Found Deceased CO - Suzanne Morphew, 49, Chaffee County, 10 May 2020 #66 *ARREST*

[Scootie98]

I’m not a lawyer, and the legal aspect of this case will be complex, so I’m loading up on aspirin in addition to lasagna.

But here goes with my laymen’s question.

If the exculpatory evidence exists, why does defense need the prosecution to give it to them? Can’t they introduce the evidence on their own?

It sounds to me like BM’s defense is just throwing mud at the wall and see what sticks. But I’m interested in learning a lot during this prelim.

I would think it would be exculpatory if an eyewitness claims to have seen you elsewhere during the timeframe of the criminal act...or that cellphone pings placed you elsewhere during that time, for example. Not a lawyer either...so yes, it will be interesting to see what the defense is pining for from the prosecution. I share some questions about this as well. Does evidence which can be interpreted as exculpatory need to be labeled as such? I would think this is an area of opportunity that the defense is fishing for.

 

[Scootie98]

I’m not a lawyer, and the legal aspect of this case will be complex, so I’m loading up on aspirin in addition to lasagna.

But here goes with my laymen’s question.

If the exculpatory evidence exists, why does defense need the prosecution to give it to them? Can’t they introduce the evidence on their own?

It sounds to me like BM’s defense is just throwing mud at the wall and see what sticks. But I’m interested in learning a lot during this prelim.

I would think it would be exculpatory if an eyewitness claims to have seen you elsewhere during the timeframe of the criminal act...or that cellphone pings placed you elsewhere during that time, for example. uNot a lawyer either...so yes, it will be interesting to see what the defense is pining for from the prosecution. I share some questions about this as well. Does evidence which can be interpreted as exculpatory need to be labeled as such? I would think this is an area of opportunity that the defense is fishing for.

I watched every single courtroom day of the OJ Simpson trial, and I saw what a high powered defense team can do. I was impressed by Barry Scheck, and I watched him brilliantly muddy the waters of the evidence. I think a lot of the trial isn’t going to be about what Barry did or did not do. It’s going to be about motions, suppression of evidence, pointing out every mistake of law enforcement, and searching for any misstep that can legally pave the way to get their client off.

Just my opinion....but the juries in OJ's trial and this one in Chafee County, Co. are going to be world's apart. This one won't runaway, imo. I do expect an intelligent, educated jury that may ask lots of clarifying questions regarding evidence during deliberation...if not a legal question or two. I just expect a jury that will do its job as professionally as 12 citizens are capable of....I believe that because this jury, whomever they are, will be going in with an awareness of the magnitude of the case before them.

 

[Scootie98]

The defense can go out and gather their own evidence, but they’d still want everything the prosecution has as well.

There may be interviews conducted by law enforcement that somehow favor Barry, or other evidence collected and analyzed that also helps the defense’s case.

One example would be any DNA evidence, which may include unidentified contributors. If you recall the Berreth case, there was quite a bit of foreign DNA evidence found.

That actually happens a lot.

MG....would it be fair to make the distinction between evidence which helps the defense and evidence which does not hurt the prosecution? I am reading into your post....and this question sort of surfaced. IOW...even though some piece of evidence helps the defense...it may not extract from the prosecution some larger point.

 

[Scootie98]

I keep thinking that Barry is ticked off that he's spending all this money on the lawyers and he's not out of jail yet.

I can't decide whether I think the defense lawyers are simply posturing and being annoying in order to please him, or if they really thought this would work.

First of all, even if some evidence was produce "unconstitutionally," I've always thought the standard remedy was to ban its use, not to reduce charges or grant bail. The law is usually full of direct consequences. But the Judge was of course right.

The defense needed to say specifically which evidence fell into that category and be prepared to bring testimony. Let's say it was Barry's own utterances, which incriminate him (which he made knowingly to LE and in the course of a criminal investigation, of which he was aware and advised). Okay, so the defense needed to say that, and then testimony needed to be heard about the circumstances under which Barry uttered these things and why they are incriminating.

Instead, they had no list of such evidence and still wanted their cookie.

