Found Deceased CO - Suzanne Morphew, 49, Chaffee County, 10 May 2020 #65 *ARREST*

[10ofRods]

I just don't see the defense putting BM on the witness stand to badmouth his wife, or offering a defense based on a story he didn't present in his interviews with investigators. Those strategies would blow up in BM's face.

It seems unlikely that the prosecution would introduce evidence of such a story in their "case in chief", so it seems to me if the defense is based on mercy killing or SM running off with the milkman and going into hiding, the defense would have to introduce credible evidence such events occurred.

I'm not even sure such evidence would be allowed. These stories do not seem to be "affirmative defenses" to the charge of First Degree Murder after Deliberation - at least I can't find any such defenses.

For more on affirmative defenses, check out Colorado Revised Statutes, Section 18-1-407 and Nolo's article, Affirmative Defenses in Criminal Cases.

I'm not positive (there are others here, @MassGuy, @Seattle1, @gitana1, @Alethea who may remember the exact answer), but I believe Colorado is a state where, if the defense intends to try and pin the crime on another person, they have to present the evidence at the preliminary or as soon as they are aware of it - and they can't use the defense if the Judge doesn't believe there's sufficient evidence against the Milkman).

IOW, they can theorize in their opening or closing arguments that "maybe" Suzanne did X, but they cannot imply someone else specifically did this crime unless they have presented evidence of said person's involvement to the Judge prior to ever mentioning it in court.

Does anyone think that "someone else could have done it" will create sufficient doubt in any jurors? It does worry me a bit that it's possible one juror could ignore the actual evidence and merely prick up his/her ears at the words of the defense team. At any rate, the evidence has to be presented now, in August, for the defense to have any such affirmative defense at trial - that's my understanding.

I have no clue whether the defense will be allowed to hint strongly at this but provide no evidence...I don't put it past them to go find someone they could put on the stand to introduce the vague idea of "another person," specifically an abduction scenario.

 

[Love Never Fails]

I'm not positive (there are others here, @MassGuy, @Seattle1, @gitana1, @Alethea who may remember the exact answer), but I believe Colorado is a state where, if the defense intends to try and pin the crime on another person, they have to present the evidence at the preliminary or as soon as they are aware of it - and they can't use the defense if the Judge doesn't believe there's sufficient evidence against the Milkman).

IOW, they can theorize in their opening or closing arguments that "maybe" Suzanne did X, but they cannot imply someone else specifically did this crime unless they have presented evidence of said person's involvement to the Judge prior to ever mentioning it in court.

Does anyone think that "someone else could have done it" will create sufficient doubt in any jurors? It does worry me a bit that it's possible one juror could ignore the actual evidence and merely prick up his/her ears at the words of the defense team. At any rate, the evidence has to be presented now, in August, for the defense to have any such affirmative defense at trial - that's my understanding.

I have no clue whether the defense will be allowed to hint strongly at this but provide no evidence...I don't put it past them to go find someone they could put on the stand to introduce the vague idea of "another person," specifically an abduction scenario.

Sure I would have thought someone else could have done it...for the first day.
After that? BM showed himself plainly. “Oh Suzanne...”

 

[Niner]

I’m always so glad to see you here!

O/T. I’ve had an autographed Joe Montana helmet in my front room for 20+ years

WOW! Cool! My nephew went to one of the games with me - I had season tickets! It was Oakland playing the Niners - and nephew yelled at Jerry Rice when he played for Oakland - and got his autograph on a football. I got him a glass case to keep in!

 

[Momofthreeboys]

I believe the defense will be a general denial relying on the presumption of innocence.

MOO, BM will try to: (1) exclude evidence of his bad behavior toward SM; (2) undermine the credibility of prosecution witnesses; and (3) characterize the investigation as insufficient due to the Sheriff's "tunnel vision" - overlooking, for example, visitors to the campgrounds near Puma Path, registered sex offenders living in the area, SM's friends and acquaintances, BM's enemies, and other possibilities I can't begin to imagine.

