BACKGROUND: (April 29, 2024): "An autopsy conducted on the remains of a Colorado mother who disappeared while on a bike ride in 2020 and was found dead three years later determined she died by homicide and had a drug cocktail in her system that is used to immobilize animals. Suzanne Morphew, 49, vanished while on a bike ride in May 2020. Her husband was initially charged in the killing, but prosecutors dropped the charges in 2022, saying they had hoped her body would be found. Morphew’s remains were discovered in September 2023 roughly 50 miles south from where she was reported missing. No one is currently charged in the case. The autopsy conducted on Morphew’s remains found her death was a “homicide by unspecified means in the setting of butorphanol, azaperone, and medetomidine intoxication,” according to a report released by the El Paso County coroner. The combination of the three drugs is often used to immobilize wildlife and can cause analgesia and sedation, the coroner’s office said."
https://www.cnn.com/2024/04/29/us/suzanne-morphew-colorado-mom-bike-ride-homicide/index.html
---------------------------------------------------
PASSAGE OF THE DAY: "In her testimony Tuesday, Stanley defended her comments on the YouTube show “Profiling Evil” as appropriate and denied state attorneys’ allegations that her mere appearance on the show implied Morphew was guilty or evil. “No, absolutely not,” she said on the stand. “That is not why (the show) was named that. So no, I’m not saying anyone was evil.” She also testified that comments she subsequently wrote on the YouTube video about the strength of the evidence in the Morphew case were written in a personal capacity, not professional. “Obviously I have my personal photo up there, not a district attorney photo,” she said of the comments. “I am responding as a person, not as a district attorney.” “…So as long as you use your personal picture you can say whatever you need to say to defend yourself in the Barry Morphew case?” questioned Erin Kristofco, with the Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel. “I never said that,” Stanley responded."
---------------------------------------------------------
STORY: "Embattled DA Linda Stanley defends herself against misconduct allegations in Barry Morphew case," by Reporter Shelley Bradbury, published by The Denver Post, on June 18, 2024. (Shelly Bradbury is the criminal justice enterprise reporter at the Denver Post. She joined the paper in 2019 and previously worked as a crime reporter at the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette in Pennsylvania and the Chattanooga Times Free Press in Tennessee. She’s been a reporter since 2012, focused on policing, public safety, jails and courts. In Pittsburgh, she helped the newspaper earn the 2019 Pulitzer Prize for breaking news after a mass shooting at a local synagogue, and in 2020 she was named a finalist for the Pulitzer Prize in local reporting for an investigation into child sexual abuse among Amish and Mennonite communities.")
SUB-HEADING: Two-week disciplinary hearing against elected prosecutor is highly unusual."
GIST: Embattled 11th Judicial District Attorney Linda Stanley took the stand Tuesday to testify in her own defense during a professional disciplinary hearing in Denver.
State regulators have accused Stanley, the sitting elected district attorney for Chaffee, Custer, Fremont and Park counties, of violating seven rules of professional conduct for attorneys.
She could lose her license to practice law if Presiding Disciplinary Judge Bryon Large and two hearing board members sustain the allegations of professional misconduct against her.
Stanley is accused of making inappropriate comments to members of the media and on a YouTube true-crime show when she prosecuted Barry Morphew for the murder of his wife in 2020, as well as failing to capably lead the district attorney’s office and attempting to retaliate against the judge presiding over the Morphew case, among other misconduct.
The Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel, which handles attorney discipline for professional misconduct, brought the allegations against Stanley in October, and the disciplinary case proceeded all the way to a two-week public hearing — which is highly unusual for a sitting district attorney.
In her testimony Tuesday, Stanley defended her comments on the YouTube show “Profiling Evil” as appropriate and denied state attorneys’ allegations that her mere appearance on the show implied Morphew was guilty or evil.
“No, absolutely not,” she said on the stand. “That is not why (the show) was named that. So no, I’m not saying anyone was evil.”
She also testified that comments she subsequently wrote on the YouTube video about the strength of the evidence in the Morphew case were written in a personal capacity, not professional.
“Obviously I have my personal photo up there, not a district attorney photo,” she said of the comments. “I am responding as a person, not as a district attorney.”
“…So as long as you use your personal picture you can say whatever you need to say to defend yourself in the Barry Morphew case?” questioned Erin Kristofco, with the Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel.
“I never said that,” Stanley responded.
Stanley charged Morphew with murder in 2021, a year after his wife, Suzanne Morphew, 49, disappeared from the family’s Chaffee County home on May 10, 2020. Stanley dropped all charges against Morphew in 2022 after her office was sanctioned for discovery violations.
