Found Deceased CO - Suzanne Morphew, 49, Chaffee County, 10 May 2020 #64 *ARREST*

Status
Not open for further replies.
I believe it was Crime Talk (Attorney Scott Reisch) who noted that Judge Murphy was previously a public defender (and leaning with defense request).

He explained the balancing act imposed on the Court (especially in a small town). It was short. I'll try to find it.

ETA: add link.


Begin about 1:25

Why is Barry Morphew’s Arrest Affidavit Not Being Released? Let's Talk About It!
 
Yeah, I’ve got to believe there are things in there that directly relate to them in some way. I do think there is going to be solid basis for this concern, as it’s been such a focal point of the judge’s argument to seal.

The order itself is not the least bit surprising to me though, as it seemed the judge had already considered the arguments the media would use when he issued his initial order.
Could more charges be coming? Or is it too late for that? Now I am seriously wondering if there was some abuse going on long term. Not necessarily physical, but also mental?? Not just in the marriage, but the family. This all just seems so odd. JMO
 
Judge rejects media consortium’s request to reconsider sealing of Barry Morphew arrest affidavit | Colorado Freedom of Information Coalition

The 130-page arrest affidavit for Barry Morphew, who is accused of murdering his wife Suzanne Morphew in 2020, will remain sealed for now.

Chaffee County District Court Judge Patrick Murphy last week rejected a news media consortium’s request that he reconsider his June 4 order closing the record until at least early September.

“The Media Consortium questions the legitimacy of denying public access to the entire Affidavit based upon the length and details contained within it and also questions the likelihood that this information can’t be redacted,” the judge wrote. “However, it wasn’t merely the details and length of the Affidavit that resulted in the Court’s decision to restrict public access.

“It was also the Court’s desire that efforts at redaction be done meaningfully and with reliable input from the parties, which cannot occur until the parties have had time to familiarize themselves with the investigation.”

Murphy in his June 4 ordercalled the affidavit “the lengthiest and most detailed” he has seen in nearly 30 years of experience with criminal cases. He wrote that “a significant portion” of information in the affidavit may not be admissible at trial and that releasing the document prior to an investigation conducted by Barry Morphew’s defense attorneys could hamper their ability to effectively prepare a defense. The judge also raised concerns about the potential for harassment of the Morphews’ two daughters.

Media lawyer Steve Zansberg argued in a response that the affidavit’s length and details contained in the document “are not legitimate grounds to deny the public’s presumptive right to inspect it,” nor is Barry Morphew’s “investigation” of the case against him. Zansberg, who is president of the Colorado Freedom of Information Coalition, noted that Colorado Rule of Criminal Procedure 55.1 — which went into effect May 10 — “imposes a heightened burden on any party seeking to overcome the public’s strong presumptive right to access” to a court record.

Zansberg argued there are “multiple adequate and less restrictive means” to protect the safety and well being of the Morphew children, other than closing public access to the entire arrest affidavit. If the affidavit contains extremely sensitive personal or private information unrelated to the prosecution’s need for the arrest warrant, he wrote, “Rule 55.1 provides that such information may be redacted.”

But the alternatives suggested by Zansberg “only respond to abuse or harassment and do nothing to prevent it,” Murphy wrote in his latest order, issued July 16. “Therefore, in furtherance of protecting the Morphew daughters from abuse or harassment, the Court will allow time for meaningful efforts at redaction to be made.”

The judge also rejected the media consortium’s contention that the court is required under Rule 55.1 to find that “no less restrictive means” exist to protect Barry Morphew’s right to fair trial. Morphew’s fair trial rights “were not identified by the Court as a substantial interest in its Order,” Murphy wrote. “Therefore, there is no requirement that the Court consider less restrictive means or balance Mr. Morphew’s fair trial rights against the presumption of public access.”

The media consortium seeking the Morphew arrest affidavit includes The Associated Press, The Denver Post, The Gazette, KCNC-TV (CBS4), KDVR-TV (FOX31), KKTV-TV (11 News), KMGH-TV (Denver7), KOAA-TV (News5), KRDO-TV, KUSA-TV (9NEWS) and KXRM-TV (FOX21).

Barry Morphew faces charges of first-degree murder and destroying his wife’s body in an attempt to avoid arrest. Suzanne Morphew was reported missing on May 10, 2020, and her body has not been found.
"destroying his wife's body"
I'll say no more.
 
I'm recalling that Rule 55.1 came about after a MSM story revealed how there was no expiration date on sealing documents from the public in criminal cases. IMO, the public hearings for Rule 55.1 also focused on requiring an expiration in the proposed amendment but did NOT ignore or abandon sealing the AA as has been the practice!

It seems to me that the Judge is following the proposed amendment as written.