I agree with this. There was at least one person who surfaced in local radio and news in the very early days with stories of a vehicle they saw in the area and such that are "out there" for the defense investigator and I'm sure others. The links were early in the forum media list and somewhat forgotten. Plus we don't even know for certain if there was "bad behavior" toward SM as most of that was speculative, but I agree if LE has found a first hand witness of abuse, the defense will work to exclude. Hearsay won't happen in my mind...but we'll see.

 

[Cindizzi]

WOW! Cool! My nephew went to one of the games with me - I had season tickets! It was Oakland playing the Niners - and nephew yelled at Jerry Rice when he played for Oakland - and got his autograph on a football. I got him a glass case to keep in!

Very Cool! My DH born and raised in the Bay Area, that’s his only team. He’s a member of a Niner Empire group here in Colorado. They have very good seats when we play the Denver Donkeys

 

[DizzyB]

Lauren had said she planned to be in the courtroom. I am on the road on the first day and already advised that I am unable to be the driver as I will be reading tweets.

 

[Seattle1]

I'm not positive (there are others here, @MassGuy, @Seattle1, @gitana1, @Alethea who may remember the exact answer), but I believe Colorado is a state where, if the defense intends to try and pin the crime on another person, they have to present the evidence at the preliminary or as soon as they are aware of it - and they can't use the defense if the Judge doesn't believe there's sufficient evidence against the Milkman).

IOW, they can theorize in their opening or closing arguments that "maybe" Suzanne did X, but they cannot imply someone else specifically did this crime unless they have presented evidence of said person's involvement to the Judge prior to ever mentioning it in court.

Does anyone think that "someone else could have done it" will create sufficient doubt in any jurors? It does worry me a bit that it's possible one juror could ignore the actual evidence and merely prick up his/her ears at the words of the defense team. At any rate, the evidence has to be presented now, in August, for the defense to have any such affirmative defense at trial - that's my understanding.

I have no clue whether the defense will be allowed to hint strongly at this but provide no evidence...I don't put it past them to go find someone they could put on the stand to introduce the vague idea of "another person," specifically an abduction scenario.

Criminal Defenses and Theories Of Defense In Colorado

https://www.criminal-lawyer-colorad...nses-and-theories-of-defense-in-colorado.html

 

[CGray123]

I think it's going to take Governor Polis declaring another public health emergency before WebEx is ever allowed by Judge Murphy. He's made known his dislike for the service --citing it interferes with his concentration with the proceedings in his courtroom, plus the number of violators that recorded WebEx. He's definitely going old school here.

I think you're right, although MOO, the local county health authority has the power to raise the level of restrictions based on local conditions. Chaffee County ranks ninth in the state in terms of the number of cases per 100,000 population with 137.5/100,000. But until hospital ER capacity starts to be strained or deaths increase, county-level authorities don't seem inclined to ratchet up restrictions, let alone declare a local emergency. MOO.

 

[Momofthreeboys]

I'm not positive (there are others here, @MassGuy, @Seattle1, @gitana1, @Alethea who may remember the exact answer), but I believe Colorado is a state where, if the defense intends to try and pin the crime on another person, they have to present the evidence at the preliminary or as soon as they are aware of it - and they can't use the defense if the Judge doesn't believe there's sufficient evidence against the Milkman).

IOW, they can theorize in their opening or closing arguments that "maybe" Suzanne did X, but they cannot imply someone else specifically did this crime unless they have presented evidence of said person's involvement to the Judge prior to ever mentioning it in court.

Does anyone think that "someone else could have done it" will create sufficient doubt in any jurors? It does worry me a bit that it's possible one juror could ignore the actual evidence and merely prick up his/her ears at the words of the defense team. At any rate, the evidence has to be presented now, in August, for the defense to have any such affirmative defense at trial - that's my understanding.

