Found Deceased CO - Suzanne Morphew, 49, Chaffee Co, 10 May 2020 *Case dismissed w/o prejudice* *found in 2023* #111

Respectfully, I think we'll have to agree to disagree on that.

So i went way down the rabbit hole on this on various occasions, and i am not reposting my posts - but they are here if you can search for them. The following is a summary which might be helpful.

It's really important to read 2 documents. The state's reply to sanctions in the Morphew case, and the recent Supreme Court decision of the state's pattern of persistent discovery violations in many cases.
  1. The state was not using discovery violations to cover up weaknesses in their case. Rather LS's office was guilty of persistent violations in almost every case, including prosecutions where they had an overwhelming case. The dicta by the SC judges reflects Judge Lama's comments. This was not in bad faith, but rather some kind of wide ranging / bureaucratic failing. This is why Judges in multiple cases resorted to increasing sanctions to try to get LS's office to change course.
  2. The failure to provide the expert bios on time is a classic example of this. For instance one of the experts is the FBI CAST expert. This person has a well established bio and credentials and their report was produced before the prelim. There is simply no sensible reason not to have supplied any updated report and bio on time. It's just bureaucratic failure.
  3. IE was able to routinely exploit the bureaucratic incompetence of the state by confusing the court. For instance had the state put forward the competent and detailed response it made in its motion in response to sanctions, in the weeks before the sanctions were applied, they never would have been sanctioned in the first place. For instance two key reports IE already had for months or even before the prelim. She was also able to convince the Court on occasions that after discovery was made, some new and other discovery must also exist - when in fact no such files existed.
  4. Related to point 3, the State has clear resourcing issues especially with people who knew the case leaving.
tldr; IE has created a conspiracy that the state withheld discovery to cover up problems with the case but this is not true. LS's office routinely commits discovery violations in many of its cases due to some kind of bureaucratic failure.

I think people have the idea that there is some secret telematics / CAST evidence out there that being saved for trial. But in reality all that work was done pre-arrest.

The DNA was an area where the case was shown to be weak at the prelim - which is because DNA was not part of the prosecution case and doofus messed up his testimony.
 
In my opinion, Stanley ignored the expert documentation on purpose in order to avoid much of the public condemnation for dropping the charges just before the trial. Lama would be the fall-guy.

RSBM - I guess it's possible but the wider review of her misconduct suggests she simply misses discovery deadlines in most cases her office handles
 
Who is Bob Weiner and are they going after him as well? Reading the short text exchange in the news story he seems gung ho about going after Judge Lama.


Edited to add link

Actually, in addition to Bob Weiner, IE is seeking to the law licenses of all seven prosecutors (if not severely disciplined) who worked on BM's case.

If IE hasn't initiated complaints against all named below with ARC by now, she's probably waiting until after she learns the status of the Civil suit.

Not a very good strategy to sue six disbarred attorneys in federal court when you're seeking a huge cash grab! JMO


4/18/23

The 83-page request for investigation states that judges overseeing identified violations of court orders and discovery rules, including "providing false information to the court."

It names the following prosecutors:

  • Linda Stanley
  • Jeff Lindsey
  • Mark Hurlbert
  • Aaron Pembeleton
  • Dan Edwards
  • Bob Weiner
  • Grant Grosegebauer
Eytan said in a press conference Tuesday that she is requesting for these prosecutors to be disbarred, if not severely disciplined.
 
So i went way down the rabbit hole on this on various occasions, and i am not reposting my posts - but they are here if you can search for them. The following is a summary which might be helpful.

It's really important to read 2 documents. The state's reply to sanctions in the Morphew case, and the recent Supreme Court decision of the state's pattern of persistent discovery violations in many cases.
  1. The state was not using discovery violations to cover up weaknesses in their case. Rather LS's office was guilty of persistent violations in almost every case, including prosecutions where they had an overwhelming case. The dicta by the SC judges reflects Judge Lama's comments. This was not in bad faith, but rather some kind of wide ranging / bureaucratic failing. This is why Judges in multiple cases resorted to increasing sanctions to try to get LS's office to change course.
  2. The failure to provide the expert bios on time is a classic example of this. For instance one of the experts is the FBI CAST expert. This person has a well established bio and credentials and their report was produced before the prelim. There is simply no sensible reason not to have supplied any updated report and bio on time. It's just bureaucratic failure.
  3. IE was able to routinely exploit the bureaucratic incompetence of the state by confusing the court. For instance had the state put forward the competent and detailed response it made in its motion in response to sanctions, in the weeks before the sanctions were applied, they never would have been sanctioned in the first place. For instance two key reports IE already had for months or even before the prelim. She was also able to convince the Court on occasions that after discovery was made, some new and other discovery must also exist - when in fact no such files existed.
  4. Related to point 3, the State has clear resourcing issues especially with people who knew the case leaving.
tldr; IE has created a conspiracy that the state withheld discovery to cover up problems with the case but this is not true. LS's office routinely commits discovery violations in many of its cases due to some kind of bureaucratic failure.

