Found Deceased CO - Suzanne Morphew, 49, Chaffee Co, 10 May 2020 *Case dismissed w/o prejudice* #105

Status
Not open for further replies.
Agree @mrjitty it could be a lack of resources. I was also wondering if perhaps there are those on Linda's staff whose job it is to supply discovery to defense, that are holding the discovery back as a way to discredit Stanley and sabotage her office.
Lots of games are played by all these political factions everyday across all parties IMO. Or yes, it could simply be Linda being not up to task - for whatever reason -and seemingly not caring. Just so strange. That a woman so driven - IIRC truck driver to lawyer - would fail so needlessly and glaringly. ALL IMO
I GOT THAT DISTINCT FEELING SEVERAL TIMES.
Not everybody was happy about her appointment.
I'm definitely reserving judgement on this one.
@Seattle1 do you remember resignations and internal negativity around the time of her appointment/ Resignations and the like?

Do you think it might be a component here?
Was she scuppered?
I know I believed as much but I cannot remember the details.
 
I GOT THAT DISTINCT FEELING SEVERAL TIMES.
Not everybody was happy about her appointment.
I'm definitely reserving judgement on this one.
@Seattle1 do you remember resignations and internal negativity around the time of her appointment/ Resignations and the like?

Do you think it might be a component here?
Was she scuppered?
I know I believed as much but I cannot remember the details.

The District Attorney position is an elected position and it was a nasty race. Linda Stanley defeated incumbent Kaitlin Turner in November 2020.

Coincidentally, Kaitlin Turner recently replaced District Court Judge Lama after he resigned.

 
The District Attorney position is an elected position and it was a nasty race. Linda Stanley defeated incumbent Kaitlin Turner in November 2020.

Coincidentally, Kaitlin Turner recently replaced District Court Judge Lama after he resigned.

Just reading it here too Linda Stanley says she is ready to hit the ground running after District Attorney win
I'm trying to remember details of transfers following her appointment.. was in the early days of the case as far as I recall? I'll keep googling..
Thanks.
 
I GOT THAT DISTINCT FEELING SEVERAL TIMES.
Not everybody was happy about her appointment.
I'm definitely reserving judgement on this one.
@Seattle1 do you remember resignations and internal negativity around the time of her appointment/ Resignations and the like?

Do you think it might be a component here?
Was she scuppered?
I know I believed as much but I cannot remember the details.
You're probably thinking of Jeff Lindsey resigning after the preliminary hearing. I don't think you can blame that on him not being happy with her election though, since she hired him. We don't really know why he resigned, but based on Stanley's statement that "We wish we had the opportunity to resolve any issues he may have had," it sounds like he became unhappy with the situation and decided to leave.
 
You're probably thinking of Jeff Lindsey resigning after the preliminary hearing. I don't think you can blame that on him not being happy with her election though, since she hired him. We don't really know why he resigned, but based on Stanley's statement that "We wish we had the opportunity to resolve any issues he may have had," it sounds like he became unhappy with the situation and decided to leave.
it was nothing to do with her election, something to do with the department maybe?
Well done you finding that.
was there something else as well do you remember?
 


 
I think her attitude (convictions aren't important & resources are not a consideration because a defendant facing charges is often the only justice victims get), her tone-deafness when ethics would get in the way of her ambition (previous public censure), her utter lack of administrative experience, and her poor judgement as a lawyer all contributed to the fiasco in this case.

I disagree with Judge L's rulings and I believe the prosecutor's omission of rebuttal evidence allowed IE to mislead Judge M that there was a SODDI defense. But no one should be misled to believe Judge L's rulings exist in isolation from LS's mistakes. She gave him the sticks to beat her with...

All MOO.

I agree with all this, but i am more interested in the specifics of what is going on in the prosecutors office.

Regardless of the Judge, this is a major administrative failure, where a case collapses due to procedural failings. As far as we know, the prosecution appears to have had the expert reports but simply not disclosed them in time.

Other lawyers in the thread indicated that it is not so unusual in the US for this to happen - indeed in my own experience such reports were being disclosed very late - but typically that is one or two reports peripheral to the case.

It seems weird that the guts of the case was not disclosed in time

One obvious explanation would be that the relevant people were working on something else?
 
Just catching up here on all the latest, and wow. Like many of you, I have been impatiently clamoring for justice for Suzanne. It's such a travesty that Barry continues to live freely and happily. But now, after reading about the failures of the DA, I'm actually hoping that this case is not brought to trial again until the DA gets her act together or is voted out of office. Hopefully her constituents are paying attention!
 
Judge prevented allegations of DV from being admitted.


An organization dedicated to helping victims of domestic abuse is questioning a judge’s decision to prevent evidence of allegations of domestic violence from being admitted in Barry Morphew’s murder trial.
I was critical of Judge L's ruling on this at the time, but I had to acknowledge that admission of expert evidence on the behavior of abuse victims was not common. We still have work to do, to assure that judges are educated on the reasons this evidence is significant and not unfairly prejudicial.