I have no clue whether the defense will be allowed to hint strongly at this but provide no evidence...I don't put it past them to go find someone they could put on the stand to introduce the vague idea of "another person," specifically an abduction scenario.

Colorado Rule 16 covers alot of this. Specifically for defense:
(c) Nature of Defense.

Subject to constitutional limitations, the defense shall disclose to the prosecution the nature of any defense, other than alibi, which the defense intends to use at trial. The defense shall also disclose the names and addresses of persons whom the defense intends to call as witnesses at trial. At the entry of the not guilty plea, the court shall set a deadline for such disclosure. In no case shall such disclosure be less than 35 days before trial for a felony trial, or 7 days before trial for a non-felony trial, except for good cause shown. Upon receipt of the information required by this subsection (c), the prosecuting attorney shall notify the defense of any additional witnesses which the prosecution intends to call to rebut such defense within a reasonable time after their identity becomes known.

Rule 16 - Discovery and Procedure Before Trial, Colo. R. Crim. P. 16 | Casetext Search + Citator

 

[CGray123]

I think the prosecution is obligated to send all the data they have, period. The preliminary hearing is all about determining who the witnesses will be and what the admissible evidence is. Both sides are supposed to have what the other side has, then they argue about admissibility in court (sometimes in chambers).

It would include what I call "crazypants" evidence as well (someone inserts themselves into the case with completely unverified or impossible facts - let's say they claim they saw a UFO descend on Monarch Pass that day). The Judge might start with saying, "I can safely assume that neither party objects to the exclusion of Exhibits 102X, 1114Y, 4005B, etc) Then those are gone from the hearing, we don't hear them, we don't see them, no one mentions them at trial.

EBM, BBM.

I'm not an expert, but the Colorado rules seem to leave the timeline for disclosure of defenses and witnesses to the judge, subject to certain limits (see edited rule below). Nerds may want to bookmark Rule 16. It will answer many, many questions about the court process.

Colorado Rule of Criminal Procedure 16: (EBM)

Part II. Disclosure to Prosecution

(c) Nature of Defense.

Subject to constitutional limitations, the defense shall disclose to the prosecution the nature of any defense, other than alibi, which the defense intends to use at trial. The defense shall also disclose the names and addresses of persons whom the defense intends to call as witnesses at trial. At the entry of the not guilty plea, the court shall set a deadline for such disclosure. In no case shall such disclosure be less than 35 days before trial for a felony trial, or 7 days before trial for a non-felony trial, except for good cause shown. Upon receipt of the information required by this subsection (c), the prosecuting attorney shall notify the defense of any additional witnesses which the prosecution intends to call to rebut such defense within a reasonable time after their identity becomes known.

(d) Notice of Alibi.

The defense, if it intends to introduce evidence that the defendant was at a place other than the location of the offense, shall serve upon the prosecuting attorney as soon as practicable but not later than 35 days before trial a statement in writing specifying the place where he or she claims to have been and the names and addresses of the witnesses he or she will call to support the defense of alibi. Upon receiving this statement, the prosecuting attorney shall advise the defense of the names and addresses of any additional witnesses who may be called to refute such alibi as soon as practicable after their names become known. Neither the prosecuting attorney nor the defense shall be permitted at the trial to introduce evidence inconsistent with the specification, unless the court for good cause and upon just terms permits the specification to be amended. If the defense fails to make the specification required by this section, the court shall exclude evidence in his behalf that he or she was at a place other than that specified by the prosecuting attorney unless the court is satisfied upon good cause shown that such evidence should be admitted.