I think people have the idea that there is some secret telematics / CAST evidence out there that being saved for trial. But in reality all that work was done pre-arrest.

The DNA was an area where the case was shown to be weak at the prelim - which is because DNA was not part of the prosecution case and doofus messed up his testimony.
thanks for your informative reply. From my experience, when you submit expert evidence during the discovery process, you include the bio/cv.

It’s not rocket science and it’s not (imo) bureaucratic failure. How can such a simple process go so horribly wrong? The prosecution were given extra time to supply it too, yes? And still they didn’t comply.
 
thanks for your informative reply. From my experience, when you submit expert evidence during the discovery process, you include the bio/cv.

It’s not rocket science and it’s not (imo) bureaucratic failure. How can such a simple process go so horribly wrong? The prosecution were given extra time to supply it too, yes? And still they didn’t comply.

True-- it's not rocket science, and still they didn't comply (with the Court imposed deadline date).

But neither did the defense!

As @mrjitty stated in his response, it's important to read the two documents to understand why the higher court deemed this bureaucratic failure on the part to the 11th Judicial District DA's office...

From the Colorado Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rule 16, Part I, (a) (1) (I), (IV), (VII) and (VIII), the terms possession or control includes those defined items that are in the possession of the investigating agencies[,] and it is the responsibility of the prosecution to discover those items in the possession of the agencies regardless of whether the prosecution maintains those items in its actual possession. . . .

Just as it's not rocket science to forward a request to multi-agencies to turn over all pages of their discovery/documents, and trust they will comply, it's hardly out of the norm that one agent, for example, would forward nine of ten pages-- citing the last page was withheld for correction because it contained their former address in the contact details.

If I recall correctly, the last page with the corrected contact detail was submitted a day late.

Sure, one can argue a deadline is a deadline (and misrepresent the facts of what was actually missing from the discovery)...

Personally, I prefer a camp that can and did acknowledge how the party was not injured or prejudiced when the defense also missed the discovery deadline (on something the equivalent of a corrected contact page submitted a day late, but saw no reason to bring it to the Court's attention). JMO

 
I agree. It was IE who filed the complaint against LS with the ARC and then held a press conference to announce that she filed the complaint! And after a "concerned citizen" from Denver (IE's zipcode) also filed a complaint against LS with the ARC, IE was a interviewed as a witness by ARC (and told us about it at another presser).

ARC's investigation of LS resulted in a complaint filed with the Colorado Supreme Court (answered by LS last December) and that hearing is pending.
rsbm

If the prosecutors engaged in misconduct, the validity of the charge shouldn't depend on whether IE triggered an investigation, don't don't shoot the messenger. But it wasn't IE who started it, OARC began investigating Stanley months before IE's complaint, as early as October 2022. And IE"s complaint mentions nothing about the prosecutors investigating Lama anyway. moo

 
Agree and I've often wondered if Suzanne didn't refuse to have marital relations with B after she said she was "done". She noted that she was in love with JL and wanted to be husband and wife so maybe she thought it was time to stop giving in to BM's requests for s e x.

Maybe he tried on Saturday and she point blank refused because she was really 'done' this time, he tried to force the issue, and she ran from him. I can see that as sending BM in a blinding rage. How dare she? Remember he made the comment in later police interviews that Suzanne had changed, not the loving companion she'd always been and had "gotten ballsy" lately. Who even says that?

MOO
Wow! What an idiot! That doesn't make him look guilty at all!! He's really not very smart is he?
 
rsbm

If the prosecutors engaged in misconduct, the validity of the charge shouldn't depend on whether IE triggered an investigation, don't don't shoot the messenger. But it wasn't IE who started it, OARC began investigating Stanley months before IE's complaint, as early as October 2022. And IE"s complaint mentions nothing about the prosecutors investigating Lama anyway. moo


I take no issue with OARC investigating anybody. However, the problem with this specific messenger (IE) is that I have personally witnessed her mislead the Court with a version that does not represent the actual facts, and I believe she did the same in her complaint, and also as a witness.

