Found Deceased CO - Suzanne Morphew, 49, Chaffee Co, 10 May 2020 *Case dismissed w/o prejudice* *found in 2023* #114

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
no new info
Snipped from the article:

[…]
The allegations were brought against Stanley last October, and the disciplinary case has proceeded to a highly unusual two-week public hearing for a sitting district attorney. These are not the only allegations of misconduct leveled against Stanley. As has been documented several times by Ark Valley Voice, the DA’s office has had a repeated pattern of withholding evidence across many cases in violation of its professional obligations.
[…]

The disciplinary hearing is proceeding in a trial-like setting. The three-member disciplinary hearing board will consider the evidence and testimony and issue a written ruling at a later date. The ruling will find whether the allegations against Stanley are substantiated, and if so, what sanction may be applicable.

The most severe sanction they could decide would be disbarment. Stanley, who was elected as DA in 2020, is not seeking re-election in the 2024 general election.
 
George Brauchler, the very conservative DA who sought the death penalty against James Holmes in the 2012 Aurora theater mass murder case, has posted an excellent analysis of the discipline charges against Linda Stanley and the deficiencies of the political process in rural Colorado that put her in charge. Like every high profile prosecutor who has testified in the hearing, he finds her conduct to be egregious. I am not proficient in the technology to post the site of the article, so I am providing an excerpt and a link below. It's really worth reading in its entirety.

"There are two cases that form the basis of the potentially career-ending trial in which Stanley finds herself: the Morphew murder and the murder of a 10-month-old baby just last year. The uber-high profile, “no body” Morphew case was Stanley’s first murder case. The combination of significant evidentiary challenges and intense and persistent media scrutiny are enough to get even the most seasoned elected prosecutors — like John Suthers (R), Stan Garnett (D), Michael Allen (Club Q, Letecia Stauch) and Michael Dougherty (King Soopers) — to tread vigilantly. Add to that mix a level of inexperience that looks less like “it’s my first rodeo,” and more like “what is a rodeo?” and the risk of bad — even unethical — decisions rises to such a level that, well, here we are.

The attorney regulation trial that has been taking place since Jan. 10 is about what Stanley said to the public, what she failed to do regarding the disclosure of evidence, her failure to properly supervise her attorneys, and her conduct “prejudicial to the administration of justice.” Ouch. That is a brutal accusation to have against the minister of justice (the DA).

Stanley’s failures and misjudgments are the product of staggering inexperience."


Charge of inexperience dogs Morphew Case

@Waxahachie1 -- thanks for the link. Unfortunately, Brauchler's piece is 'subscriber only' content.
 
What’s funny is that you don’t have to believe a single one of these is true to conclude that Barry murdered Suzanne.

We don’t know what Hoyland actually determined in regards to the phone activity, as these were preliminary communications. It’s one thing to make the argument that this evidence may not be accurate, but another thing entirely to call it “fabricated.”

Barry’s explanations (obvious lies) tell us what is true, even if data points and evidence are basically a wash.

This was the last day you saw your wife. You don’t remember exactly what you were doing?! The chipmunk story tells us there was some sort of frantic event.

The defense implies that the needle sheath in the dryer was planted. Barry tells us it is relevant with the deer lie.

Grusing and Harris eluded to evidence that Barry was in close proximity to the helmet on Mother’s Day morning. The elk story tells us Barry planted that helmet.

It is true that the AA contained evidence that was in fact inflammatory, included heresay, and other inadmissible information. So what? After hearing all this evidence, and the same defense arguments that are made here, Murphy determined there was in fact probable cause.

In fact, if CBI had chased down those DNA “leads” by the time of the preliminary hearing, there’s a decent chance that Barry would have been held without bond.

I just wish I could have seen Iris and Jane’s faces once the toxicology came back. If you were ever considering letting Barry sit for a deposition, you can’t do that now.

Right?
Thanks for always keeping it simple. Logic rules. Unless of course you are BM.
 
Thanks for always keeping it simple. Logic rules. Unless of course you are BM.

He didn't listen to his podcasts very carefully.

His first principle -- guilty people don't talk to LE -- messed him up something fierce.

Because he was lousy at feigning innocence.

And LE has 3 30 hours of Barry boldly confirming LE's question marks.

It's about this simple -- if Barry answers with an animal, it's going to be a lie. Mountain lion, elk herd, deer antlers, chipmunks, bobcat...

I remember when IE promised to play all 3 30 hours. Please! Roll all of that bean footage so we can see Barry pivot... and so we can marvel at the investigators as stay cool...

I wonder how many times he disparaged Suzanne (he claimed he had no idea about the affair)...

They didn't lie to him. Didn't need to. Didn't lie in the PCA, no misrepresentations. Work product, current to that date.

