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

[Seattle1]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1657035734782541829

Lauren Scharf tweet
“The hearing is to address motions to limit public access to certain documents, according to the court. The motions hadn’t been discussed before the case was dismissed.”

I'm seeing different versions of LS's tweet (in replies) regarding the subject surrounding BM's 6/26 hearing that LS must have since deleted as I can only find the May 13 memorial reminder & candle tweet now.

But of all the reasons I've heard, public access to documents (pursuant to Rule 55.1) seems the most likely matter for the Court to grant a Motion for a Stay for a criminal case, post dismissal. (See Rule 55.1, (7) below).

I recall Rule 55.1 became effective mid May 2021, and the Colorado Media Coalition attempted to use the new rule to pressure the Chaffee County District Court to release the AA prior to the preliminary hearing.

It did not go over well with Judge Murphy. However, I also recall when the Court learned that the parties were uploading the motions and other docs with a feature enabled that prevented the Court Clerk from uploading otherwise public documents to the public court site (i.e., Cases of Interest), he directed them on the new law and requested they fix their settings.

If not for LS/Fox 21 obtaining months of documents in batch files of 2-3 months at a time, we'd still be in the dark as last I checked, they were never added to the public court site.

Still, Ordering a Stay for any Court proceeding or a prior Court Order, post dismissal, is very strange. Generally, it's difficult to obtain a Stay. Each State typically has a standard for when a Stay is granted. For example, in my state, a Motion to Stay must show the following elements were met for the Court to grant the Motion to Stay:

1-Show the appeal is likely to succeed; 2-you will suffer irreparable harm if the Stay is not granted; 3-Other party will not suffer undue harm or prejudice if the Stay is granted; and 4-Public interest weighs in favor of granting the Stay.

I don't know what the standard is in Colorado pursuant to R. Criminal Procedures. The closest I come is Rule 35 - Post conviction Remedies but I don't find any annotations here for Stays, post dismissal. MOO

What is the criminal rule 55.1 in Colorado?

(3).... A motion to limit public access shall identify the court record or any part of the court record the moving party wishes to make inaccessible to the public, state the reasons for the request, and specify how long the information identified should remain inaccessible to the public.

[..]

(7) Duration of Order Granting Request. Any order limiting public access to a court record or to any part of a court record shall indicate a date or event certain by which the order will expire. That date or event shall be considered the order's expiration date or event.

Rule 55.1 - Public Access to Court Records in Criminal Cases

 

[Cindizzi]

I'm seeing different versions of LS's tweet (in replies) regarding the subject surrounding BM's 6/26 hearing that LS must have since deleted as I can only find the May 13 memorial reminder & candle tweet now.

But of all the reasons I've heard, public access to documents (pursuant to Rule 55.1) seems the most likely matter for the Court to grant a Motion for a Stay for a criminal case, post dismissal. (See Rule 55.1, (7) below).

I recall Rule 55.1 became effective mid May 2021, and the Colorado Media Coalition attempted to use the new rule to pressure the Chaffee County District Court to release the AA prior to the preliminary hearing.

It did not go over well with Judge Murphy. However, I also recall when the Court learned that the parties were uploading the motions and other docs with a feature enabled that prevented the Court Clerk from uploading otherwise public documents to the public court site (i.e., Cases of Interest), he directed them on the new law and requested they fix their settings.

If not for LS/Fox 21 obtaining months of documents in batch files of 2-3 months at a time, we'd still be in the dark as last I checked, they were never added to the public court site.

Still, Ordering a Stay for any Court proceeding or a prior Court Order, post dismissal, is very strange. Generally, it's difficult to obtain a Stay. Each State typically has a standard for when a Stay is granted. For example, in my state, a Motion to Stay must show the following elements were met for the Court to grant the Motion to Stay:

1-Show the appeal is likely to succeed; 2-you will suffer irreparable harm if the Stay is not granted; 3-Other party will not suffer undue harm or prejudice if the Stay is granted; and 4-Public interest weighs in favor of granting the Stay.