For example, in IE's latest linked by OP, she provides that according to the OARC complaint, the prosecutors failed to turn over evidence of innocence in the case. This is complete rubbish that there was evidence of BM's innocence withheld! This man murdered his wife, and I can't wait for a jury to render him guilty!

“The misconduct is cited as the prosecutor’s failure to turn over evidence of innocence in the case, their misstating facts in pleadings, and violation of court orders,” Barry Morphew’s attorney Iris Eytan said in a statement Monday. " It was also for their attempts to intimidate and threaten the trial judge who ruled against them resulting from their pattern of misconduct.

We haven't seen the allegations filed by OARC against the additional prosecutors or the responses by each. I think IE provided the the public a copy of OARC's complaint against LS. MOO
 
The Process Following a Complaint by OARC

According to the Colorado Supreme Court, Office of the Presiding Disciplinary Judge's website, within 28 days after service of a complaint by the Office of Attorney Regulatory Counsel, Stanley must file an answer admitting or denying each material allegation in the complaint.

A respondent also may enter into a stipulation with the OARC and will agree as part of the stipulation to liability. The Presiding Disciplinary Judge (PDJ) must approve the stipulation.

After receiving an answer, the PDJ will set a hearing date. During this stage, the PDJ’s administrator selects at random from the hearing board pool two available hearing board members who will decide the case in conjunction with the PDJ. The PDJ and the hearing board together make findings of fact, and the PDJ makes all legal rulings.

"Respondent lawyers are not entitled to the full panoply of constitutional rights afforded a criminal defendant, however, so there is no right to a lawyer at court expense," the website states." Disciplinary hearings before a hearing board normally are open to the public."

Potential actions include dismissal, diversion, private admonition, public censure, suspension or disbarment.

After the hearing board issues its opinion, either party may request posthearing relief.
 
Agree and I've often wondered if Suzanne didn't refuse to have marital relations with B after she said she was "done". She noted that she was in love with JL and wanted to be husband and wife so maybe she thought it was time to stop giving in to BM's requests for s e x.

Maybe he tried on Saturday and she point blank refused because she was really 'done' this time, he tried to force the issue, and she ran from him. I can see that as sending BM in a blinding rage. How dare she? Remember he made the comment in later police interviews that Suzanne had changed, not the loving companion she'd always been and had "gotten ballsy" lately. Who even says that?

MOO
Might explain his needlessly adding having sex to jos lie about sharing a steak sex.
 
I take no issue with OARC investigating anybody. However, the problem with this specific messenger (IE) is that I have personally witnessed her mislead the Court with a version that does not represent the actual facts, and I believe she did the same in her complaint, and also as a witness.

For example, in IE's latest linked by OP, she provides that according to the OARC complaint, the prosecutors failed to turn over evidence of innocence in the case. This is complete rubbish that there was evidence of BM's innocence withheld! This man murdered his wife, and I can't wait for a jury to render him guilty!

“The misconduct is cited as the prosecutor’s failure to turn over evidence of innocence in the case, their misstating facts in pleadings, and violation of court orders,” Barry Morphew’s attorney Iris Eytan said in a statement Monday. " It was also for their attempts to intimidate and threaten the trial judge who ruled against them resulting from their pattern of misconduct.

We haven't seen the allegations filed by OARC against the additional prosecutors or the responses by each. I think IE provided the the public a copy of OARC's complaint against LS. MOO
If there's evidence of innocence, you don't have to lie to the public about a degraded DNA profile on a vehicle totally unconnected to this case. That's as transparent as it is silly. If you have to do that, you have nothing. Show me the evidence that Suzanne showed any sign of life when Barry was working his little butt off in Broomfield. Do that and this case is dismissed forever.
 
Actually, in addition to Bob Weiner, IE is seeking to the law licenses of all seven prosecutors (if not severely disciplined) who worked on BM's case.

If IE hasn't initiated complaints against all named below with ARC by now, she's probably waiting until after she learns the status of the Civil suit.

Not a very good strategy to sue six disbarred attorneys in federal court when you're seeking a huge cash grab! JMO
^^rsbm

Confirming IE already requested OARC investigate all 7 prosecutors in her 83 pg complaint dated 3/29/23.

 
thanks for your informative reply. From my experience, when you submit expert evidence during the discovery process, you include the bio/cv.

It’s not rocket science and it’s not (imo) bureaucratic failure. How can such a simple process go so horribly wrong? The prosecution were given extra time to supply it too, yes? And still they didn’t comply.

i think you are missing that the defence already knew who all these experts were months before. eg the Berla and CAST.

there was no trick here. they already had the reports.
 