I wonder if IE ever dreams that Barry had lawyered up from the get go, only to wake up having to face the fact that his mouth is her biggest challenge.

Well, that and the autopsy results.

And 15 million dollars down the tube.

Can't get a fair trial, she'll say. I say he should turn himself in, ask for clemency, serve his sentence, show some decency.

But then, he'd have to value decency first.

JMO
 
He didn't listen to his podcasts very carefully.

His first principle -- guilty people don't talk to LE -- messed him up something fierce.

Because he was lousy at feigning innocence.

And LE has 3 30 hours of Barry boldly confirming LE's question marks.

It's about this simple -- if Barry answers with an animal, it's going to be a lie. Mountain lion, elk herd, deer antlers, chipmunks, bobcat...

I remember when IE promised to play all 3 30 hours. Please! Roll all of that bean footage so we can see Barry pivot... and so we can marvel at the investigators as stay cool...

I wonder how many times he disparaged Suzanne (he claimed he had no idea about the affair)...

They didn't lie to him. Didn't need to. Didn't lie in the PCA, no misrepresentations. Work product, current to that date.

I wonder if IE ever dreams that Barry had lawyered up from the get go, only to wake up having to face the fact that his mouth is her biggest challenge.

Well, that and the autopsy results.

And 15 million dollars down the tube.

Can't get a fair trial, she'll say. I say he should turn himself in, ask for clemency, serve his sentence, show some decency.

But then, he'd have to value decency first.

JMO
Iirc, one of our good posters kept a list of all the animals in Barry’s zoo. It was funny. We need some of that humor again. It kind of gives me chills to think of all the ways he gaslit her in their years together. A narcissist like BM knows how to do that well.

I’m hoping the circus in Chaffee county wraps up so it is history and he can be charged again. The finding of her body and autopsy results should make that happen very soon.
 
Seven months after IE ("PEP") hand delivered an 80+ page complaint to the Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel (OARC), requesting an investigation of DA Linda Stanley, plus six additional prosecutors from the 11th Judicial District, citing twelve groups of ethical violations, on October 30, 2023, the Supreme Court, State of Colorado, set a case for a Disciplinary Complaint against Linda Stanley (Case Number: 23PDJ041).

The alleged violations by Linda Stanley are outlined in the Complaint as Claims 1-7, and the two-week hearing by a Presiding Disciplinary Judge, Colorado Supreme Court is currently in progress.

CLAIM I
[A Lawyer Shall Act with Reasonable Diligence and Promptness—Colo. RPC 1.3]

CLAIM II
[Pretrial Publicity—Colo. RPC 3.6(a)]

CLAIM III
[Prosecutor’s Extrajudicial Comments—Colo. RPC 3.8(f)]

CLAIM IV
[Responsibilities of Supervisory Lawyer—Colo. RPC 5.1(a) and (b)]

CLAIM V
[Attempt to Violate the Rules of Professional Conduct and Conduct Prejudicial to the Administration of Justice—Colo. RPC 8.4(a) and Colo. RPC 8.4(d)

Respondent’s Extrajudicial Statements Become More Brazen

151. During the television interview on [KRDO]
channel 13, Respondent made the following statements about defendants Mr. Jacobs and Ms. Crawford:

CLAIM VI
[Pretrial Publicity—Colo. RPC 3.6(a)]

CLAIM VII
[Prosecutor’s Extrajudicial Comments—Colo. RPC 3.8(f)]
_______________________________________

IE ("PEP") cited 12 groups of violations in her Complaint filed with OARC, but the actual Complaint filed against Stanley and currently being heard by the Presiding Disciplinary Judge CSC, cites only 7 Claims.

IMO, somebody wasn't happy about this.

After viewing testimony from the hearing (MSM quoted below), compared to the the actual alleged violations in Claims 1-7, making up the subject Complaint, the following notes to the Complaint serve to restate my concern about the appearance of undue influence by IE over this disciplinary process and hearing.

Claim II --Pretrial Publicity,

Respondent violated the rule as follows:

...when she [LS] told the media Barry Morphew “was taken into custody and when asked questions he said he wanted a lawyer and all questioning ended.”

It appears to me that the Complaint cites IE's version from the defense Motion for sanctions for violating the Pretrial Publicity Order which failed to accurately reflect that the quoted statement above was not told to media but a response to a direct question by a reporter, after the press conference ended. This is easily confirmed by the transcript of the press conference linked in this thread.

August and early September 2021, when Respondent appeared on the You Tube channel “Profiling Evil” to discuss the Morphew case, and also made written extrajudicial statements in the public comment section after the podcast ended—

Valid violation of the rule (Pretrial Publicity) as cited.