I don't know what the standard is in Colorado pursuant to R. Criminal Procedures. The closest I come is Rule 35 - Post conviction Remedies but I don't find any annotations here for Stays, post dismissal. MOO

What is the criminal rule 55.1 in Colorado?

(3).... A motion to limit public access shall identify the court record or any part of the court record the moving party wishes to make inaccessible to the public, state the reasons for the request, and specify how long the information identified should remain inaccessible to the public.

[..]

(7) Duration of Order Granting Request. Any order limiting public access to a court record or to any part of a court record shall indicate a date or event certain by which the order will expire. That date or event shall be considered the order's expiration date or event.

Rule 55.1 - Public Access to Court Records in Criminal Cases

https://twitter.com/x/status/1664402641747853312

 

[Seattle1]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1664402641747853312

Thank you, @Cindizzi! If anybody could uncover the Tweet, we know we can always count on you. Rockstar!

FYI -- I was about to look for Tweets from hearing where Judge Murphy instructed the parties to upload their documents pursuant to Rule 55.1 where they can be shared with the public.

ETA: I noticed the LS tweeted her reply to Crimeonline reporter, an approved WS source, so I'll keep tabs there in the event they secure additional Court docs such as the initial Motion the for Stay (most likely dated mid April).

 

[Cindizzi]

Thank you, @Cindizzi! If anybody could uncover the Tweet, we know we can always count on you. Rockstar!

FYI -- I was about to look for Tweets from hearing where Judge Murphy instructed the parties to upload their documents pursuant to Rule 55.1 where they can be shared with the public.

ETA: I noticed the LS tweeted her reply to Crimeonline reporter, an approved WS source, so I'll keep tabs there in the event they secure additional Court docs such as the initial Motion the for Stay (most likely dated mid April).

Found a couple of tweets from October 13, 2021 hearing where Judge Murphy said all documents should be made public. Of course he recused himself 2 months later.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1448679221887266821

https://twitter.com/x/status/1448432836311199747

 

[Seattle1]

(4) Orders Entered on Court's Own Motion. The court may, on its own motion, make a court record or other filing inaccessible to the public or order that only a redacted copy of it be accessible to the public. If the court does so, it must provide notice to the parties and the public via the publicly available Register of Actions and must also comply with paragraphs (a)(6), (a)(7), (a)(8), (a)(9), and (a)(10) of this rule. The clerk shall make the subject court record or filing inaccessible to the public pending the court's final decision, except that, in its discretion, the court may order a redacted version of the court record or filing accessible to the public during that timeframe. In its discretion, the court may hold a hearing in accordance with paragraph (a)(5) of this rule before ordering on its own motion a court record or any part of a court record inaccessible to the public.

Rule 55.1 - Public Access to Court Records in Criminal Cases, Colo. R. Crim. P. 55.1

2/2/2022 thru 4/19/22 Register Of Actions (ROA), pgs 1 - 38:

https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/11th_Judicial_District/Freemont/Morphew/4_19_22%20morphew%20roa.pdf

 

[Seattle1]

Found a couple of tweets from October 13, 2021 hearing where Judge Murphy said all documents should be made public. Of course he recused himself 2 months later.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1448679221887266821

https://twitter.com/x/status/1448432836311199747

Brilliant -- I didn't think it was that early. Actually 10/13/21 was about a month after the AA was released to public so that makes sense after the earlier Motions by the Media Consortium and eyes watching.

 

[Cindizzi]

Brilliant -- I didn't think it was that early. Actually 10/13/21 was about a month after the AA was released to public so that makes sense after the earlier Motions by the Media Consortium and eyes watching.

Found this from May 2021

https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/11th_Judicial_District/Chaffee/cases%20of%20interest/21CR78/Order%20Regarding%20Defense%20Motion%20To%20Limit%20Public%20Access%20To%20Court%20Records%20Already%20Filed.pdf

 

[Cindizzi]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1362546215917809665

From the press release linked above dated February 18, 2021:

• Added a new rule of criminal procedure, Rule 55.1, to bring greater transparency and accessibility to court records and places limits on the ability of judges to seal court records. The rule takes effect on May 1.