IMO, the rub here is the focus on the Morphew daughters. o_O

We don't know why the Judge appears so focused on citing the Morphew children but I can't help wondering if the AA in fact reflects poorly on the daughters.

MOO

https://community.cobar.org/HigherL...c55-df10-fb95-aeea-fdd4690d53ed&forceDialog=0
Thx Seattle, for sharing your legal knowledge. I confess, my eyes glaze over and brain turns off at times when I try to dissect law interpretations.

At this time, BM and his lawyers have all seen the complete unredacted AA, correct?

So he already knows what the daughters have said, or done, and what, if any, issues have been discovered that might show them in a bad light?
 
Judge rejects media consortium’s request to reconsider sealing of Barry Morphew arrest affidavit | Colorado Freedom of Information Coalition

The 130-page arrest affidavit for Barry Morphew, who is accused of murdering his wife Suzanne Morphew in 2020, will remain sealed for now.

Chaffee County District Court Judge Patrick Murphy last week rejected a news media consortium’s request that he reconsider his June 4 order closing the record until at least early September.

“The Media Consortium questions the legitimacy of denying public access to the entire Affidavit based upon the length and details contained within it and also questions the likelihood that this information can’t be redacted,” the judge wrote. “However, it wasn’t merely the details and length of the Affidavit that resulted in the Court’s decision to restrict public access.

“It was also the Court’s desire that efforts at redaction be done meaningfully and with reliable input from the parties, which cannot occur until the parties have had time to familiarize themselves with the investigation.”

Murphy in his June 4 ordercalled the affidavit “the lengthiest and most detailed” he has seen in nearly 30 years of experience with criminal cases. He wrote that “a significant portion” of information in the affidavit may not be admissible at trial and that releasing the document prior to an investigation conducted by Barry Morphew’s defense attorneys could hamper their ability to effectively prepare a defense. The judge also raised concerns about the potential for harassment of the Morphews’ two daughters.

Media lawyer Steve Zansberg argued in a response that the affidavit’s length and details contained in the document “are not legitimate grounds to deny the public’s presumptive right to inspect it,” nor is Barry Morphew’s “investigation” of the case against him. Zansberg, who is president of the Colorado Freedom of Information Coalition, noted that Colorado Rule of Criminal Procedure 55.1 — which went into effect May 10 — “imposes a heightened burden on any party seeking to overcome the public’s strong presumptive right to access” to a court record.

Zansberg argued there are “multiple adequate and less restrictive means” to protect the safety and well being of the Morphew children, other than closing public access to the entire arrest affidavit. If the affidavit contains extremely sensitive personal or private information unrelated to the prosecution’s need for the arrest warrant, he wrote, “Rule 55.1 provides that such information may be redacted.”

But the alternatives suggested by Zansberg “only respond to abuse or harassment and do nothing to prevent it,” Murphy wrote in his latest order, issued July 16. “Therefore, in furtherance of protecting the Morphew daughters from abuse or harassment, the Court will allow time for meaningful efforts at redaction to be made.”

The judge also rejected the media consortium’s contention that the court is required under Rule 55.1 to find that “no less restrictive means” exist to protect Barry Morphew’s right to fair trial. Morphew’s fair trial rights “were not identified by the Court as a substantial interest in its Order,” Murphy wrote. “Therefore, there is no requirement that the Court consider less restrictive means or balance Mr. Morphew’s fair trial rights against the presumption of public access.”

The media consortium seeking the Morphew arrest affidavit includes The Associated Press, The Denver Post, The Gazette, KCNC-TV (CBS4), KDVR-TV (FOX31), KKTV-TV (11 News), KMGH-TV (Denver7), KOAA-TV (News5), KRDO-TV, KUSA-TV (9NEWS) and KXRM-TV (FOX21).

Barry Morphew faces charges of first-degree murder and destroying his wife’s body in an attempt to avoid arrest. Suzanne Morphew was reported missing on May 10, 2020, and her body has not been found.
"destroying his wife's body"
I'll say no more.
 
I suspect these things are related. Once the "video" of the upset daughter went live the defense could point directly at LS as a "harasser". Rookie mistake for LS, cheap shot by the defense.
I don't think LS is a rookie & I don't think it was a mistake. Why blame LS when it was Barry who sent his daughter out to protect himself? THEY HAD OPTIONS: call an attorney, call 911, ignore / say nothing, etc.

A reporter has a 4th amendment right to approach & try to initiate a conversation with anyone anytime. That is not harassment in and of itself. If LS crossed the line, pls enumerate how.
IMO
 
Could more charges be coming? Or is it too late for that? Now I am seriously wondering if there was some abuse going on long term. Not necessarily physical, but also mental?? Not just in the marriage, but the family. This all just seems so odd. JMO
It’s never too late for more charges, but I think that’s it for this one.
 