CLAIM III--Prosecutor’s Extrajudicial Comments—

Respondent violated this rule on several occasions, including but not limited to:

On May 5, 2021, when she told the media Barry Morphew “was taken into custody and when asked questions he said he wanted a lawyer and all questioning ended.”

Same as above-- this was a response to direct question.

In August and September 2021, when Respondent appeared on the You Tube channel “Profiling Evil” to discuss the Morphew case, and also made written extrajudicial statements in the public comment section after the podcast ended—

Valid violation of the rule (Prosecutor's Extrajudicial Comments).

In response to defense Motion for Sanctions of Sept 16, 2021 for violation of the Court's Pre-Trial Publicity Order of June 3, 2021, presiding Judge Murphy said he wouldn't order it, but that it seemed reasonable to limit interaction and interviews with the media regarding a specific case that you are prosecuting.

I recall Murphy stopped IE's argument to repeat he would not rule on the Motion, and made record that he was not issuing another Order than the Order he previously issued--saying if there's a violation it's going to be a self-inflicted wound. (IE put the defense Motion for Sanctions on hold-- waiting for the new audience).

Relative to Mike King's "Profiling Evil," while I the Complaint accurately reflects violations by LS for Pretrial Publicity and making written extrajudicial statements in the public comment section after the youtube/podcast ended, the Complaint is silent about program Title "Profiling Evil" and simply focused on the relevant violations by the respondent.

That said, IMO, it doesn't follow that State witnesses such as Stan Garnett, and the hired ethics expert witness, John Suthers, would then go above and beyond to parrot from IE's own Complaint filed with OARC. (see quoted MSM below).

Here, Suthers didn't even bother with his own statement, and simply mimicked the comment made by Lama when he addressed the old defense Motion for Sanctions that IE saved for a new Judge.

Funny, NOT funny, how this works: "Profiling Evil" wasn't an issue for Judge Murphy (in spite of IE's best argument), and after the subject Complaint was also silent on the program Title, we suddenly have two paid, State witnesses going rogue to make an issue out of something that doesn't appear on the actual Complaint before them? Nice...

I suppose it worked when tweaking defense Motions already settled only to put the same before Ramsey Lama, where they were swallowed whole, why not get the your colleagues to do the same to get your own agenda on record-- after it never made the formal Complaint. It's not credible, and it never was!

Zero confidence in OARC! MOO

But the title brings up ethical problems for a district attorney discussing an active case, said former Boulder District Attorney Stan Garnett during testimony last week.

“Appearing on this show is a problem,” said Garnett. “Talking about a case on a show called ‘Evil’ is in and of itself a statement.”

Stanley appeared on a podcast called "Profiling Evil." The mere name of the program caused problems, Suthers said. "Let’s start with the fact that you’re going on a podcast called Profiling Evil. There's substantial likelihood that this heightens the public’s condemnation of the accused," Suthers said.

DENVER/7 10/31/23

THE COLORADO RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT
 
Seven months after IE ("PEP") hand delivered an 80+ page complaint to the Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel (OARC), requesting an investigation of DA Linda Stanley, plus six additional prosecutors from the 11th Judicial District, citing twelve groups of ethical violations, on October 30, 2023, the Supreme Court, State of Colorado, set a case for a Disciplinary Complaint against Linda Stanley (Case Number: 23PDJ041).

The alleged violations by Linda Stanley are outlined in the Complaint as Claims 1-7, and the two-week hearing by a Presiding Disciplinary Judge, Colorado Supreme Court is currently in progress.

CLAIM I
[A Lawyer Shall Act with Reasonable Diligence and Promptness—Colo. RPC 1.3]

CLAIM II
[Pretrial Publicity—Colo. RPC 3.6(a)]

CLAIM III
[Prosecutor’s Extrajudicial Comments—Colo. RPC 3.8(f)]

CLAIM IV
[Responsibilities of Supervisory Lawyer—Colo. RPC 5.1(a) and (b)]

CLAIM V
[Attempt to Violate the Rules of Professional Conduct and Conduct Prejudicial to the Administration of Justice—Colo. RPC 8.4(a) and Colo. RPC 8.4(d)

Respondent’s Extrajudicial Statements Become More Brazen

151. During the television interview on [KRDO]
channel 13, Respondent made the following statements about defendants Mr. Jacobs and Ms. Crawford:

CLAIM VI
[Pretrial Publicity—Colo. RPC 3.6(a)]

CLAIM VII
[Prosecutor’s Extrajudicial Comments—Colo. RPC 3.8(f)]
_______________________________________

IE ("PEP") cited 12 groups of violations in her Complaint filed with OARC, but the actual Complaint filed against Stanley and currently being heard by the Presiding Disciplinary Judge CSC, cites only 7 Claims.

IMO, somebody wasn't happy about this.