 

[Seattle1]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1362546215917809665

From the press release linked above dated February 18, 2021:

• Added a new rule of criminal procedure, Rule 55.1, to bring greater transparency and accessibility to court records and places limits on the ability of judges to seal court records. The rule takes effect on May 1.

Of course, in the Cases of Public Interest (11th District Court site), there is only one Record of Actions (ROA) which only covers Feb 1, 2022 to April 19, 2022 (38 pages) so we are missing the ROA from May 2021 date of arrest to Jan 31, 2022.

Everything from the court site is a scanned document so all pages have to be converted to searchable pdf...

Any Motions inaccessible to public are identified only by the Motion number and no title eliminates any clue of what's being withheld. Only 6 Motions limited public access (LPA) pursuant to Rule 55.1, and other sealed docs are transcripts or subpoenas.


Pg. 5 - Transcript Sealed


Pg. 9 - Subpoena Sealed.


Pg. 10 - Subpoena Sealed.


Pg. 12- Transcript Sealed.



Pg. 15 - Motion LPA Change Venue Exhibits and
Peoples Motion LPA Prior Acts DV [P-34].


Pg. 26 - Motion LPA [D-71].



Pg. 33- Motion LPA Exhibits Attached to Motion to Reconsider Discovery Violation Sanctions.
Pg. 35 - Motion LPA [D-80a].
Pg. 37 - Motion LPA [D-95].

(WS restricts images per post).

https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/11th_Judicial_District/Freemont/Morphew/4_19_22%20morphew%20roa.pdf

 

[Seattle1]

FYI -- I was about to look for Tweets from hearing where Judge Murphy instructed the parties to upload their documents pursuant to Rule 55.1 where they can be shared with the public.

Minute Order for 10-13-21 hearing:


Chaffee County releases documents in Barry Morphew murder case | FOX21 News Colorado

2021 Case documents not on Public Court Site:

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

Ashley Franco @AshleyKKTV Agent Duge is excused. We're taking a very short break before calling the next witness. @KKTV11News #BarryMorphew #SuzanneMorphew 2:19 PM · Nov 9, 2021· We're back with Jeff Lindsey via WebEx. Still working out some technical problems that they're hoping to get fixed...

www.websleuths.com

 

[Love Never Fails]

What’s the consensus on the daughters? Do y’all think they actually believe him? Or deep down do they know but it’s “easier” (financially, emotionally, or otherwise) to publicly say they think he’s innocent?

One does. The other does not. But she has convinced herself her dad wont lie to her.

 

[MassGuy]

This stunning arrogance cannot stand. This evil moron murdered his wife, and it would take someone ignorant beyond belief to ignore the evidence. Let’s just hope no one else falls for this.

 

[Love Never Fails]

This stunning arrogance cannot stand. This evil moron murdered his wife, and it would take someone ignorant beyond belief to ignore the evidence. Let’s just hope no one else falls for this.

Well we know IE is helping him for the fame. Or is it hatred for LS? As for his dumpster friend, if they are together, I would say she likes being lied to. As for his daughters, we know which side they fall on. Is there anyone else “ignorant beyond belief”?

I believe his arrogance has tripped him up multiple times. I’m waiting for charges and a judge that will allow witnesses to testify.
I’ve never seen any case like this one.
Will the charges ever come?

 

[MyBelle]

One does. The other does not. But she has convinced herself her dad wont lie to her.

Victims often go into denial. Especially when it involves family. Her dad lied when he cast her mother's vote for Trump. He got caught. It's only a matter of time before he's taken down for murder.

JMO

 

[MyBelle]

Well we know IE is helping him for the fame. Or is it hatred for LS? As for his dumpster friend, if they are together, I would say she likes being lied to. As for his daughters, we know which side they fall on. Is there anyone else “ignorant beyond belief”?

I believe his arrogance has tripped him up multiple times. I’m waiting for charges and a judge that will allow witnesses to testify.
I’ve never seen any case like this one.
Will the charges ever come?