 

[girlhasnoname]

Yesl agree that is the threshold..the defense does not have to prove that Barry is innocent. No alleged criminal has to prove their innocence. So I don't "see" the defense trying to come up with some elaborate story or pointing the finger at someone else which they would have to notify the court of their intent to do so. The burden is on the prosecution to prove that they went after the right guy and have the goods beyond doubt for 12 people. We will know soon. I do know that if there are any holes in the prosecution theory that is what the defense will go after in cross examination and through their potential witnesses. I'm still a little leery that the prosecution has what they need but I've said that before. Barry's story is pretty simple...or at least what statements he has publicly made and unless he strayed from that story that is pretty much what we got so the prosecution will need to plug the holes.

RBBM
I'd wager Barry has strayed so far from his original story of 'last seeing her on Sunday morning around 5 am as he left for his very important job' that he's sitting in a concrete prison charged with murder 1 plus others.

The prosecution has definitive evidence of his lies/guilt, there is no way they'd be bringing these charges with no body if it were not so.

MOO

 

[Seattle1]

Criminal Defenses and Theories Of Defense

The SODDI (“Some other dude did it”) Defense- The Wrong Man Has Been Accused

The SODDI defense is classically used in identification defense cases where the witnesses are not absolutely certain the accused committed the crime charged. It diverts the focus from the defendant to the “real perp”, who is not in the courtroom to defend himself. It enables the defense lawyer to focus the attack on the police investigation – placing that investigation on trial by targeting the lazy investigators – who – satisfied they had the right man – ignored clues pointing to the alternate suspec.

When you use this defense the defendant would not be compelled to testify. Since he did not commit the crime – he would obviously not know how the crime occurred.

A criminal defendant has an absolute constitutional right to present this theory of defense.

https://www.criminal-lawyer-colorad...nses-and-theories-of-defense-in-colorado.html

ETA: We're seeing this defense happening right now on the first day of trial (People vs Chad Isaak - Manden, ND and quadruple murder).

 

[Murphy1950]

@LaurenScharfTV

Judge Patrick Murphy said at a prior non-evidentiary hearing over 1,100 devices were logged into the WebEx meeting for #BarryMorphew court proceedings. The court is aware that despite a prohibition on recording and rebroadcasting, the proceedings were recorded and rebroadcast.

RSBBM..No sarcasm intended.....
Honestly really??/So what did they expect?

and what is Judge Murphy's point of allowing live tweeting? Why not just American Sign language? What am I missing????

No relation, I'd be much more transparent.

 

[girlhasnoname]

Criminal Defenses and Theories Of Defense

The SODDI (“Some other dude did it”) Defense- The Wrong Man Has Been Accused

The SODDI defense is classically used in identification defense cases where the witnesses are not absolutely certain the accused committed the crime charged. It diverts the focus from the defendant to the “real perp”, who is not in the courtroom to defend himself. It enables the defense lawyer to focus the attack on the police investigation – placing that investigation on trial by targeting the lazy investigators – who – satisfied they had the right man – ignored clues pointing to the alternate suspec.

When you use this defense the defendant would not be compelled to testify. Since he did not commit the crime – he would obviously not know how the crime occurred.

A criminal defendant has an absolute constitutional right to present this theory of defense.

https://www.criminal-lawyer-colorad...nses-and-theories-of-defense-in-colorado.html

ETA: We're seeing this defense happening right now on the first day of trial (People vs Chad Isaak - Manden, ND and quadruple murder).

So happy 'Some other Ninja Dudes Did it' didn't work in the Mollie Tibbets case.

 

[Seattle1]

RSBBM..No sarcasm intended.....
Honestly really??/So what did they expect?

and what is Judge Murphy's point of allowing live tweeting? Why not just American Sign language? What am I missing????

No relation, I'd be much more transparent.

What did Judge Murphy expect? I suppose that WebEx viewers would follow the law given it's a criminal offense where contempt of court charges apply (i.e., illegally record/broadcast court proceeding). Instead, just like BM and his defense for voter fraud, violators drawing on the "everybody else doing it" card. As in life, a few bad apples ruined it for everybody.

