CO CO - Suzanne Morphew, 49, Chaffee Co, 10 May 2020 *Case dismissed w/o Prejudice* #102

Status
Not open for further replies.

Cindizzi

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 5, 2019
Messages
5,068
Reaction score
89,978

The Attorney Regulation Counsel helps the Colorado Supreme Court regulate and practice law in the state. According to Jessica Yates, with the office, Stanley was put on administrative suspension after missing a May 31 deadline for failure to continue her legal education requirements for the state.

Stanley, who represents the 11th Judicial District, will need to petition for reinstatement and can’t appear in court or file anything until the matter is resolved.

While roughly 100 attorneys in Colorado fail to comply with this requirement every year, Yates said it is highly unusual for a district attorney to miss this deadline.

Charges against Morphew were dropped without prejudice just days before the case was set to go to trial, meaning the DA could bring charges against Morphew at a later date, but Stanley would not be able to do that while serving the suspension.

FOX31 is working to reach out to Stanley for comment and will update this story with more details as they become available.
 

Seattle1

#LiveLikeLizzy
Joined
Feb 25, 2013
Messages
31,431
Reaction score
337,491






Lauren Scharf

@LaurenScharfTV

D.A. Linda Stanley is on administrative suspension until she can complete the paperwork for reinstatement. This doesn’t affect the 11th Judicial District Attorneys Office day to day business because there are other attorneys in her office.


3:09 PM · Jun 1, 2022 from Colorado Springs, CO

@LaurenScharfTV

I did reach out to D.A. Linda Stanley and the 11th Judicial District Attorney’s Office for a comment in regards to this but haven’t heard back yet.

3:34 PM · Jun 1, 2022 from Colorado Springs, CO·
 

susiQ

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 17, 2018
Messages
4,075
Reaction score
59,211
"It is no surprise that a District Attorney who so blatantly disregarded her ethical obligations in the failed and wrongful Morphew prosecution, is the same prosecuting attorney who violated the continuing education rules that all lawyers must adhere to which includes education on the ethical standards, rules, and professional standards," Iris Eytan said.

AND, it is no surprise that IE would jump at the opportunity to slam DA Stanley publicly without knowing the circumstances that may have caused this oversight or failure by someone other than LS. Not to mention getting in a plug for her devoted client, BM, for being “wrongfully” prosecuted. Sorry IE, but he was NOT wrongfully prosecuted. He killed his wife! I for one am not at all sorry he looks like he!! I am sorry he’s still walking free.

I look forward to the day they take him in…..again. I look forward to watching his ill gotten gains evaporate. For IE, Barry is the gift that keeps on giving…..until he can’t.
 
Last edited:

crhedBngr

Attempting to Keep Calm and Carry On.
Joined
Jul 26, 2015
Messages
5,457
Reaction score
45,121
I just completed my CE credits in order to renew a license I maintain for work. Do you know how many email reminders you get on that? It’s always looming, and you know there are no excuses. My credits and renewal must be done by the end of June, and I always make sure I am done in May. LS seems to have issues with deadlines and details. She will do her continuing education and get reinstated, but she should know better.
'
Absolutely!
 

Boxer

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2017
Messages
7,695
Reaction score
72,171
Web cam Monarch Mtn.



The "Breezeway" cam is the top of the pass, the parking lot where the lifts are.
Snow is patchy.
Bet she is hidden off
SR 237, Old Monarch pass Rd.
 

mrjitty

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 23, 2014
Messages
7,937
Reaction score
56,883
I agree and contend there's no validity to quoted OP's position that we only know one side of the case -- especially given the defense exceeded the prosecution's time, as well as the time allocated to the defense, during the PH, where the allegations presented in the AA were argued.

Also, I believe more defense motions were publically available including the release of their exhibits! That said, I'm truly baffled by this stance. o_O

What frustrates me is the accused is abetted by the Court in presenting a family man image, outside of testimony, white the Court suppresses the very evidence that contradicts that.

So if it is to be "both sidesed" let's do that in the Courtroom via evidence.

