available to the public at large, regardless of location. It’s not as if the citizens of Chaffee County are more intimately involved with Suzanne’s case than the citizens of any other county in Colorado are.

 

[DizzyB]

I have always wondered why people say that he likes peanut butter lol where did that come from?

There are photos of Barry at his grill at Puma Path, with a big old jar of peanut butter in view next to the grill.

 

[steeltowngirl]

I have always wondered why people say that he likes peanut butter lol where did that come from?

Well, he grills with it, per this article. We ran with it.



Husband of missing Colorado mom spent the night before her disappearance at cheap Denver hotel | Daily Mail Online

 

[rainbowshummingbird]

Well, he grills with it, per this article. We ran with it.

View attachment 303322

Husband of missing Colorado mom spent the night before her disappearance at cheap Denver hotel | Daily Mail Online

I’ve been trying to forget the image of Barry in his deep armhole tee since I first saw it.

 

[MassGuy]

I guess BM could share details of the AA with his daughters - from what we heard at the advisement, his exculpatory statements are contained in it. But the daughters would have heard these things during the year of BM's freedom, and I doubt BM could bring himself to share the more damning evidence, including any gruesome details. He wants his daughters on side, and such allegations would shock them and push them away IMO. My guess is that if he talks about the case at all, he will simply remind them that it's all a frame-up as they already "know" and that his lawyers will blow it up in due course.

Absolutely agree. He’s already said publicly that law enforcement was about to get him, and I fully expect him to continue that schtick.

I think we’ll come to learn that was the impetus for his daughters remaining silent:

“They’re out to get me. Don’t believe anything you hear, and don’t talk to anyone about this. We don’t know who we can trust.”

 

[MrsWatson]

Absolutely agree. He’s already said publicly that law enforcement was about to get him, and I fully expect him to continue that schtick.

I think we’ll come to learn that was the impetus for his daughters remaining silent:

“They’re out to get me. Don’t believe anything you hear, and don’t talk to anyone about this. We don’t know who we can trust.”

I think it is just this simple and that will be the basis of his defense.

 

[10ofRods]

Here's my total guess. BM and his team decide the allegations are so sensational the potential harm from pretrial publicity is enormous. Redaction doesn't work for them, and testimony in a dramatic open hearing with no ability to control what comes out would be even worse. So at the last minute they waive the prelim and file a new motion to prevent disclosure of the AA, emphasizing the damaging effects of pretrial disclosure in a very small town. This will buy more time to develop other strategies and pursue evidence they can claim the CCSO overlooked.

If they waive the prelim, aren't they agreeing that there's enough evidence to proceed to trial? Just checking. As to finding then finding other ways to delay trial, yep, I can see them doing that.

Is a change of venue even a thing anymore? I don’t live anywhere Colorado but I’ve read a ton about the case. Honestly the internet has made news available to the public at large, regardless of location. It’s not as if the citizens of Chaffee County are more intimately involved with Suzanne’s case than the citizens of any other county in Colorado are.

It doesn't matter whether the venue is changed or not, if the defense files the motion, then there must be a hearing, and that delays either the prelim or the trial...as desired. And that's why they'd do it - even if ultimately denied.

They could also claim the judge was biased and go through that one, if Barry likes sitting in jail awaiting trial better than being convicted.

 

[Ontario Mom]

I’ve been trying to forget the image of Barry in his deep armhole tee since I first saw it.

My own hubby wears the same kinds of tees in the summer, and grilling with Sweet Baby Ray's and peanut butter is something we do too, for grilled Asian dishes.

So... it's a little weird to see all that be mocked here. Just sayin'.

 

[Alethea]

Is a change of venue even a thing anymore? I don’t live anywhere Colorado but I’ve read a ton about the case. Honestly the internet has made news available to the public at large, regardless of location. It’s not as if the citizens of Chaffee County are more intimately involved with Suzanne’s case than the citizens of any other county in Colorado are.

IMO, it could depend on the size of the local news market. If the 5 o'clock news in Chaffee County carried this case every day but 2 counties over constitutes a different local news market and they did not carry the case every day, you may be able to argue jurors in that county are less likely to have been prejudiced by pretrial coverage.

It doesn't make much sense to us as people who follow crime stories from around the country, but many people only follow the news in their local market (i.e. what comes on at 5pm).

I don't know if they will make a motion for a change of venue but recent trials were moved - Mollie Tibbetts' trial was moved a few counties over for just this reason.

 

[CGray123]

At this point, every time that Barry's team contests one or another of the Judge's decisions, they keep Barry in jail without trial for a longer period of time. Perhaps that's a strategy.

