SUPREME COURT, STATE OF COLORADO FILED

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING IN DISCIPLINE BEFORE THE February 16, 2024

PRESIDING DISCIPLINARY JUDGE
1300 Broadway, Suite 250
Denver, Colorado 80203
Presiding Disciplinary Judge
Complainant: Colorado Supreme Court
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF COLORADO
▲COURT USE ONLY▲
Respondent:
ROBERT WEINER, #21572 Case Number: 24PDJ013

Erin Robson Kristofco, #33100

Senior Assistant Regulation Counsel
Jonathan Blasewitz, #48277
Assistant Regulation Counsel
Jessica E. Yates, #38003
Attorney Regulation Counsel
Attorneys for Complainant
1300 Broadway, Suite 500
Denver, Colorado 80203
Telephone: (303) 928-7911
Email: [email protected];
[email protected]

COMPLAINT

THIS COMPLAINT is filed pursuant to the authority of C.R.C.P. 242.15, 242.16 and
242.25, and it is alleged as follows:

Jurisdiction

1. The Respondent has taken and subscribed the oath of admission, was admitted to the bar
of this Court on July 1, 1992, and is registered upon the official records of this Court, registration
no. 21572.

2. Respondent is subject to the jurisdiction of this Court in these disciplinary proceedings.

The Respondent’s registered business address is 1001 Seventeenth Street Suite 300, Denver, CO
80202.

1
 General Allegations

3. Respondent previously worked as a Senior Chief Deputy District Attorney for the 1st
Judicial District Attorney’s Office (Jefferson and Gilpin Counties).

4. After Suzanne Morphew went missing in May 2020, the Chaffee County Sheriff’s Office
and other law enforcement executed hundreds of search warrants, and a massive amount of
electronic data was collected.

5. The Morphew case was highly publicized and hundreds of community members
participated in their own searches for Suzanne Morphew.

6. In January 2021, Linda Stanley was elected as the District Attorney (“DA”).

7. On May 5, 2021, Commander Alex Walker, Chief Investigator of the District Attorney’s
Office, submitted an Affidavit in Support of Arrest to the court, seeking a warrant with a no bond
hold of Morphew for first degree murder of his wife, Suzanne Morphew.

8. Judge Patrick Murphy found that there was probable cause to arrest Morphew and
signed arrest warrant the same day.

9. On May 18, 2021, DA Stanley and Chief Deputy District Attorney (“CDDA”) Lindsey
filed a “Complaint and Information” which lists the official charges against Barry Morphew as:
one count of first degree murder, one count of tampering with a deceased human body, one count
of tampering with physical evidence, possession of a dangerous weapon, and one count of
attempt to influence a public servant.

10. In November 2021, Respondent was retained by DA Stanley as Special Deputy District
Attorney to assist with the Morphew case.

11. Respondent was aware at or near the time he commenced working on the Morphew case
of a variety of issues, including that the prosecution team was having extreme difficulty
complying with Colorado Rules of Criminal Procedure Rule 16 mandatory disclosures in a
timely manner in the Morphew case.

12. Respondent was on notice of prior discovery-related motions and orders filed in the
Morphew case.

13. Specifically, on June 3, 2021, Judge Murphy issued an Order in response to defendant’s
discovery motions declaring,

The defense request for all "emails and text messages between law
enforcement officers and all individuals (including prosecutors) contacted
and pertaining to this case" is too broad and is not required by case law or
statute. … Therefore it is ordered that any electronic communications
created or received by law enforcement officers related to this case must

2
 be disclosed to the defense if they are material to the prosecution of the
case or if they contain any evidence that would be in any way
favorable to the defense.
(Emphasis added).

14. In July 2021, DA Stanley assigned Deputy District Attorney Mark Hurlbert to work on
the Morphew case.

15. On July 22, 2021, after another hearing on discovery issues, Judge Murphy determined
the prosecution had violated discovery rules, by failing to timely provide cell phone data and
other electronic discovery to the defense, and ordered further production from the prosecution
within seven days.

16. In August 2021, Dan Edwards, who at the time was not employed by that district
attorney’s office, was hired to assist with motions practice in the prosecution of Barry Morphew.