After all, the defence is able to present its version, whilst the victim is no longer around to give hers!
 

mrjitty

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 23, 2014
Messages
7,937
Reaction score
56,883
Unfortunately I forgot many of the best references/studies on the relationship of domestic abuse/violence to Intimate Partner Homicide (IPH), but there is an excellent new one here.

Key point ----> "Stalking features in the majority of domestic homicide cases"

Previous research has demonstrated that perpetrators of IPH are more likely to be of older age (Loinaz et al., 2017; Caman et al., 2017) have less persistent criminal histories, be less socially disadvantaged (Loinaz et al., 2017; Caman et al., 2017) and show higher levels of suicidal ideation (Caman et al., 2017; Cunha & Gonçalves, 2019) than perpetrators of other types of homicide. DHR research has also indicated that stalking behaviours, often involving the use of technology and cyberstalking, are present in the majority of domestic homicide cases. Monckton-Smith et al. (2017) used media reports and DHRs to identify risk and found that stalking behaviours were present in 94% of cases analysed. Todd et al. (2020) argued that technology and social media play a facilitating role in many domestic homicide cases and that the digital footprints of victims and perpetrators are often overlooked in police investigations and the overall DHR process.

Emphasis mine.

My critique of the ruling in this case, is that it rests on the notion that there is some kind of common, normal DA/DV conflict, which is not probative, and is prejudicial. But the point is, in 99.9% of those cases, the victim was not murdered.

If you reduce your subset only to IPH - you are almost always going to find domestic abuse - especially in the form of stalking.

At least in this case, IIRC, most of the stalky behaviour is still admissible.

It is a huge red flag and probative.
 

mrjitty

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 23, 2014
Messages
7,937
Reaction score
56,883
This is also interesting in my opinion. Remind you of anyone?

Four of the variables made a unique statistically significant contribution to the model (coercive control, separation, the victim being in a new relationship, and help seeking by the victim in the months prior to the homicide). Separation or pending separation made the largest contribution to explaining homicide following stalking, followed by the victim engaging in help-seeking behaviours in the months prior to the homicide.

 

GatorFL

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2009
Messages
1,984
Reaction score
13,257
Website
www.ferrarichat.com
This has nothing to do with the Morphew case itself.
She did all her damage to this case before she got suspended.

What was she doing? She wasn't doing her continuing education and she definitely wasn't meeting deadlines, even when given extensions. So what is happening in her office?
 

WingsOverTX

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2022
Messages
2,280
Reaction score
21,088
Unfortunately I forgot many of the best references/studies on the relationship of domestic abuse/violence to Intimate Partner Homicide (IPH), but there is an excellent new one here.

Key point ----> "Stalking features in the majority of domestic homicide cases"



Emphasis mine.

My critique of the ruling in this case, is that it rests on the notion that there is some kind of common, normal DA/DV conflict, which is not probative, and is prejudicial. But the point is, in 99.9% of those cases, the victim was not murdered.

If you reduce your subset only to IPH - you are almost always going to find domestic abuse - especially in the form of stalking.

At least in this case, IIRC, most of the stalky behaviour is still admissible.

It is a huge red flag and probative.
Yes. Judges need to educate themselves before ruling out this kind of evidence as not probative and/or prejudicial.

Perhaps this case will end up helping advance the importance of these red flags to understand murder as an escalation of DV behaviors when there is knowledge by witnesses of stalking, etc.

The court wants to err on the side of "proof" so if nothing concrete like a restraining order exists then DV behavior considered hearsay.

Something needs to change specifically in Colorado laws to make DV itself a crime instead of an enhancement to another crime.

Even then there would be a battle on what is considered "evidence" - no injury photos? Sorry, there's no proof, for instance. Controlling behaviors are still beatings. Just mental ones.

MOO
 

scapa

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 18, 2009
Messages
1,259
Reaction score
10,652
If the public needed any more evidence of DALS's inability to administer even her own affairs - let alone a complex, no body murder case - this should be the sign IMO. There's a reason she never rose to the level of felony trial deputy in her many years as a prosecutor, and it wasn't because she liked to try misdemeanors and traffic cases in County and Municipal courts, MOO.