That's because Barry is a very difficult client. He's insisting he's innocent, he's probably insisting he didn't say the things that LE have recorded him saying. He's being framed. So he wants out immediately. This isn't helpful to his attorneys if in fact he was recorded saying those things after being asked if he understood why he was being questioned in a criminal investigation. He denies trying to influence any public officials (five are named in the charges, I believe) and yet, those events are probably recorded or sworn to by those officials (who would have to appear to dispute this). So it would be a little mini-trial (which is what the prelim is).

But Barry demands and Barry gets what he wants, so the lawyers threw together a hasty request which said

1) some of this evidence is unconstitutional (but we don't which evidence it is yet)
2) some of this evidence was given to us later than the Judge said to give it (but we can't say which evidence that is yet)
3) some of this evidence was new evidence! So we didn't have time to read it!!

To this last category, the Judge kindly explained that he had already explained to them that in an investigation, more evidence could be produced at any time and he expected both sides to comply with the law (and share it ASAP - which the prosecution did, said the judge; Judge Murphy said he'd received the new evidence as well).

I felt like he was instructing students in the law. "Bring a list of which evidence, provide testimony as to why it should be thrown out," and certainly not "If you find a problem with some of the evidence, that means your client gets bail!"

Surely the defense lawyers know that. Was this just a ploy to once again mention he is innocent? Dumb, IMO.

To the second category of evidence (late), he said, "Can't we just deal with it as it comes up in the prelim?" And he held the ultimate card.

He offered to hold a full hearing on their evidentiary concerns sometime in November (and we all know how the courts get in November, with Veterans Day and Thanksgiving cutting into the schedule already). Then he said he'd reschedule the prelim "after that." But I bet you lasagnas that it would end up being January because the court will surely be dark the last week in December and the Judge will surely be tying up loose ends from the several other already ongoing trials he's conducting. The defense attorneys knew that too. So...maybe December, maybe January - the Judge knows it's up to him.

So if the evidence isn't enough to hold Barry for trial on First Degree Murder, Barry can either find out during August (and according to Barry, walk free on August 25th) OR he can walk free sometime in December, January or even February). If charge is reduced to Second Degree, bail could still be significant, given the other charges and the flight risk. None of that is going to happen, IMO.

The defense doesn't want the public to see Barry's face as he reacts to all of this, as he probably looks enraged and very much like a person ready to kill someone.

Barry hired two very large, female pit bulls...just what he was looking for....there's just one problem....he didn't train them. They won't respond to his whims, as if he did train them. I believe this is driving him bonkers.

 

[Puzzles8]

One of the thing at the hearing yesterday that I didn’t understand is Barry’s lawyers asking for compensation from the court. Why would the court owe them money, I didn’t follow why they would think the court would grant them those fees. Or this just another distraction tactic? Thanks in advance!

Might Barry have filed as "indigent". Meaning he is "broke" and the state will pay his attorneys for his defense?

There are also times when the state does not have enough experienced public defenders available, so they are willing to pay for outside attorneys.

Good question.

 

[Boxer]

Might Barry have filed as "indigent". Meaning he is "broke" and the state will pay his attorneys for his defense?

There are also times when the state does not have enough experienced public defenders available, so they are willing to pay for outside attorneys.

Good question.

A murder trial defense costs about 150k. Suzannes inheritance should cover it.

 

[Puzzles8]

A murder trial defense costs about 150k. Suzannes inheritance should cover it.

That money might be gone by now. Who knows where any of their real assets are? BM seemed to move his "money" around in real estate - in cash.

Money might have already been secured in off shore accounts, preparing for his escape.

Who knows?

 

[Momofthreeboys]

A murder trial defense costs about 150k. Suzannes inheritance should cover it.

They had more assets than just Suzanne’s inheritance I imagine. I would bet the lawyers are being paid.

 

[Seattle1]

The defense can go out and gather their own evidence, but they’d still want everything the prosecution has as well.

There may be interviews conducted by law enforcement that somehow favor Barry, or other evidence collected and analyzed that also helps the defense’s case.

One example would be any DNA evidence, which may include unidentified contributors. If you recall the Berreth case, there was quite a bit of foreign DNA evidence found.

That actually happens a lot.