After viewing testimony from the hearing (MSM quoted below), compared to the the actual alleged violations in Claims 1-7, making up the subject Complaint, the following notes to the Complaint serve to restate my concern about the appearance of undue influence by IE over this disciplinary process and hearing.

Claim II --Pretrial Publicity,

Respondent violated the rule as follows:

...when she [LS] told the media Barry Morphew “was taken into custody and when asked questions he said he wanted a lawyer and all questioning ended.”

It appears to me that the Complaint cites IE's version from the defense Motion for sanctions for violating the Pretrial Publicity Order which failed to accurately reflect that the quoted statement above was not told to media but a response to a direct question by a reporter, after the press conference ended. This is easily confirmed by the transcript of the press conference linked in this thread.

August and early September 2021, when Respondent appeared on the You Tube channel “Profiling Evil” to discuss the Morphew case, and also made written extrajudicial statements in the public comment section after the podcast ended—

Valid violation of the rule (Pretrial Publicity) as cited.

CLAIM III--Prosecutor’s Extrajudicial Comments—

Respondent violated this rule on several occasions, including but not limited to:

On May 5, 2021, when she told the media Barry Morphew “was taken into custody and when asked questions he said he wanted a lawyer and all questioning ended.”

Same as above-- this was a response to direct question.

In August and September 2021, when Respondent appeared on the You Tube channel “Profiling Evil” to discuss the Morphew case, and also made written extrajudicial statements in the public comment section after the podcast ended—

Valid violation of the rule (Prosecutor's Extrajudicial Comments).

In response to defense Motion for Sanctions of Sept 16, 2021 for violation of the Court's Pre-Trial Publicity Order of June 3, 2021, presiding Judge Murphy said he wouldn't order it, but that it seemed reasonable to limit interaction and interviews with the media regarding a specific case that you are prosecuting.

I recall Murphy stopped IE's argument to repeat he would not rule on the Motion, and made record that he was not issuing another Order than the Order he previously issued--saying if there's a violation it's going to be a self-inflicted wound. (IE put the defense Motion for Sanctions on hold-- waiting for the new audience).

Relative to Mike King's "Profiling Evil," while I the Complaint accurately reflects violations by LS for Pretrial Publicity and making written extrajudicial statements in the public comment section after the youtube/podcast ended, the Complaint is silent about program Title "Profiling Evil" and simply focused on the relevant violations by the respondent.

That said, IMO, it doesn't follow that State witnesses such as Stan Garnett, and the hired ethics expert witness, John Suthers, would then go above and beyond to parrot from IE's own Complaint filed with OARC. (see quoted MSM below).

Here, Suthers didn't even bother with his own statement, and simply mimicked the comment made by Lama when he addressed the old defense Motion for Sanctions that IE saved for a new Judge.

Funny, NOT funny, how this works: "Profiling Evil" wasn't an issue for Judge Murphy (in spite of IE's best argument), and after the subject Complaint was also silent on the program Title, we suddenly have two paid, State witnesses going rogue to make an issue out of something that doesn't appear on the actual Complaint before them? Nice...

I suppose it worked when tweaking defense Motions already settled only to put the same before Ramsey Lama, where they were swallowed whole, why not get the your colleagues to do the same to get your own agenda on record-- after it never made the formal Complaint. It's not credible, and it never was!

Zero confidence in OARC! MOO





DENVER/7 10/31/23

THE COLORADO RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT
So everyone but LS is violating ethics rules and involved in some sort of nefarious plan to take LS down?

Yet, it is LS, and nobody else, who is facing a disciplinary hearing for her work as a prosecutor in two murder cases that were dismissed before trial. There had to be previous findings to even get to this hearing. A sitting DA having allegations raise to the level of a hearing is almost unheard of. DA's often have ethics complaints filed against them, but few are substantiated and meet the threshold to lead to a hearing. LS has been a clown show from the go and her complete lack of experience was obvious.

Whether she maintains her license after this is anyone's guess. Some attorneys do so crazy stuff, get sanctioned, and then get their licenses back. LS could very easily be back in the saddle after 18-24 months and providing her legal services in Colorado.

IMO
 
So everyone but LS is violating ethics rules and involved in some sort of nefarious plan to take LS down?

Yet, it is LS, and nobody else, who is facing a disciplinary hearing for her work as a prosecutor in two murder cases that were dismissed before trial. There had to be previous findings to even get to this hearing. A sitting DA having allegations raise to the level of a hearing is almost unheard of. DA's often have ethics complaints filed against them, but few are substantiated and meet the threshold to lead to a hearing. LS has been a clown show from the go and her complete lack of experience was obvious.

Whether she maintains her license after this is anyone's guess. Some attorneys do so crazy stuff, get sanctioned, and then get their licenses back. LS could very easily be back in the saddle after 18-24 months and providing her legal services in Colorado.