17. On October 29, 2021, Judge Murphy issued a Case Management Order (“CMO”).

18. In November 2021, when Respondent was retained by DA Stanley as Special Deputy
District Attorney to assist with the Morphew case, he entered an appearance and had access to
the court’s prior orders concerning discovery and expert disclosures.

19. The CMO required the prosecution to file its expert disclosures by February 14, 2022,
with any supplemental disclosures due by March 21, 2022.

20. The defense’s disclosures were due by March 7, 2022.

21. The CMO, citing Rule 16 Part I (a)(d)(3), required, “These [expert] disclosures should
include the underlying facts or data supporting the opinion as well as providing a written
summary of the testimony describing the witness’ testimony (if no report has been prepared by
the expert).”

Respondent Fails to Comply with the CMO and Expert Disclosure Requirements

22. Respondent knew or should have known the Morphew case depended heavily on expert
testimony given there was no body to establish murder.

23. Respondent was aware the prosecution’s expert disclosures were due February 14, 2022,
per the CMO.

24. Edwards drafted the initial expert disclosures without ever having reviewed the
discovery—pulling names only from the pleadings.

25. On February 9, 10 and 14, Edwards sent emails reminding Respondent, DDA Hurlbert
and DA Stanley about the upcoming expert disclosure deadline, and, according to Edwards, he
sent the drafts to Respondent for review.

3
 26. Edwards filed the expert disclosures on February 14, but the expert disclosures were
inaccurate and incomplete.

27. According to Edwards, Respondent never responded to Edwards' request to review the
draft expert disclosures for accuracy before it was filed.

28. Respondent failed to ensure the prosecution team timely disclosed the CVs and expert
reports of prosecution’s experts as required by the court’s order.

29. On February 17, 2022, Edwards reminded Respondent and others on the prosecution
team that they failed to file a bill of particulars as required by the court, and as a result defense
filed a, “motion to dismiss counts 3 and 5 for failure to comply with order for bill of particulars.”

30. In the same email regarding the bill of particulars, Edwards stated, “It was my
understanding that Bob and/or Mark was going to take care of this issue.”

31. On February 24, 2022, the court held a hearing on expert disclosures, during which
Respondent and others on the prosecution team conceded their expert disclosures did not comply
with Rule 16 or the CMO.

32. The prosecution team sought and received an extension of time to February 28, 2022, to
supplement their expert disclosures.

33. On February 24, 2022, Edwards filed his notice of withdrawal and left the prosecution
team.

34. On February 28, 2022, Respondent and others on the prosecution team filed “P-44
People’s Superseding Endorsement of Expert Witnesses” which admitted that some listed
experts were still in the process of preparing a statement.

35. The prosecution’s superseding expert disclosure, filed February 28, 2022, was still
missing expert reports and CVs from various experts, which were specifically required by the
court’s prior order.

36. On March 1, 2022, the Morphew defense team filed a “Supplemental Motion to Strike
Witnesses Proffered as Experts and Motion to Strike” noting prejudice to Morphew because
prosecution still had not included an expert CV, expert opinion or written summaries, for several
experts and provided no underlying facts or data supporting the opinion.

37. On March 2, 2022 the defense team filed a “Supplement to Motion to Strike Proposed
Expert Witnesses.”

38. On March 3, 2022, the prosecution provided additional discovery including emails with
law enforcement created as far back as May 2020, which the prosecution obtained during
November 2021 and January 18, 2022.

39. On March 7, 2022, well-after the extended expert supplemental disclosure deadline,
Respondent filed a “Good Faith Witness List” and “Notice of Endorsement of Witness.”

4
 40. On March 8, 2022, the defense team filed a “Supplement to Motion for Discovery
Sanctions” based on the prosecution’s February 28 and March 3, 2022 discovery production.

41. On March 9, 2022, Respondent and others on the prosecution team filed the prosecution’s
response to the defense team’s motion to strike witnesses proffered as experts, arguing that
Morphew was not prejudiced by the inadequate expert disclosures.