We already know that E&N are bringing two of their investigators with them to the preliminary hearing. You can bet the investigators are conducting interviews and poring through the discovery-- looking for clues that there might be more left to uncover. However, at this stage, they'd best serve their client by asking the prosecution for something specific instead of these "fishing pleadings" they keep filing with the court. They'll probably find Judge Murphy more apt to levy sanctions if their detailed requests to the prosecutor are not delivered. MOO

 

[Deleted member 222031]

Just a Reminder!!

I shall be posting the tweets from Ashley Franco during the morning session - someone else will probably have to take over as it will past my bedtime when the afternoon session restarts. Also for Tuesday I shall post the tweets.

Anyone else volunteering to do other people's tweets??

Thanks, @Niner. Much appreciated!

 

[MassGuy]

MG....would it be fair to make the distinction between evidence which helps the defense and evidence which does not hurt the prosecution? I am reading into your post....and this question sort of surfaced. IOW...even though some piece of evidence helps the defense...it may not extract from the prosecution some larger point.

Yes, I’m sure there are going to be lots of distinctions like that. The defense may be able to poke holes here and there, but they may be in regard to things that don’t even matter.

Defense: “See, their marriage was happy.”

Prosecution: “Here’s a photo of Barry buying supplies to clean up the crime scene.”

 

[Seattle1]

A murder trial defense costs about 150k. Suzannes inheritance should cover it.

I'm afraid your estimate might be a bit on the shy side. In 2016, E&N represented a husband charged with 2nd- degree murder of his wife. He's quoted placing his legal bill at $400K. He was also acquitted.

One Man's Tragic Journey Through the Colorado Legal System

 

[Boxer]

I'm afraid your estimate might be a bit on the shy side. In 2016, E&N represented a husband charged with 2nd- degree murder of his wife. He's quoted placing his legal bill at $400K. He was also acquitted.

One Man's Tragic Journey Through the Colorado Legal System

Ok.
Old info then.
Bound to be more now.

 

[Seattle1]

Barry hired two very large, female pit bulls...just what he was looking for....there's just one problem....he didn't train them. They won't respond to his whims, as if he did train them. I believe this is driving him bonkers.

I have to disagree. I think E&N have been doing exactly that (responding to his whims) during these advisement and discovery hearings. They've made a lot of noise and haven't ignored his request to ask he be let out of jail, NOW! E&N have done good playing along for the mutual benefit of attorney and client.

Fortunately, playing to BM's whims is about to end after the preliminary, and BM is bound over for trial! Moving forward, it's going to be 'listen, we have 2+ TB's of your mess to weed through so keep quiet unless you're spoken to.' MOO

 

[swedeheart]

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[Niner]

Does the jury in Colorado get to ask questions of the witnesses in trial?

 

[Boxer]

BM complaining about being watched all the time and having all his mail read.
I don't recall hearing a complaint like that before.
It's a bit tenderfoot for such an aggressive guy.

 

[MassGuy]

Does the jury in Colorado get to ask questions of the witnesses in trial?

They sure can. After every witness, the jury may submit written questions to be answered by that witness.

https://www.criminal-lawyer-colorad...-trials-jury-questions-change-everything.html

Colorado rule allows jurors to question witnesses during theater shooting trial

 

[Niner]

They sure can. After every witness, the jury may submit written questions to be answered by that witness.

https://www.criminal-lawyer-colorad...-trials-jury-questions-change-everything.html

Colorado rule allows jurors to question witnesses during theater shooting trial

I like that rule!

 

[Seattle1]

Does the jury in Colorado get to ask questions of the witnesses in trial?

I know that in the recent criminal trial of Mark Redwine, the jurors were allowed to ask questions of the witnesses. However, I don't know if it's statutory or if it depends on the trial judge.

In 2005 (voting 5-1) the Colorado Supreme Court ruled that jurors may submit questions to witnesses during criminal trials, saying the practice does not automatically harm the defendant’s right to a fair trial.

Colorado Supreme Court rules jurors may question witnesses

ETA: add answer - it's mandatory!

As of December of 2015, Colorado is only 1 of 3 states that mandates that juries be allowed to ask questions. Six states prohibit the practice and several others give trial judges permission to permit or deny the practice of asking questions.