Barry Morphew has maintained his innocence and is not facing any charges in connection with his wife’s death.
Lawyers from the Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel laid blame for the failed prosecution on Stanley’s poor leadership during her disciplinary hearing. On Tuesday, she defended her management style in court, saying that she did not need to specifically designate a lead prosecutor on the Morphew case.
“Your implication I needed to crown somebody with the title of lead prosecutor in order for this case to go OK doesn’t hold water,” she testified in response to questions from Kristofco. “They knew what their jobs were. I knew what their jobs were… and there was never any confusion.”
During the at-times heated testimony, Stanley repeatedly said she was uncomfortable answering questions about her prosecution of Morphew, noting that prosecutors may re-file the charges against Morphew after his wife’s body was discovered in a shallow grave near Moffat in September.
But when asked several times about the theory of the case, she said prosecutors initially believed Morphew used a gun to shoot a tranquilizer dart at his wife, but said they later believed no gun was used.
A coroner has determined Suzanne Morphew’s death to be a homicide, finding she died with a cocktail of animal tranquilizers in her body. The investigation into Suzanne’s killing is now being handled by 12th Judicial District Attorney Anne Kelly, since her body was found in that jurisdiction.
The three-member disciplinary hearing board will consider the evidence and testimony presented in the trial-like proceeding, and issue a written ruling at a later date that will find whether the allegations against Stanley are substantiated, and if so, what sanction she’ll face.
The most severe sanction would be disbarment."
The entire story can be read at:
PUBLISHER'S NOTE: I am monitoring this case/issue/resource. Keep your eye on the Charles Smith Blog for reports on developments. The Toronto Star, my previous employer for more than twenty incredible years, has put considerable effort into exposing the harm caused by Dr. Charles Smith and his protectors - and into pushing for reform of Ontario's forensic pediatric pathology system. The Star has a "topic" section which focuses on recent stories related to Dr. Charles Smith. It can be found at: http://www.thestar.com/topic/charlessmith. Information on "The Charles Smith Blog Award"- and its nomination process - can be found at: http://smithforensic.blogspot.com/2011/05/charles-smith-blog-award-nominations.html Please send any comments or information on other cases and issues of interest to the readers of this blog to: hlevy15@gmail.com. Harold Levy: Publisher: The Charles Smith Blog.
SEE BREAKDOWN OF SOME OF THE ON-GOING INTERNATIONAL CASES (OUTSIDE OF THE CONTINENTAL USA) THAT I AM FOLLOWING ON THIS BLOG, AT THE LINK BELOW: HL:
https://www.blogger.com/blog/post/edit/120008354894645705/4704913685758792985
---------------------------------------------------------------
FINAL WORD: (Applicable to all of our wrongful conviction cases): "Whenever there is a wrongful conviction, it exposes errors in our criminal legal system, and we hope that this case — and lessons from it — can prevent future injustices."
Lawyer Radha Natarajan:
Executive Director: New England Innocence Project;
—————————————————————————————————
FINAL, FINAL WORD: "Since its inception, the Innocence Project has pushed the criminal legal system to confront and correct the laws and policies that cause and contribute to wrongful convictions. They never shied away from the hard cases — the ones involving eyewitness identifications, confessions, and bite marks. Instead, in the course of presenting scientific evidence of innocence, they've exposed the unreliability of evidence that was, for centuries, deemed untouchable." So true!
Christina Swarns: Executive Director: The Innocence Project;
————————————————————————
SEE BREAKDOWN OF SOME OF THE ON-GOING INTERNATIONAL CASES (OUTSIDE OF THE CONTINENTAL USA) THAT I AM FOLLOWING ON THIS BLOG, AT THE LINK BELOW: HL:
https://www.blogger.com/blog/post/edit/120008354894645705/4704913685758792985
---------------------------------------------------------------
FINAL WORD: (Applicable to all of our wrongful conviction cases): "Whenever there is a wrongful conviction, it exposes errors in our criminal legal system, and we hope that this case — and lessons from it — can prevent future injustices."
Lawyer Radha Natarajan:
Executive Director: New England Innocence Project;
—————————————————————————————————
FINAL, FINAL WORD: "Since its inception, the Innocence Project has pushed the criminal legal system to confront and correct the laws and policies that cause and contribute to wrongful convictions. They never shied away from the hard cases — the ones involving eyewitness identifications, confessions, and bite marks. Instead, in the course of presenting scientific evidence of innocence, they've exposed the unreliability of evidence that was, for centuries, deemed untouchable." So true!
Christina Swarns: Executive Director: The Innocence Project;
————————————————————————