IMO
Not quite!
If you read the thread you will find others testified..?

Grosgebauer said that Morphew's attorney, Iris Eytan, whom he described as "fierce," made prosecutors' lives difficult in the month-and-a-half before trial by filing motions which he felt were stretching a prosecution team which was outmanned.

He told a three-person panel overseeing the hearing that it felt like former 11th Judicial District Judge Ramsey Lama treated the prosecution and the defense differently, particularly when he struck 13 of 16 district attorney witnesses as sanctions on the eve of trial, because the prosecution had engaged in “consistent” discovery violations, missing "already extended deadlines" for data involving the witnesses.

Grosgebauer countered that this was not true, and that Lama’s ruling was "really quick," based on the word of the defense, which was filing motions, he felt, for the sake of keeping the prosecution on its heels.

 
Not quite!
If you read the thread you will find others testified..?

Grosgebauer said that Morphew's attorney, Iris Eytan, whom he described as "fierce," made prosecutors' lives difficult in the month-and-a-half before trial by filing motions which he felt were stretching a prosecution team which was outmanned.

He told a three-person panel overseeing the hearing that it felt like former 11th Judicial District Judge Ramsey Lama treated the prosecution and the defense differently, particularly when he struck 13 of 16 district attorney witnesses as sanctions on the eve of trial, because the prosecution had engaged in “consistent” discovery violations, missing "already extended deadlines" for data involving the witnesses.

Grosgebauer countered that this was not true, and that Lama’s ruling was "really quick," based on the word of the defense, which was filing motions, he felt, for the sake of keeping the prosecution on its heels.

You need to remember that this is the job of the defence. The state has great power and should be held to account accordingly.
 
You need to remember that this is the job of the defence. The state has great power and should be held to account accordingly.
It's not solely or about the defense.

What I need to remember for fairness is that ALL circumstances must be taken into account.

It's not just her story, it's also her lack of resources.
Ignoring all the contributing factors is like RA RA RA, meaningless.

eTA English
 
Last edited:
So everyone but LS is violating ethics rules and involved in some sort of nefarious plan to take LS down?

Yet, it is LS, and nobody else, who is facing a disciplinary hearing for her work as a prosecutor in two murder cases that were dismissed before trial. There had to be previous findings to even get to this hearing. A sitting DA having allegations raise to the level of a hearing is almost unheard of. DA's often have ethics complaints filed against them, but few are substantiated and meet the threshold to lead to a hearing. LS has been a clown show from the go and her complete lack of experience was obvious.

Whether she maintains her license after this is anyone's guess. Some attorneys do so crazy stuff, get sanctioned, and then get their licenses back. LS could very easily be back in the saddle after 18-24 months and providing her legal services in Colorado.

IMO

<modsnip>

The Presiding Disciplinary Judge has about 8 weeks after the hearing concludes to issue the Courts Opinion where Linda Stanley will no doubt be disbarred and out of the DA's office before the November election.

The Colorado Supreme Court set a case with Complaint in October 2023, and Stanley likely had an opportunity at that time to forgo a hearing and for the Judge to approve the parties’ stipulation to discipline, and she obviously passed at a chance for suspension. MOO
<modsnip - snarky, rude>
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Seven months after IE ("PEP") hand delivered an 80+ page complaint to the Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel (OARC), requesting an investigation of DA Linda Stanley, plus six additional prosecutors from the 11th Judicial District, citing twelve groups of ethical violations, on October 30, 2023, the Supreme Court, State of Colorado, set a case for a Disciplinary Complaint against Linda Stanley (Case Number: 23PDJ041).

The alleged violations by Linda Stanley are outlined in the Complaint as Claims 1-7, and the two-week hearing by a Presiding Disciplinary Judge, Colorado Supreme Court is currently in progress.

CLAIM I
[A Lawyer Shall Act with Reasonable Diligence and Promptness—Colo. RPC 1.3]

CLAIM II
[Pretrial Publicity—Colo. RPC 3.6(a)]

CLAIM III
[Prosecutor’s Extrajudicial Comments—Colo. RPC 3.8(f)]

CLAIM IV
[Responsibilities of Supervisory Lawyer—Colo. RPC 5.1(a) and (b)]

CLAIM V
[Attempt to Violate the Rules of Professional Conduct and Conduct Prejudicial to the Administration of Justice—Colo. RPC 8.4(a) and Colo. RPC 8.4(d)

Respondent’s Extrajudicial Statements Become More Brazen

151. During the television interview on [KRDO]
channel 13, Respondent made the following statements about defendants Mr. Jacobs and Ms. Crawford:

CLAIM VI
[Pretrial Publicity—Colo. RPC 3.6(a)]

CLAIM VII
[Prosecutor’s Extrajudicial Comments—Colo. RPC 3.8(f)]
_______________________________________

IE ("PEP") cited 12 groups of violations in her Complaint filed with OARC, but the actual Complaint filed against Stanley and currently being heard by the Presiding Disciplinary Judge CSC, cites only 7 Claims.