True-- it's not rocket science, and still they didn't comply (with the Court imposed deadline date).

But neither did the defense!

As @mrjitty stated in his response, it's important to read the two documents to understand why the higher court deemed this bureaucratic failure on the part to the 11th Judicial District DA's office...

From the Colorado Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rule 16, Part I, (a) (1) (I), (IV), (VII) and (VIII), the terms possession or control includes those defined items that are in the possession of the investigating agencies[,] and it is the responsibility of the prosecution to discover those items in the possession of the agencies regardless of whether the prosecution maintains those items in its actual possession. . . .

Just as it's not rocket science to forward a request to multi-agencies to turn over all pages of their discovery/documents, and trust they will comply, it's hardly out of the norm that one agent, for example, would forward nine of ten pages-- citing the last page was withheld for correction because it contained their former address in the contact details.

If I recall correctly, the last page with the corrected contact detail was submitted a day late.

Sure, one can argue a deadline is a deadline (and misrepresent the facts of what was actually missing from the discovery)...

Personally, I prefer a camp that can and did acknowledge how the party was not injured or prejudiced when the defense also missed the discovery deadline (on something the equivalent of a corrected contact page submitted a day late, but saw no reason to bring it to the Court's attention). JMO

H E L P !
What all this folderol with/about deadlines?!?
First, they're procedural. Not fundamental.
Second, they're not deadlines. Here, they proved de facto non de jure drop-dead-lines, unimperative, and solely reviewable should the fallible prosecutor [with a death wish imo] choose to argue before a panel of good ol'boy peers that Judge Lama's ruling was "arbitrary & capricious", for example.

Yes. Now shall we
return to a bit more de facto?

Our prime suspect is walking around a free man, pockets bulging with "windfall" legal tender, and imo not getting a crick in his neck looking for LE over his shoulder. And I don't recall IE gusting/gushing re. the government's episodic tardiness impinging on her innocent client's speedy trial fundamentals. Au contraire et de facto, her objective struck me as a Charybdis-like whirling and sucking into futility the sum and substance of any and all matter about her.

This time IE prevailed, but not unqualifiedly so, imo. Pivotal to its precipitance were then observable collateral factors, namely Judge Lama's frustration, mental anguish and his physical agony in presiding further. I recall as much in the tenor of his retirement letter.

AIMO
And thank you!
 
So i went way down the rabbit hole on this on various occasions, and i am not reposting my posts - but they are here if you can search for them. The following is a summary which might be helpful.

It's really important to read 2 documents. The state's reply to sanctions in the Morphew case, and the recent Supreme Court decision of the state's pattern of persistent discovery violations in many cases.
  1. The state was not using discovery violations to cover up weaknesses in their case. Rather LS's office was guilty of persistent violations in almost every case, including prosecutions where they had an overwhelming case. The dicta by the SC judges reflects Judge Lama's comments. This was not in bad faith, but rather some kind of wide ranging / bureaucratic failing. This is why Judges in multiple cases resorted to increasing sanctions to try to get LS's office to change course.
  2. The failure to provide the expert bios on time is a classic example of this. For instance one of the experts is the FBI CAST expert. This person has a well established bio and credentials and their report was produced before the prelim. There is simply no sensible reason not to have supplied any updated report and bio on time. It's just bureaucratic failure.
  3. IE was able to routinely exploit the bureaucratic incompetence of the state by confusing the court. For instance had the state put forward the competent and detailed response it made in its motion in response to sanctions, in the weeks before the sanctions were applied, they never would have been sanctioned in the first place. For instance two key reports IE already had for months or even before the prelim. She was also able to convince the Court on occasions that after discovery was made, some new and other discovery must also exist - when in fact no such files existed.
  4. Related to point 3, the State has clear resourcing issues especially with people who knew the case leaving.
tldr; IE has created a conspiracy that the state withheld discovery to cover up problems with the case but this is not true. LS's office routinely commits discovery violations in many of its cases due to some kind of bureaucratic failure.

I think people have the idea that there is some secret telematics / CAST evidence out there that being saved for trial. But in reality all that work was done pre-arrest.

The DNA was an area where the case was shown to be weak at the prelim - which is because DNA was not part of the prosecution case and doofus messed up his testimony.
It’s really quite simple and straight forward isn’t it ? JMO
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
127
Guests online
3,959
Total visitors
4,086

Forum statistics

Threads
591,890
Messages
17,960,379
Members
228,623
Latest member
julandken
Back
Top