WESTMINSTER, Colo. -- A Westminster man accused of killing his own baby in May is a registered sex offender on parole.
Matthew Burry, 33, appeared in Adams County Court Tuesday where a judge set his case over for a preliminary hearing in October.
A news viewer tipped us off about Burry’s criminal past. That viewer questioned how a sex offender could be allowed contact with an infant.
It's a good question we looked into. But the answers were not easy to come by.
His mugshot appears on Colorado’s Sex Offender Registry, for a crime that happened 15 years ago—a crime requiring he have lifetime supervision.
An arrest affidavit shows that crime happened July 30 and 31, 2000 when he was 18 and in custody of the Family Adolescent Institute in Wheat Ridge.
The paperwork shows twice he physically forced a 14-year-old boy to perform oral sex. He also sodomized the boy. Then, after the assaults, told the boy, “…he would kill him if he told anyone.”
For that crime and conviction in November 2000, a judge sentenced him to 10 years to life of intensive supervision.
But he violated probation in September 2001 and was resentenced in November 2001 to two years in prison.
In June 2012, he was granted parole, which was revoked in January 2014 … then he was re-paroled less than four months later in May 2014.
“Brittany. Were you aware of your husband’s past?” We asked his wife outside court today if Burry had revealed his violent criminal history to her.
She had no response.
But she did speak to our Justin Joseph outside her Westminster home last week.
“Matt is a great man. He is a loving father, a great husband and he loved Dominic with every little ounce he had,” she said. She does not believe her husband killed their baby—and she dismisses her own concerns that Burry had smacked their child and abused their dog.
“Something happened. But it was not my husband. I lost my child. I do not want to lose my husband,” she said.
We were unable to determine if Burry’s parole prohibits him from having contact with anybody. But we were told it probably does not forbid contact with his son because at the time his parole terms were created, he was not yet a father.AlertMe