Thx Seattle, for sharing your legal knowledge. I confess, my eyes glaze over and brain turns off at times when I try to dissect law interpretations.

At this time, BM and his lawyers have all seen the complete unredacted AA, correct?

So he already knows what the daughters have said, or done, and what, if any, issues have been discovered that might show them in a bad light?
Yes, BM has known the content of the AA probably since May 6 or shortly after.

We learned at BM's first appearance in court that the DA provided his public defender a copy of the AA/complaint on a thumb drive. At the time, I don't think there was any discussion on the volume of the AA. They were too busy discussing the protection order* for the daughters.

MOO

ETA: *Civil contact with BM
 
Last edited:
I don't think LS is a rookie & I don't think it was a mistake. Why blame LS when it was Barry who sent his daughter out to protect himself? THEY HAD OPTIONS: call an attorney, call 911, ignore / say nothing, etc.

A reporter has a 4th amendment right to approach & try to initiate a conversation with anyone anytime. That is not harassment in and of itself. If LS crossed the line, pls enumerate how.
IMO

The rookie mistake was in not assuming that BM would use her legally protected actions against her. I didn't say it was harassment, I said the defense could and probably will use it.
 
The rookie mistake was in not assuming that BM would use her legally protected actions against her. I didn't say it was harassment, I said the defense could and probably will use it.
I can’t imagine the defense would use that. It paints Barry in a horrible light, as he used his daughter as both a shield, and a weapon.
 
This is the media’s language, and it’s based on the charges and not the AA (they haven’t seen it yet either).
Agree MG ..."In addition to first-degree murder, Morphew is accused of destroying, mutilating, concealing, removing or altering his wife’s body in an attempt to avoid arrest, according to the complaint."
 
I can’t imagine the defense would use that. It paints Barry in a horrible light, as he used his daughter as both a shield, and a weapon.

They already have weaponized the daughters. Currently, they are being used to block the release of the AA. His attys come off as pretty slimy to me. I don't think they care too much about how he looks as long as they can muddy up things enough to create reasonable doubt or give themselves a lot of appeal options.
 
Could it be that they're protecting the daughters from BLM? Say they gave details (maybe without even realizing it) that contradicts anything Barry told in those interviews and it's damning. I keep thinking maybe this but I haven't followed many cases.

IMHO, this is what the Judge is thinking about regarding protecting the daughters. A bully who's behind bars is still a bully.

Anyone ballsy enough to allegedly attempt to influence an FBI Agent wouldn't think twice about threatening his own daughters.
 
I guess I just don’t get it. Reading through the Colorado Victims Rights Act, it seems to me that victims have the right to be free from being intimidated, harassed, or abused by the person accused or convicted of the crime, or anyone acting on that person’s behalf. I don’t think that the intention is to protect victims from the main stream media, social media, or just interested citizens from asking them questions. But that is what I feel that the judge is trying to protect them from, IMO. Am I misunderstanding? Do judges generally consider media attention affecting victims detrimentally when determining whether or not to seal records?
 
IMHO, this is what the Judge is thinking about regarding protecting the daughters. A bully who's behind bars is still a bully.

Anyone ballsy enough to allegedly attempt to influence an FBI Agent wouldn't think twice about threatening his own daughters.
I don't think that the judge is trying to protect the daughters from BM as he included in the protective order that BM couldn't harass, abuse, or intimidate them. If he does any of those things, I think contact would be cut off.
 
.... A reporter has a 4th amendment right to approach & try to initiate a conversation with anyone anytime. That is not harassment in and of itself...
@IRBHTX sbm Thanks for your post, but not sure I'm not sure I'm following.

Reporters' right to approach ppl, initiate convo's? Okay, agree.
Under 4th Amendment? Thx in adv.
 
I guess I just don’t get it. Reading through the Colorado Victims Rights Act, it seems to me that victims have the right to be free from being intimidated, harassed, or abused by the person accused or convicted of the crime, or anyone acting on that person’s behalf. I don’t think that the intention is to protect victims from the main stream media, social media, or just interested citizens from asking them questions. But that is what I feel that the judge is trying to protect them from, IMO. Am I misunderstanding? Do judges generally consider media attention affecting victims detrimentally when determining whether or not to seal records?
By statute, the Act further charges the DA and the Judge with providing the protection so I guess there's that...

https://cdpsdocs.state.co.us/dcj/DCJ External Website/OVP/Courts responsibilities under VRA.pdf
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Staff online

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
223
Guests online
3,856
Total visitors
4,079

Forum statistics

Threads
592,327
Messages
17,967,461
Members
228,748
Latest member
renenoelle
Back
Top