42. On March 10, 2022, the court issued a verbal order striking several prosecution
experts finding that Respondent and others on the prosecution team failed to comply with
Rule 16 and Court Orders:

The court finds a pattern of neglect demonstrating a need for modification of a

party's discovery practices in this case... this is trial by ambush. That's exactly
what the rules are designed to prevent. And I'm not finding it willful, but I'm
finding a pattern and I'm finding prejudice. There's a record to support a
pattern of neglect here and prejudice.

43. On March 30, 2022, DDA Grant Grosgebauer, who had only recently joined the
Morphew prosecution team, attended and participated in a Shreck hearing on the qualifications
and scope of opinion of expert Doug Spence.

44. The night before the hearing, Grosgebauer called Spence to prepare him for the hearing,
and at that point learned that no one on the prosecution team had actually spoken to expert
Spence.

45. Spence expressed opinions during his telephone conversation with DDA Grosgebauer the
night before the Shreck hearing that were not entirely consistent with what had been included in
the prosecution’s expert endorsement, reviewed and supplemented by DDA Hurlbert.

46. The prosecution’s initial and supplemental expert endorsement for Spence had indicated
that Spence would offer an opinion based on a law enforcement canine, Rosco, following a scent
down to a creek in the direction of the Morphew home, but this was not consistent with what
Spence told Grosgebauer the night before the Shreck hearing.

47. In addition, on cross-examination of Spence, the defense elicited that Spence had, in
fact, authored his own report of his investigation, which he had not provided previously.

48. At that point, the Shreck hearing focused on a possible Rule 16/discovery violation for
prosecution’s failure to disclose an endorsed expert’s report.

49. DDA Grosgebauer acknowledged in court that because Respondent and others on the
prosecution team had endorsed Spence as an expert but failed to turn over Spence’s report (of
which Grosgebauer reported he had no prior knowledge), the prosecution was not in compliance
with Rule 16.

5
 50. Respondent’s failure to interview Spence or ensure another prosecution team member
interviewed Spence before endorsing him as an expert led to the failure to timely identify and
disclose Spence’s expert report.

51. Respondent’s failure to interview Spence or ensure another prosecution team member
interviewed Spence before endorsing him as an expert led to DDA Hurlbert including inaccurate
information in the expert endorsement filed by DDA Hurlbert.

52. DDA Grosgebauer proposed that the remedy was for the Court to strike Spence as a
witness.

53. The Court agreed and on March 30, 2022, the court excluded expert witness Spence
based upon the stipulation of the People that they had failed to disclose the opinion or report of
their own expert.

54. On April 8, 2022, the court granted another one of the defense team’s motions for
sanctions for discovery violations, and determined:

the People failed to put in place a system to preserve emails as ordered by

Judge Murphy on June 3… The Court finds a continuing pattern by the People
of an inability and failure to comply with its Rule 16 obligations as well as the
Court's case management orders…

55. In the same order issued April 8, 2022, the court excluded most of the prosecution’s
experts, finding:

the People's actions amount to negligent, and arguably, reckless disregard for
their Rule 16 obligations and duty to abide by court orders… the court
excludes 11 out of 16 of the People's endorsed expert witnesses [a sanction]
warranted based upon the record… The case is set for trial to begin on April
28, 2022.

56. Altogether, of the 16 experts initially endorsed by Respondent and others on the
prosecution team, 15 had been excluded altogether, and one had their scope of testimony
reduced.

Respondent Participates in an Investigation of Judge Lama after Series of Adverse Rulings

57. On March 12, 2022, Stanley texted the Morphew prosecution team1 (now Respondent,
DDA Hurlbert, and DDA Grosgebauer) a petition started by Julez Wolf (recall “True Crime with
Julez”).

58. The petition written by Julez Wolf, claimed “the ex-wife of Judge Lama is an advocate of
Suzanne Morphew and victims of Domestic abuse.”

1
The prosecution team had a group text chat thread where all members could text and see each other’s texts,
attached as Exhibit A.