Getting the education credits sufficient to meet an attorney license requirement is easy. It amounts to two eight-hour days (one weekend conference) per year over a three year period, or convenient smaller training sessions that add up to 45 hours in the same period. The Colorado District Attorneys Council offers CLE trainings on a regular basis, in seminar and webinar format. LS has no excuse for this lapse.

If the attorney regulation counsel isn't willing to cut her slack, it may be that DASL has a prior public censure for putting her personal interests ahead of her professional obligations to a client, who retained her during her very brief period of private practice.

Given IE's stated intention to file an ethics complaint for the DA's discovery violations, this may be a harbinger of things to come. Frank Ruybalid, DA for the 3rd JD in Colorado, was recommended for suspension in 2014. His troubles continued after he was granted probation.

Some voters, sometimes and in some places, seem to prefer incompetent and even abusive politicians who tell them what they want to hear, over capable professionals who can get a difficult job done. The Morphew and Moorman families, and the residents of the 11th, deserve better than they got last election, MOO.
Excellent post.

I have to admit I'm a bit surprised by this. We have similar requirements in my profession and it is extremely difficult to forget or get "mixed up" with those (minimal) obligations. It is also def viewed unfavourably as a sign of disrespect for the college/ professional association to not fulfill those (minimal) obligations.

I agree with your last para absolutely -- if I am a constituent I want the best and most capable professional installed in such a key role, regardless of political stripe. I can't imagine one of my patients choosing or not choosing me on the basis of my declarations, as opposed to my hard-won professional competence and reliability.

I'm trying to remember what we knew about the previous DA assigned to this case -- wasn't she regarded as relatively inexperienced in criminal prosecution? I wonder if that scenario might have resulted in a special prosecutor being brought in and potentially a more effective case being built.

When (not if!) this case returns to trial, I hope that it does so under the stewardship of a DA who is more Dan May than... some other person.
 
Last edited:

Momofthreeboys

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2019
Messages
2,255
Reaction score
15,119
Excellent post.

I have to admit I'm a bit surprised by this. We have similar requirements in my profession and it is extremely difficult to forget or get "mixed up" with those (minimal) obligations. It is also def viewed unfavourably as a sign of disrespect for the college/ professional association to not fulfill those (minimal) obligations.

I agree with your last para absolutely -- if I am a constituent I want the best and most capable professional installed in such a key role, regardless of political stripe. I can't imagine one of my patients choosing or not choosing me on the basis of my declarations, as opposed to my hard-won professional competence and reliability.

I'm trying to remember what we knew about the previous DA assigned to this case -- wasn't she regarded as relatively inexperienced in criminal prosecution? I wonder if that scenario might have resulted in a special prosecutor being brought in and potentially a more effective case being built.

When (not if!) this case returns to trial, I hope that it does so under the stewardship of a DA who is more Dan May than... some other person.
They voted her into office....not like the community didn't have a choice. Her history was known when she ran for the position.
 

Seattle1

#LiveLikeLizzy
Joined
Feb 25, 2013
Messages
31,431
Reaction score
337,491
Unfortunately I forgot many of the best references/studies on the relationship of domestic abuse/violence to Intimate Partner Homicide (IPH), but there is an excellent new one here.

Key point ----> "Stalking features in the majority of domestic homicide cases"



Emphasis mine.

My critique of the ruling in this case, is that it rests on the notion that there is some kind of common, normal DA/DV conflict, which is not probative, and is prejudicial. But the point is, in 99.9% of those cases, the victim was not murdered.

If you reduce your subset only to IPH - you are almost always going to find domestic abuse - especially in the form of stalking.

At least in this case, IIRC, most of the stalky behaviour is still admissible.

It is a huge red flag and probative.
Respectfully, and for clarity, I think the allegation of DV by BM was never denied by the court, given Judge Murphy signed each protection order issued with his check the box designation confirming the case involves DV. I believe it was a matter of law when Lama denied the state's evidence of DV admitted for the trial. MOO
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top