As you say, in isolation from the understanding an expert could provide, he found the evidence of abuse lacking substance and relevance to the charge. He was wrong about this, and for this he bears sole responsibility. MOO
 
Lama might have done the state a favor. If they brought that trial to a jury with their unsubstantiated theories it is entirely possible he would have been aquitted with zero chance of any future trial. We all wanted a trial but I would never have bet on the prosecution based on their arrest affidavit.
Yes, the AA contained the tranq theory, and lots of unnecessary info, and Cahill from CBI was the main author. Should have stuck to divorce pending, phone data, truck data, historical phone data, and BM lies. Fortunately the arrest affidavit is just used to make an arrest. He was arrested and charged, had a preliminary hearing, and was bound over for trial. I would hope that in the trial they would take out a lot of unnecessary info and tranq Theory, but wouldn't have too much confidence in the prosecution. Every case has a chance of acquittal especially murder trials. In my opinion he would have been found guilty of murder if there was a trial.
it was nothing to do with her election, something to do with the department maybe?
Well done you finding that.
was there something else as well do you remember?

The height of political corruption.
 
I agree with all this, but i am more interested in the specifics of what is going on in the prosecutors office.

Regardless of the Judge, this is a major administrative failure, where a case collapses due to procedural failings. As far as we know, the prosecution appears to have had the expert reports but simply not disclosed them in time.

Other lawyers in the thread indicated that it is not so unusual in the US for this to happen - indeed in my own experience such reports were being disclosed very late - but typically that is one or two reports peripheral to the case.

It seems weird that the guts of the case was not disclosed in time

One obvious explanation would be that the relevant people were working on something else?
The problem was at the front end. I think Cahill was right to say the case was not ready to file. They should have spent more time before the arrest, making sure they had everything they needed, that the decisions related to discovery were made, and that all the evidence was organized and ready for discovery. That would have been a team effort but they had time - LS and JS both testified that there was no urgency driving the timing of BM's arrest. I think the new DA wanted to deliver on her campaign promise, that she would be more aggressive filing cases than her predecessor. JS was probably pressing, too. His investigation took a year to complete, and the public was restive.
 

The height of political corruption.
Well, the dismissal of JL by newly elected DA Allen was pretty clearly for political differences. JL supported Allen's opponent. Political positions require a degree of loyalty to the elected official that Allen had no reason to believe could exist. He was probably right about that. Not a corrupt decision IMO, and also not the bad reflection on JL's competent the local rag's headline makes it seem.

JL was a long-term prosecutor in Dan May's office who rose to a very senior position, and I have a lot more confidence in May than Allen when it comes to judging talent. JL was recruited by the district attorney in Pueblo, Colorado, a neighboring judicial district with better leadership than either Allen or Stanley provide.

All MOO.
 
The problem was at the front end. I think Cahill was right to say the case was not ready to file. They should have spent more time before the arrest, making sure they had everything they needed, that the decisions related to discovery were made, and that all the evidence was organized and ready for discovery. That would have been a team effort but they had time - LS and JS both testified that there was no urgency driving the timing of BM's arrest. I think the new DA wanted to deliver on her campaign promise, that she would be more aggressive filing cases than her predecessor. JS was probably pressing, too. His investigation took a year to complete, and the public was restive.

It's one view, but on the other hand they had 8 months after the prelim to get ready for trial, and it is not really clear why what you are saying would impact the discovery of the expert reports. It appears they had the reports but simply did not submit them in time.

If the experts had done the work why didn't they simply discover the material? One gets the feeling this was all sitting on someones desk.
 
I agree with all this, but i am more interested in the specifics of what is going on in the prosecutors office.

Regardless of the Judge, this is a major administrative failure, where a case collapses due to procedural failings. As far as we know, the prosecution appears to have had the expert reports but simply not disclosed them in time.

Other lawyers in the thread indicated that it is not so unusual in the US for this to happen - indeed in my own experience such reports were being disclosed very late - but typically that is one or two reports peripheral to the case.

It seems weird that the guts of the case was not disclosed in time

One obvious explanation would be that the relevant people were working on something else?
Just out of curiosity, why do you think they had the reports prepared? I think that's very unlikely.

They missed the first deadline and were warned that they wouldn't get another extension. It should have been very, very clear to them at that time that this was a big deal. Then they missed the second deadline. I believe they then submitted the CVs of a few experts a day or two after the deadline. I don't think we ever heard about any expert reports actually getting submitted, just the prosecution looking back through previously disclosed discovery for something that might vaguely resemble an expert report. I doubt the actual reports were even close to ready.
 
I agree with all this, but i am more interested in the specifics of what is going on in the prosecutors office.

Regardless of the Judge, this is a major administrative failure, where a case collapses due to procedural failings. As far as we know, the prosecution appears to have had the expert reports but simply not disclosed them in time.

Other lawyers in the thread indicated that it is not so unusual in the US for this to happen - indeed in my own experience such reports were being disclosed very late - but typically that is one or two reports peripheral to the case.

It seems weird that the guts of the case was not disclosed in time

One obvious explanation would be that the relevant people were working on something else?
I'm not convinced sabotage is not a feature here.
 
I'm not convinced sabotage is not a feature here.
If the case had been prepared in advance, all the necessary reports would have been in, known by all the principal actors, and disclosed from the beginning. There would have been no opportunity for sabotage.

@mrjitty there would have been no chance that required disclosures would have been buried on someone's desk.

LS knew or should have known the limits of her resources in terms of staff time and other priorities. She should have taken the one resource she had in abundance - time - and prepared this very important case in advance. I find no excuse for LS's failure of administrative leadership in this case, nor for her disastrous tactical decisions.

MOO.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
234
Guests online
1,091
Total visitors
1,325

Forum statistics

Threads
596,606
Messages
18,050,668
Members
230,038
Latest member
Triplelips
Back
Top