6
59. Stanley texted Respondent and the other prosecutors as follows:

Linda Stanley: You guys might want to read this… [attached petition started by Julez
Wolf titled “Help Give Suzanne Her Voice!”]
Mark Hurlbert: That is very interesting. I was thinking about a motion to recuse
Linda Stanley: I think we should. But I’m not sure how true it is. I can tell you that I
have heard this rumor before. Long before Barry Morphew. But it could
DEFINITELY explain why he hates us so much.
Respondent: Holy crap!! Yes let’s go after him! He should have disclosed this. We
need to confirm asap.
Linda Stanley: I can get an investigator on it.
Respondent: Lets pull his divorce case.
Mark Hurlbert: He is obviously biased. I have realized him asking me about the bated
numbers on the expert reports was because he didn’t believe me when I
said we gave the defense reports.
Linda Stanley: Wow.
Respondent: He should not be on the bench.
Linda Stanley: I looked into this organization, change dot org. Anyone can start a
petition. So we don’t know if any of it is true. The only way to know is to
talk to his ex-wife. And BTW, he has custody of his kid.
Respondent: Need to pull that divorce case.
Linda Stanley: I thought you can’t get copies of that stuff unless you are a party to the
case.
Mark Hurlbert: I didn’t think so either.
Respondent: Maybe start with interviewing her.
Mark Hurlbert: I agree.
Linda Stanley: Ok. But the person who started the petition is Julez Wolf. She has a
YouTube channel. I’m not sure that’s a credible source.
Linda Stanley: Alliance Against Domestic Abuse – 1055 E. Highway 50, Salida, CO
81201. (Screenshot of Alliance Against Domestic Abuse website)
Linda Stanley: She goes by Iris Diaz now
Linda Stanley: And she’s friends with Shoshana!
(Screenshots and pictures)

7
 Linda Stanley: All kinds of reasons for recusal, in my opinion.
Respondent: He should have disclosed this!
Mark Hurlbert: We need to find some time to talk about this. Tonight? And I think I
ought to bring in Michelle.
Linda Stanley: Yes and yes.
(redacted)
Linda Stanley: I also have asked an investigator to look into the other information I sent
everyone.
60. Respondent suggested interviewing Judge Lama’s former wife, Iris Lama, and advocated
trying to obtain negative information on Judge Lama through the Judge’s divorce case.

61. Respondent did not voice disapproval of Linda Stanley’s plan to have an investigator
interview Iris Lama.

62. In March 2022, DA Stanley and Respondent called Commander Walker at the Chaffee
County Sheriff’s Office and asked if Walker had an investigator to investigate an allegation of
prior domestic abuse by Judge Lama.

63. Respondent was aware that Commander Walker refused to investigate Judge Lama,
telling DA Stanley she had no good source for the investigation.

64. On April 7, 2022, DA Stanley emailed Respondent and others and informed them that
investigator Andrew Corey, who worked for the 11th Judicial District Attorney’s office, was
going to interview Iris Lama regarding Judge Lama.

65. Respondent did not object when DA Stanley enlisted the office’s own investigator to
interview Judge Lama’s former wife.

66. On April 9, 2022, the day after the expert disclosures sanctions order and 19 days before
the scheduled commencement of the Morphew trial, Investigator Corey met with DA Stanley,
Respondent, and DDA Hurlbert and wrote in his notes that DA Stanley wanted to find out if
Judge Lama had spoken to Iris Lama about the Morphew case, and whether domestic violence
had occurred during their relationship.2

67. At the April 9 meeting, Respondent again did not attempt to convince DA Stanley to back
off her request to Investigator Corey, nor did he voice disapproval.

68. A week later, on April 15, 2022 investigator Corey interviewed Iris Lama.

69. Investigator Corey reported that Iris Lama told him there was never any domestic abuse
in their relationship, and that Judge Lama never said anything to her about the Morphew case.

2
Corey’s notes and report are attached as Ex. B.

8
 70. On April 19, 2022, the prosecution team moved to dismiss case at the pretrial readiness
conference, which was nine days before the trial was scheduled to begin.

71. The court granted the motion and dismissed the Morphew case without prejudice.

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

72. Colo. RPC 1.3 states that a lawyer shall act with reasonable diligence and promptness in
representing a client.

73. Respondent failed to timely and completely comply with the requirements of Rule 16 and
the CMO concerning the strategically vital expert disclosures.

74. Even after the court granted the prosecution additional time to supplement their expert
disclosures Respondent failed to diligently or promptly comply with the expert disclosure
requirements.