If his side does file for a change of venue, then we can probably add at least a year to the timeline for trial (especially right now, with the COVID backlog).

BBM. I am not sure how that would work, unless BM asks for a continuance in addition to a change of venue.

According to Colorado criminal procedure law, a defendant can get his case dismissed if he is not brought to trial within six months from the date he enters a not guilty plea.

Although he can waive this right by certain specific actions, I don't see moving for a change of venue among them. Here's the speedy trial statute, below.


Colorado Revised Statutes § 18-1-405. Speedy trial
Universal Citation: CO Rev Stat § 18-1-405 (2016)

(1) Except as otherwise provided in this section, if a defendant is not brought to trial on the issues raised by the complaint, information, or indictment within six months from the date of the entry of a plea of not guilty, he shall be discharged from custody if he has not been admitted to bail, and, whether in custody or on bail, the pending charges shall be dismissed, and the defendant shall not again be indicted, informed against, or committed for the same offense, or for another offense based upon the same act or series of acts arising out of the same criminal episode.

(2) If trial results in conviction which is reversed on appeal, any new trial must be commenced within six months after the date of the receipt by the trial court of the mandate from the appellate court.

(3) If a trial date has been fixed by the court, and thereafter the defendant requests and is granted a continuance for trial, the period within which the trial shall be had is extended for an additional six-month period from the date upon which the continuance was granted.

(3.5) If a trial date has been fixed by the court and the defendant fails to make an appearance in person on the trial date, the period within which the trial shall be had is extended for an additional six-month period from the date of the defendant's next appearance.

(4) If a trial date has been fixed by the court, and thereafter the prosecuting attorney requests and is granted a continuance, the time is not thereby extended within which the trial shall be had, as is provided in subsection (1) of this section, unless the defendant in person or by his counsel in open court of record expressly agrees to the continuance or unless the defendant without making an appearance before the court in person or by his counsel files a dated written waiver of his rights to a speedy trial pursuant to this section and files an agreement to the continuance signed by the defendant. The time for trial, in the event of such agreement, is then extended by the number of days intervening between the granting of such continuance and the date to which trial is continued.

(5) To be entitled to a dismissal under subsection (1) of this section, the defendant must move for dismissal prior to the commencement of his trial and prior to any pretrial motions which are set for hearing immediately before the trial or prior to the entry of a plea of guilty to the charge or an included offense. Failure to so move is a waiver of the defendant's rights under this section.

(5.1) If a trial date is offered by the court to a defendant who is represented by counsel and neither the defendant nor his counsel expressly objects to the offered date as being beyond the time within which such trial shall be had pursuant to this section, then the period within which the trial shall be had is extended until such trial date and may be extended further pursuant to any other applicable provisions of this section.

(6) In computing the time within which a defendant shall be brought to trial as provided in subsection (1) of this section, the following periods of time shall be excluded:

(a) Any period during which the defendant is incompetent to stand trial, or is unable to appear by reason of illness or physical disability, or is under observation or examination at any time after the issue of the defendant's mental condition, insanity, incompetency, or impaired mental condition is raised;

(b) The period of delay caused by an interlocutory appeal whether commenced by the defendant or by the prosecution;

(c) A reasonable period of delay when the defendant is joined for trial with a codefendant as to whom the time for trial has not run and there is good cause for not granting a severance;

(d) The period of delay resulting from the voluntary absence or unavailability of the defendant; however, a defendant shall be considered unavailable whenever his whereabouts are known but his presence for trial cannot be obtained, or he resists being returned to the state for trial;

(e) The period of delay caused by any mistrial, not to exceed three months for each mistrial;

(f) The period of any delay caused at the instance of the defendant;

(g) The period of delay not exceeding six months resulting from a continuance granted at the request of the prosecuting attorney, without the consent of the defendant, if:

(I) The continuance is granted because of the unavailability of evidence material to the state's case, when the prosecuting attorney has exercised due diligence to obtain such evidence and there are reasonable grounds to believe that this evidence will be available at the later date; or

(II) The continuance is granted to allow the prosecuting attorney additional time in felony cases to prepare the state's case and additional time is justified because of exceptional circumstances of the case and the court enters specific findings with respect to the justification;

(h) The period of delay between the new date set for trial following the expiration of the time periods excluded by paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d), and (f) of this subsection (6), not to exceed three months;

(i) The period of delay between the filing of a motion pursuant to section 18-1-202 (11) and any decision by the court regarding such motion, and if such decision by the court transfers the case to another county, the period of delay until the first appearance of all the parties in a court of appropriate jurisdiction in the county to which the case has been transferred, and in such event the provisions of subsection (7) of this section shall apply.