I'm still holding out hope there will be a grand jury indictment.

JMO

 

[waldojabba]

I'm still holding out hope there will be a grand jury indictment.

JMO

Before Iris and /or her counterparts decided to file the recent lawsuits I think there was little chance of a grand jury ever convening for this case. The sad truth is three years have passed and people move on and focus elsewhere.
There really was nothing to keep the spotlight on this lone crime and the lack of justice done. Suzanne and her family were newcomers to the state, not well known and had seemingly no ties to well-connected people. I wonder if that was part of BM’s plan. I suspect if he decided to kill her in Indiana the legal process might have gone differently. I also suspect that BM recognized that.

But now thanks to Iris et al the spotlight is back on the case. She has the attention of the Colorado legal system and the media - all good news for Suzanne IMO.

The evidence/AA/ court testimony etc, will be reevaluated in reference to all the claims in the lawsuits. Hopefully those doing the reevaluating will see things for what they clearly are. Fingers crossed that the mockery of the justice system by IE et al does not continue.

What I do still find curious is the lack of Colo legal people/talking heads weighing in on these new lawsuits. Unless I missed it,not even a peep from Scott Reich the Denver lawyer/Crime Talk guy who was all over the legal proceddings about the murder of Suzanne. Crickets.

All IMO

 

[Momofthreeboys]

Before Iris and /or her counterparts decided to file the recent lawsuits I think there was little chance of a grand jury ever convening for this case. The sad truth is three years have passed and people move on and focus elsewhere.
There really was nothing to keep the spotlight on this lone crime and the lack of justice done. Suzanne and her family were newcomers to the state, not well known and had seemingly no ties to well-connected people. I wonder if that was part of BM’s plan. I suspect if he decided to kill her in Indiana the legal process might have gone differently. I also suspect that BM recognized that.

But now thanks to Iris et al the spotlight is back on the case. She has the attention of the Colorado legal system and the media - all good news for Suzanne IMO.

The evidence/AA/ court testimony etc, will be reevaluated in reference to all the claims in the lawsuits. Hopefully those doing the reevaluating will see things for what they clearly are. Fingers crossed that the mockery of the justice system by IE et al does not continue.

What I do still find curious is the lack of Colo legal people/talking heads weighing in on these new lawsuits. Unless I missed it,not even a peep from Scott Reich the Denver lawyer/Crime Talk guy who was all over the legal proceddings about the murder of Suzanne. Crickets.

All IMO

I just think there isn’t much for them to talk as about from a legal perspective. No one knows what the charges might be or what “remains” from the original trial attempt could be used in a second try but I wish they would speculate abit.

 

[Hoss569]

I just think there isn’t much for them to talk as about from a legal perspective. No one knows what the charges might be or what “remains” from the original trial attempt could be used in a second try but I wish they would speculate abit.

I also wondered if the quietness from other entities was more they didnt want to have the hurricane take notice and latch on to them. I don't think anyone would want to get dragged in to these shenanigans. The way I see it, this is not a good marketing limelight event to be associated with, they hopefully realize it's BM sealing his fate in a different angle by his attorney, who is more than likely acting upon his wishes for financial gains.

 

[Momofthreeboys]

I also wondered if the quietness from other entities was more they didnt want to have the hurricane take notice and latch on to them. I don't think anyone would want to get dragged in to these shenanigans. The way I see it, this is not a good marketing limelight event to be associated with, they hopefully realize it's BM sealing his fate in a different angle by his attorney, who is more than likely acting upon his wishes for financial gains.

You could be right. I think the "you tube" lawyers are just keeping a safe distance from the civil case. No one can really predict how the civil suit will go and all them understand criminal law well enough to know that a second legal trial has it's own hurdles without more compelling evidence.

 

[Lyanna]

I hope Barry's civil case gets laughed out the court and as IE plants a nauseating kiss of sympathy on his cheek, he is then re-arrested and charged with Suzanne's murder.

Just my opinion and biggest hope.