IMO, somebody wasn't happy about this.

After viewing testimony from the hearing (MSM quoted below), compared to the the actual alleged violations in Claims 1-7, making up the subject Complaint, the following notes to the Complaint serve to restate my concern about the appearance of undue influence by IE over this disciplinary process and hearing.

Claim II --Pretrial Publicity,

Respondent violated the rule as follows:

...when she [LS] told the media Barry Morphew “was taken into custody and when asked questions he said he wanted a lawyer and all questioning ended.”

It appears to me that the Complaint cites IE's version from the defense Motion for sanctions for violating the Pretrial Publicity Order which failed to accurately reflect that the quoted statement above was not told to media but a response to a direct question by a reporter, after the press conference ended. This is easily confirmed by the transcript of the press conference linked in this thread.

August and early September 2021, when Respondent appeared on the You Tube channel “Profiling Evil” to discuss the Morphew case, and also made written extrajudicial statements in the public comment section after the podcast ended—

Valid violation of the rule (Pretrial Publicity) as cited.

CLAIM III--Prosecutor’s Extrajudicial Comments—

Respondent violated this rule on several occasions, including but not limited to:

On May 5, 2021, when she told the media Barry Morphew “was taken into custody and when asked questions he said he wanted a lawyer and all questioning ended.”

Same as above-- this was a response to direct question.

In August and September 2021, when Respondent appeared on the You Tube channel “Profiling Evil” to discuss the Morphew case, and also made written extrajudicial statements in the public comment section after the podcast ended—

Valid violation of the rule (Prosecutor's Extrajudicial Comments).

In response to defense Motion for Sanctions of Sept 16, 2021 for violation of the Court's Pre-Trial Publicity Order of June 3, 2021, presiding Judge Murphy said he wouldn't order it, but that it seemed reasonable to limit interaction and interviews with the media regarding a specific case that you are prosecuting.

I recall Murphy stopped IE's argument to repeat he would not rule on the Motion, and made record that he was not issuing another Order than the Order he previously issued--saying if there's a violation it's going to be a self-inflicted wound. (IE put the defense Motion for Sanctions on hold-- waiting for the new audience).

Relative to Mike King's "Profiling Evil," while I the Complaint accurately reflects violations by LS for Pretrial Publicity and making written extrajudicial statements in the public comment section after the youtube/podcast ended, the Complaint is silent about program Title "Profiling Evil" and simply focused on the relevant violations by the respondent.

That said, IMO, it doesn't follow that State witnesses such as Stan Garnett, and the hired ethics expert witness, John Suthers, would then go above and beyond to parrot from IE's own Complaint filed with OARC. (see quoted MSM below).

Here, Suthers didn't even bother with his own statement, and simply mimicked the comment made by Lama when he addressed the old defense Motion for Sanctions that IE saved for a new Judge.

Funny, NOT funny, how this works: "Profiling Evil" wasn't an issue for Judge Murphy (in spite of IE's best argument), and after the subject Complaint was also silent on the program Title, we suddenly have two paid, State witnesses going rogue to make an issue out of something that doesn't appear on the actual Complaint before them? Nice...

I suppose it worked when tweaking defense Motions already settled only to put the same before Ramsey Lama, where they were swallowed whole, why not get the your colleagues to do the same to get your own agenda on record-- after it never made the formal Complaint. It's not credible, and it never was!

Zero confidence in OARC! MOO





DENVER/7 10/31/23

THE COLORADO RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT

Just to be clear, this outline of LS's Complaint is for the benefit of the six additional prosecutors who IE filed 12 groups of ethical violations against with OARC, and their own cases pending. It's about a loss of confidence in OARC when they don't even try to hide that well heeled political interests can get you a seat at the table to influence the disciplinary body.

It's too late for LS, and sorry if some readers confused. MOO

ETA: It's 5 prosecutors with pending cases, not 6. Edwards acted early for a deal. I don't think they will attract MSM coverage. JMO
 
You need to remember that this is the job of the defence. The state has great power and should be held to account accordingly.
Yes, this. IE is fierce and she is aggressive and she is intelligent and no matter how much people might find her repugnant I don't think she is going to jeopardize her career being stupid about ethical violations. In my opinion lawyers should be aggressive, intelligent and fierce. LS ended up where she is from her own doing.
 
Seven months after IE ("PEP") hand delivered an 80+ page complaint to the Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel (OARC), requesting an investigation of DA Linda Stanley, plus six additional prosecutors from the 11th Judicial District, citing twelve groups of ethical violations, on October 30, 2023, the Supreme Court, State of Colorado, set a case for a Disciplinary Complaint against Linda Stanley (Case Number: 23PDJ041).