(7) If a trial date has been fixed by the court and the case is subsequently transferred to a court in another county, the period within which trial must be had is extended for an additional three months from the date of the first appearance of all of the parties in a court of appropriate jurisdiction in the county to which the case has been transferred.

 

[CGray123]

Errata: I missed this part of the statute automatically extending the speedy trial deadline upon transfer to another venue.

(7) If a trial date has been fixed by the court and the case is subsequently transferred to a court in another county, the period within which trial must be had is extended for an additional three months from the date of the first appearance of all of the parties in a court of appropriate jurisdiction in the county to which the case has been transferred.

Still, if the motion to limit access or change venue was filed before Judge Murphy set a trial date, the six month limitation would seem to apply.

 

[CGray123]

If they waive the prelim, aren't they agreeing that there's enough evidence to proceed to trial? Just checking. As to finding then finding other ways to delay trial, yep, I can see them doing that.

Good question!

No admission or acknowledgement is required to waive the prelim, and there are tactical advantages to waiver that may appeal to him. In any case, the presumption of innocence applies throughout the proceedings right up to the verdict, so waiver would not affect the outcome.

Let's face it. Barry is faced with a judge who signed his arrest warrant on the same evidence, plus a low standard of proof, plus the evidence must be taken in the light most favorable to the prosecution. The legal team's meter will run throughout, an BM's resources, though large, are not unlimited.

Unless his team can come up with a killer who is not Barry, or an alibi lover who places him indisputably in Broomfield for the entire period alleged in the complaint, I don't think his attorneys would see any prospect of success in getting the case dismissed at prelim. There may be other advantages to going through the hearing, but I'm not sure what they would be.

 

[nyvictoria]

BM is going to do a lot of explaining to his daughters and legal team. He will:

Explain about how evidence was planted.
Explain that LE is out to get him and he is powerless.
Explain about the lies in the AA.
Explain his way out of every damming statement.
Explain how he is innocent, but LE was making him look like the bad guy.
No matter what evidence is stacked against him he will never admit guilt.

<Admin Note: All your opinion of course>

Whatever explanations he may be attempting to share with his daughters will have to be done via recorded conversations from the jail. I’m sure he’s been cautioned not to talk about the case with anyone. The only alternative available to him is to have his attorneys speak to the daughters on his behalf.

 

[MassGuy]

In the Gannon Stauch case, his stepmother (accused of the murder), was representing herself briefly. Prior to that request being granted, she asked the judge to waive her preliminary hearing. This is what a legal expert had to say about that, and why it is an awful idea:

On Friday, Stauch asked about waiving her Proof Evident, Presumption Great Hearing, what does that tell you?

Loew: The fact that she tried to or that she waved her Proof Evident, Presumption Great Hearing, is just a red flag that she has no clue what she's doing. A Proof Evident, Presumption Great hearing is [where] the district attorney's office has to put on witnesses to show that the proof is evident, and the presumption is great that the defendant would be convicted. Now, in Colorado, there are no criminal depositions. So what this is, is a hearing that allows the defendant to cross-examine, and get impeachment information to be used later at trial. So, there's pretty much there is no benefit to waiving the Proof Evident, Presumption Great Hearing. Potentially, she could have been entitled to bond. So, if she waived the Proof Evident, Presumption Great Hearing, it is even a bigger red flag that she is completely lost.

Letecia Stauch will defend herself at murder trial, now what? - KRDO

 

[10ofRods]

BBM. I am not sure how that would work, unless BM asks for a continuance in addition to a change of venue.

According to Colorado criminal procedure law, a defendant can get his case dismissed if he is not brought to trial within six months from the date he enters a not guilty plea.

Although he can waive this right by certain specific actions, I don't see moving for a change of venue among them. Here's the speedy trial statute, below.


Colorado Revised Statutes § 18-1-405. Speedy trial
Universal Citation: CO Rev Stat § 18-1-405 (2016)

(1) Except as otherwise provided in this section, if a defendant is not brought to trial on the issues raised by the complaint, information, or indictment within six months from the date of the entry of a plea of not guilty, he shall be discharged from custody if he has not been admitted to bail, and, whether in custody or on bail, the pending charges shall be dismissed, and the defendant shall not again be indicted, informed against, or committed for the same offense, or for another offense based upon the same act or series of acts arising out of the same criminal episode.