MOO

 

[Momofthreeboys]

RBBM
I'd wager Barry has strayed so far from his original story of 'last seeing her on Sunday morning around 5 am as he left for his very important job' that he's sitting in a concrete prison charged with murder 1 plus others.

The prosecution has definitive evidence of his lies/guilt, there is no way they'd be bringing these charges with no body if it were not so.

MOO

LOL I'm not taking that bet I happen to think he didn't stray very far from his story. People generally don't keep track of their day down to the minute in hindsight. He had no reason to since no one has surfaced that was at their house Saturday evening into Sunday so guessing he stuck with she was home, I was home. But for some reason I thought he said he left at 5:30....that's almost splitting hairs I guess I know I tend to round up and down when I talk about time I left or time I'm arriving with people. His truck may pinpoint the time better.

 

[Momofthreeboys]

RSBBM..No sarcasm intended.....
Honestly really??/So what did they expect?

and what is Judge Murphy's point of allowing live tweeting? Why not just American Sign language? What am I missing????

No relation, I'd be much more transparent.

I think the judge expected people to follow the law. I know I certainly expected grown adults to respect his orders. A couple contempt suits against You Tubers who violated the law would fix this issue.

 

[genuineusa77]

I believe the defense will be a general denial relying on the presumption of innocence.

MOO, BM will try to: (1) exclude evidence of his bad behavior toward SM; (2) undermine the credibility of prosecution witnesses; and (3) characterize the investigation as insufficient due to the Sheriff's "tunnel vision" - overlooking, for example, visitors to the campgrounds near Puma Path, registered sex offenders living in the area, SM's friends and acquaintances, BM's enemies, and other possibilities I can't begin to imagine.

And who's to say she wasn't abducted! I wish the sheriff would have gotten on this right away. An attractive woman on a bike on a remote road. Happens to joggers.

 

[Deleted member 222031]

RSBBM..No sarcasm intended.....
Honestly really??/So what did they expect?

and what is Judge Murphy's point of allowing live tweeting? Why not just American Sign language? What am I missing????

No relation, I'd be much more transparent.

Silence is golden, according to the CO criminal courts. If nothing else, this case should alert the citizens of that state to the egregious limitations to their presumptive rights that are ongoing in the 2nd decade of the 21st century.

"The Colorado Supreme Court has held that “criminal trials and pretrial proceedings should not be closed to media representatives unless an overriding and compelling state interest in closing the proceedings is demonstrated.” Star Journal Publ’g Corp. v. Cnty. Court, 591 P.2d 1028, 1030 (Colo. 1979). In Star Journal, the court held that a “judge may close a pretrial hearing only if (1) the dissemination of information would create a clear and present danger to the fairness of the trial; and (2) the prejudicial effect of such information on trial fairness cannot be avoided by any reasonable alternative means.” Id. The Court explained that “mere conjecture and allegations of prejudicial publicity” cannot justify an exclusion order. Id. The judge must “issue a written order setting forth specific factual findings in this regard.” Id.

Open Courts Compendium Colorado - Reporters Committee

 

[Murphy1950]

What did Judge Murphy expect? I suppose that WebEx viewers would follow the law given it's a criminal offense where contempt of court charges apply (i.e., illegally record/broadcast court proceeding). Instead, just like BM and his defense for voter fraud, violators drawing on the "everybody else doing it" card. As in life, a few bad apples ruined it for everybody.

I think the judge expected people to follow the law. I know I certainly expected grown adults to respect his orders. A couple contempt suits against You Tubers who violated the law would fix this issue.

MOO

As I said before ...I wasn't being sarcastic then nor am I now. That would be total naiveté on his part IMO. Unfettered access to millions of people? What could possibly go wrong?
This man has made a career for 30+ years because people don't obey the law. I have no doubt that people who use the dark web aren't worried about contempt charges. Not sure if Mexican and Canadian Youtubers are bound by our laws.

I'm not approving/supporting it being recorded on any level BTW, just think it was guaranteed to happen.