The alleged violations by Linda Stanley are outlined in the Complaint as Claims 1-7, and the two-week hearing by a Presiding Disciplinary Judge, Colorado Supreme Court is currently in progress.

CLAIM I
[A Lawyer Shall Act with Reasonable Diligence and Promptness—Colo. RPC 1.3]

CLAIM II
[Pretrial Publicity—Colo. RPC 3.6(a)]

CLAIM III
[Prosecutor’s Extrajudicial Comments—Colo. RPC 3.8(f)]

CLAIM IV
[Responsibilities of Supervisory Lawyer—Colo. RPC 5.1(a) and (b)]

CLAIM V
[Attempt to Violate the Rules of Professional Conduct and Conduct Prejudicial to the Administration of Justice—Colo. RPC 8.4(a) and Colo. RPC 8.4(d)

Respondent’s Extrajudicial Statements Become More Brazen

151. During the television interview on [KRDO]
channel 13, Respondent made the following statements about defendants Mr. Jacobs and Ms. Crawford:

CLAIM VI
[Pretrial Publicity—Colo. RPC 3.6(a)]

CLAIM VII
[Prosecutor’s Extrajudicial Comments—Colo. RPC 3.8(f)]
_______________________________________

IE ("PEP") cited 12 groups of violations in her Complaint filed with OARC, but the actual Complaint filed against Stanley and currently being heard by the Presiding Disciplinary Judge CSC, cites only 7 Claims.

IMO, somebody wasn't happy about this.

After viewing testimony from the hearing (MSM quoted below), compared to the the actual alleged violations in Claims 1-7, making up the subject Complaint, the following notes to the Complaint serve to restate my concern about the appearance of undue influence by IE over this disciplinary process and hearing.

Claim II --Pretrial Publicity,

Respondent violated the rule as follows:

...when she [LS] told the media Barry Morphew “was taken into custody and when asked questions he said he wanted a lawyer and all questioning ended.”

It appears to me that the Complaint cites IE's version from the defense Motion for sanctions for violating the Pretrial Publicity Order which failed to accurately reflect that the quoted statement above was not told to media but a response to a direct question by a reporter, after the press conference ended. This is easily confirmed by the transcript of the press conference linked in this thread.

August and early September 2021, when Respondent appeared on the You Tube channel “Profiling Evil” to discuss the Morphew case, and also made written extrajudicial statements in the public comment section after the podcast ended—

Valid violation of the rule (Pretrial Publicity) as cited.

CLAIM III--Prosecutor’s Extrajudicial Comments—

Respondent violated this rule on several occasions, including but not limited to:

On May 5, 2021, when she told the media Barry Morphew “was taken into custody and when asked questions he said he wanted a lawyer and all questioning ended.”

Same as above-- this was a response to direct question.

In August and September 2021, when Respondent appeared on the You Tube channel “Profiling Evil” to discuss the Morphew case, and also made written extrajudicial statements in the public comment section after the podcast ended—

Valid violation of the rule (Prosecutor's Extrajudicial Comments).

In response to defense Motion for Sanctions of Sept 16, 2021 for violation of the Court's Pre-Trial Publicity Order of June 3, 2021, presiding Judge Murphy said he wouldn't order it, but that it seemed reasonable to limit interaction and interviews with the media regarding a specific case that you are prosecuting.

I recall Murphy stopped IE's argument to repeat he would not rule on the Motion, and made record that he was not issuing another Order than the Order he previously issued--saying if there's a violation it's going to be a self-inflicted wound. (IE put the defense Motion for Sanctions on hold-- waiting for the new audience).

Relative to Mike King's "Profiling Evil," while I the Complaint accurately reflects violations by LS for Pretrial Publicity and making written extrajudicial statements in the public comment section after the youtube/podcast ended, the Complaint is silent about program Title "Profiling Evil" and simply focused on the relevant violations by the respondent.

That said, IMO, it doesn't follow that State witnesses such as Stan Garnett, and the hired ethics expert witness, John Suthers, would then go above and beyond to parrot from IE's own Complaint filed with OARC. (see quoted MSM below).

Here, Suthers didn't even bother with his own statement, and simply mimicked the comment made by Lama when he addressed the old defense Motion for Sanctions that IE saved for a new Judge.

Funny, NOT funny, how this works: "Profiling Evil" wasn't an issue for Judge Murphy (in spite of IE's best argument), and after the subject Complaint was also silent on the program Title, we suddenly have two paid, State witnesses going rogue to make an issue out of something that doesn't appear on the actual Complaint before them? Nice...