(2) If trial results in conviction which is reversed on appeal, any new trial must be commenced within six months after the date of the receipt by the trial court of the mandate from the appellate court.

(3) If a trial date has been fixed by the court, and thereafter the defendant requests and is granted a continuance for trial, the period within which the trial shall be had is extended for an additional six-month period from the date upon which the continuance was granted.

(3.5) If a trial date has been fixed by the court and the defendant fails to make an appearance in person on the trial date, the period within which the trial shall be had is extended for an additional six-month period from the date of the defendant's next appearance.

(4) If a trial date has been fixed by the court, and thereafter the prosecuting attorney requests and is granted a continuance, the time is not thereby extended within which the trial shall be had, as is provided in subsection (1) of this section, unless the defendant in person or by his counsel in open court of record expressly agrees to the continuance or unless the defendant without making an appearance before the court in person or by his counsel files a dated written waiver of his rights to a speedy trial pursuant to this section and files an agreement to the continuance signed by the defendant. The time for trial, in the event of such agreement, is then extended by the number of days intervening between the granting of such continuance and the date to which trial is continued.

(5) To be entitled to a dismissal under subsection (1) of this section, the defendant must move for dismissal prior to the commencement of his trial and prior to any pretrial motions which are set for hearing immediately before the trial or prior to the entry of a plea of guilty to the charge or an included offense. Failure to so move is a waiver of the defendant's rights under this section.

(5.1) If a trial date is offered by the court to a defendant who is represented by counsel and neither the defendant nor his counsel expressly objects to the offered date as being beyond the time within which such trial shall be had pursuant to this section, then the period within which the trial shall be had is extended until such trial date and may be extended further pursuant to any other applicable provisions of this section.

(6) In computing the time within which a defendant shall be brought to trial as provided in subsection (1) of this section, the following periods of time shall be excluded:

(a) Any period during which the defendant is incompetent to stand trial, or is unable to appear by reason of illness or physical disability, or is under observation or examination at any time after the issue of the defendant's mental condition, insanity, incompetency, or impaired mental condition is raised;

(b) The period of delay caused by an interlocutory appeal whether commenced by the defendant or by the prosecution;

(c) A reasonable period of delay when the defendant is joined for trial with a codefendant as to whom the time for trial has not run and there is good cause for not granting a severance;

(d) The period of delay resulting from the voluntary absence or unavailability of the defendant; however, a defendant shall be considered unavailable whenever his whereabouts are known but his presence for trial cannot be obtained, or he resists being returned to the state for trial;

(e) The period of delay caused by any mistrial, not to exceed three months for each mistrial;

(f) The period of any delay caused at the instance of the defendant;

(g) The period of delay not exceeding six months resulting from a continuance granted at the request of the prosecuting attorney, without the consent of the defendant, if:

(I) The continuance is granted because of the unavailability of evidence material to the state's case, when the prosecuting attorney has exercised due diligence to obtain such evidence and there are reasonable grounds to believe that this evidence will be available at the later date; or

(II) The continuance is granted to allow the prosecuting attorney additional time in felony cases to prepare the state's case and additional time is justified because of exceptional circumstances of the case and the court enters specific findings with respect to the justification;

(h) The period of delay between the new date set for trial following the expiration of the time periods excluded by paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d), and (f) of this subsection (6), not to exceed three months;

(i) The period of delay between the filing of a motion pursuant to section 18-1-202 (11) and any decision by the court regarding such motion, and if such decision by the court transfers the case to another county, the period of delay until the first appearance of all the parties in a court of appropriate jurisdiction in the county to which the case has been transferred, and in such event the provisions of subsection (7) of this section shall apply.

(7) If a trial date has been fixed by the court and the case is subsequently transferred to a court in another county, the period within which trial must be had is extended for an additional three months from the date of the first appearance of all of the parties in a court of appropriate jurisdiction in the county to which the case has been transferred.

Did you read the exceptions?

My point is that if Barry wishes to delay his trial, there are a number of things he can do. Let's say Barry suddenly felt unwell (see the statute above, first exception to the overall rule, and then take a look at the other methods. Interlocutory appeal is on the list as well. My view of the defense attorneys is that, if their client *wishes* to delay his trial, he has many means at his disposal and none will cause the dismissal of the case.

I believe it is in the prosecution's best interests to get to trial as quickly as possible (hence no opposition on the release of the AA), while it is in the best interest of the defendant to allow witnesses to get stale, move away, become unavailable and for the case to dim in public memory (even if only a little). And the defense will have time to do the kind of legal PR work that they think will make or break his case.