75. Respondent failed to ensure that a member of the prosecution team spoke with expert
Spence prior to the disclosures being filed and supplemented, resulting in inaccurate disclosures
and a surprise, undisclosed written report of expert Spence.

76. As a result of that lack of diligence, the prosecution’s expert disclosures to Morphew
were untimely, incomplete and inaccurate.

77. As a sanction for violating the court’s expert disclosure order, 15 of the 16 experts
tendered by the prosecution were stricken and only one was permitted to testify as an expert.

78. By such conduct, and in each instance described above, Respondent violated Colo. RPC
1.3.

WHEREFORE, the Complainant prays at the conclusion of this Complaint.

CLAIM II
[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)]

79. Colo. RPC 8.4(a) prohibits a lawyer from attempting to violate the Rules of Professional
Conduct, knowingly assisting or inducing another to do so, or doing so through the acts of
another.

80. Colo. RPC 8.4(d) prohibits a lawyer from engaging in conduct that is prejudicial to the
administration of justice.

9
 81. Respondent confirmed or agreed with the prosecution team’s decision to enlist the
office’s own investigator, Corey, to interview the former wife of Judge Lama, who was presiding
over the Morphew case.

82. Respondent did so in an effort to uncover information about Judge Lama that would be
cause for his recusal or disqualification from continuing to preside over the Morphew case.

83. Respondent took this approach despite having had no credible source for suspecting that
Judge Lama had physically abused his former wife, or other conduct that would justify a criminal
investigation.

84. Respondent used his position in a manner intended to prevent others, including Judge
Lama, from effectively performing their roles in the criminal justice system.

85. Respondent’s actions constituted of an abuse of power and were contrary to a

prosecutor’s responsibility to act as a minister of justice.

86. Through his actions, Respondent acted in a manner that constituted an attempt to
prejudice the administration of justice, and also was prejudicial to the administration of justice.

87. By such conduct, Respondent violated Colo. RPC 8.4(a) and 8.4(d).

WHEREFORE, the People pray that the Respondent be found to have engaged in
misconduct under C.R.C.P. 242.9 and the Colorado Rules of Professional Conduct as specified
above; the Respondent be appropriately disciplined for such misconduct; the Respondent be
required to take any other remedial action appropriate under the circumstances; and the
Respondent be assessed the costs of this proceeding.

DATED this 16th day of February, 2024.

Respectfully submitted,

Erin Robson Kristofco, #33100

Senior Assistant Regulation Counsel
Jonathan Blasewitz, #48277
Assistant Regulation Counsel
Jessica E. Yates, #38003
Attorney Regulation Counsel

Attorneys for Complainant

10
Exhibit A
03406
Exhibit A
03407
Exhibit A
03408
Exhibit A
03409
Exhibit A
03410
Exhibit A
03411
Exhibit A
03412
Exhibit A
03413
Exhibit A
03414
 Office of the District Attorney, 11th Judicial District
INVESTIGATOR’S REPORT
136 JUSTICE CENTER ROAD
CANON CITY, CO 81212
APRIL 12, 2022

Case Number: N/A

Agency: 11th Judicial District Attorney’s Office
Victim: N/A
Defendant: N/A

On 4/9/22 I was asked to speak with Iris Lama, by District Attorney Linda Stanley. Iris Lama is
the ex-wife of District Judge Ramsey Lama. District Attorney Stanley wanted me to speak with
Iris to make sure Judge Lama had not spoken to Iris about anything that would make him
impartial to the Barry Morphew case and if any Domestic Violence had occurred in the
relationship. Iris agreed to meet with me in person at DR Lund’s Clinic 205 G street in Salida
Colorado on 04/15/2022 at 9am.

On 4/15/2022 at approximately 0900 hours I spoke with Iris Lama at 205 G street in Salida
Colorado. Iris told me that Judge Ramsey Lama maintained a high level of professionalism and
had never said anything about the Barry Morphew case. Iris also stated never did any type of
Domestic abuse happen in the relationship.

My recording of this conversation was lost, so I referred to my notes for this report.
My investigation into this matter is complete and nothing was found of any wrongdoing.

Nothing further at this time.

Andrew Corey
Criminal Investigator
Office of the District Attorney
11th Judicial District
(719) 239-1497

Exhibit B
03415