I suppose it worked when tweaking defense Motions already settled only to put the same before Ramsey Lama, where they were swallowed whole, why not get the your colleagues to do the same to get your own agenda on record-- after it never made the formal Complaint. It's not credible, and it never was!

Zero confidence in OARC! MOO





DENVER/7 10/31/23

THE COLORADO RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT
All MOO:

With great respect, I disagree that we should doubt the integrity of the OARC and its inquiry into Stanley's conduct.

1. You infer this from the fact that the complaint fails to add the detaIl that two statements to members of the press were made in response to direct questions from reporters. This is pretty thin gruel for the sweeping conclusion you make about Eytan's "undue inference" with the OARC.

2. You find it extremely suspect that well respected Colorado prosecutors seem to take more seriously than Judge Murphy did, Stanley's appearance on "Profiling Evil", and that former Attorney General (and 4th District DA) John Suthers is suspect because he appeared as a paid expert in prosecutorial ethics. I deeply disagree: there is no reason at all do doubt Suthers' integrity, which has been well established during his long career of public service in Colorado. If paid experts were to be considered liars ipso facto, there would be no hope for the case against Morphew, which is very dependent on expert testimony.

Moreover, no present or former prosecutors have made any public comments supporting Stanley. Asked about the complaint when it was made public, legendary 17th District DA Bob Grant commented to the Denver Gazette: "“My God, you don’t go on a podcast. That’s prosecution 101. Assuming that the bulk of the allegations and the complaint are proven and factually accurate, she wasn’t ready for the complexity of the Morphew case and I’m afraid that what she was ready for was the headlines." In an opinion piece for Colorado Politics, former 18th District DA George Brauchler expressed similarly scathing views of Stanley's statements to media representatives. Stanley has zero support from her Republican peers.

3. You suggest that Judge Murphy's treatment of Stanley's statements to the press was the definitive ruling on the topic, so the OARC's decision to charge her was not only wrong but corrupt. But Judge Murphy was not asked to adjudicate Stanley's ethics: he was asked to dismiss or reduce the charges on the grounds that Stanley had prejudiced the case. He was applying a different legal standard to the litigation before him, and he did not deny the motion if I recall correctly. He held it in abeyance with a clear warning to the DA. There was nothing nefarious about Murphy's recusal from the case, and although I disagreed with Lama's decision to change the venue for trial, there is nothing nefarious about the defense raising the issue: not to do so would have been malpractice. Eytan wanted a move to Denver or Colorado Springs. Lama gave her a potential jury of corrections employees in Canyon City, 50 miles down the road: out of the frying pan, into the fire.

4. Paradoxically in light of your claim that Eytan has undue influence, you note that the OARC declined to include several of her ethics charges, and you suggest that she is angry about that. I'm not sure I follow - all I can say is that this is unpersuasive, to me.

I don't know that disbarment will be or should be the ultimate outcome in Stanley's case, but I don't doubt the OARC's integrity.

Again, MOO.
 
Last edited:
Yes, this. IE is fierce and she is aggressive and she is intelligent and no matter how much people might find her repugnant I don't think she is going to jeopardize her career being stupid about ethical violations. In my opinion lawyers should be aggressive, intelligent and fierce. LS ended up where she is from her own doing.
RBBM
Yes sure. And I hope an aggressive, intelligent and fierce lawyer/Prosecutor, whether the 12th JD’s DA Anne Kelly or a Special Prosecutor that’s brought in, takes BM down at future trial and secures a conviction against the monster.

Something tells me the next Prosecutor/prosecuting team will not make the mistakes the first did, and though I disagreed with most of Judge RL’s rulings/heavy sanctions in the first attempt, I for one am so thankful the case was dismissed without prejudice giving the state the opportunity to take another stab/bite of the apple. And with Suzanne’s remains having since been located and the BAM in her bone marrow smoking gun, I believe the state/new prosecution team will be able to put the final nail in BM’s coffin at future trial.

I look forward to the day it happens, hopefully in the not too distant future, and being able to say bye bye Barry! for good.


IMHOO

#JusticeForSuzanne

ETA-punctuation
 
Last edited:
Moreover, no present or former prosecutors have made any public comments supporting Stanley.
LS’s attorney is a former prosecutor, and supports her. This all stinks anyhow. Barry should be the one on trial.
JMO


Stanley’s lawyer, former prosecutor Steven Jensen, told the three-member panel considering the case in Denver that rural district attorney offices like Stanley’s do not have as many resources to handle high-profile cases as larger, urban ones.
[…]
The state will not be able to show “clear and convincing” evidence that Stanley violated ethical rules, Jensen said.

 

Staff online

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
170
Guests online
2,104
Total visitors
2,274

Forum statistics

Threads
599,488
Messages
18,095,892
Members
230,862
Latest member
jusslikeme
Back
Top