{"id":4564,"date":"2026-08-12T16:39:05","date_gmt":"2026-08-12T16:39:05","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/usmovingexpertss.com\/?p=4564"},"modified":"2026-08-12T16:39:05","modified_gmt":"2026-08-12T16:39:05","slug":"dna-prior-testimony-fridays-alex-murdaugh-hearing-to-air-swarm-of-contested-issues","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/usmovingexpertss.com\/?p=4564","title":{"rendered":"DNA, prior testimony? Friday\u2019s Alex Murdaugh hearing to air swarm of contested issues"},"content":{"rendered":"
<\/p>\n

Friday\u2019s pretrial hearing for the upcoming second murder trial of Alex Murdaugh is set to feature a host of contentious issues and opposing arguments by prosecution and defense attorneys.<\/p>\n

Read more Historic SC home tied to a ghostly legend is for sale. Take a look<\/a><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

One divisive issue was settled Monday \u2014 state Judge Debra McCaslin ruled Murdaugh will be allowed to wear civilian clothes and be unshackled. McCaslin found that the defendants in criminal cases have the presumption of innocence and that requiring Murdaugh to wear prison garb and be shackled in televised pretrial hearings interfere with that right.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\u201cThere is no justifiable reason to require Defendant to appear in prison clothes and shackles,\u201d McCaslin wrote. However, she addressed prosecution concerns about security, adding that \u201cless visible security measures are available that adequately protect public safety and courtroom order.\u201d<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

Otherwise, McCaslin \u2014 who has a reputation for efficiency in dealing with complex issues \u2014 will have her hands full.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

She is scheduled to possibly hear spirited arguments as state Attorney General\u2019s prosecutors and defense attorneys clash on subjects as varied as DNA, Murdaugh\u2019s previous financial fraud convictions, Murdaugh\u2019s phone records and whether Murdaugh\u2019s testimony from his first murder trial can be introduced at his second trial, according to court filings.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

A possible change of venue from the historic 206-year-old Colleton County courthouse to another locale could also be discussed. However, it may not be possible to settle every issue that may potentially arise Friday.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

The hearing will take place at 10 a.m. Friday, Aug. 14, in the Lexington County courthouse.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

At the last hearing, June 29, as might be expected for one of America\u2019s highest-profile criminal cases, more than 40 media personnel from print, broadcast, documentary and social media were among the audience in the nearly packed fourth floor main courtroom. Court TV broadcast nationwide the first hearing and will do the same for this hearing.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

More than 20 books have been written on the case, in which Murdaugh, a once-successful fourth-generation lawyer from a prominent legal and political family, is accused of murder in the 2021 execution-style killings of his wife, Maggie, and his son Paul. In 2023, he was convicted of the murders by a Colleton County jury. He has also been disbarred from practicing law.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

In May, Murdaugh\u2019s murder convictions were overturned by the S.C. Supreme Court, whose five justices unanimously cited jury tampering by former Colleton Clerk of Court Becky Hill as their reason. Justices ruled her tampering denied Murdaugh the right to a fair trial, a right guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

A new murder trial is tentatively set for April 5, 2027. Murdaugh, who is serving a lengthy prison sentence on numerous fraud convictions, has admitted his thefts, which involved stealing from his law firm and embezzling millions from clients who had earned big settlements in legal cases.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

But he denies killing his wife and son.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

Detailed filings in the Colleton County clerk of court\u2019s office show issues possibly on tap for Friday include:<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

Phone digital evidence<\/h2>\n

<\/p>\n

Prosecutors led by senior assistant attorney general Creighton Waters are seeking to conduct a fresh review of evidence on Murdaugh\u2019s cell phone. Although prosecutors reviewed Murdaugh\u2019s phone evidence in 2021, since then \u201cthere have been developments that permit a more careful review,\u201d Waters wrote in a motion filed Friday.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

Prosecutors will also seek a ruling from the judge to compel defense attorneys to turn over phone digital evidence that they collected during the defense investigation of the case.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\u201cThe defense has and has always had more of the phones than the investigators and prosecutors on the case do, including unredacted phone dumps with thousands of messages from the phones (that) the State does not,\u201d Waters motion said.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\u201cMoreover … the defense has a phone extraction from (Murdaugh) taken near the murders for which the State seeks it to produce,\u201d Waters\u2019 motion said.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

Defense attorneys are expected to oppose the prosecution\u2019s effort.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

Murdaugh\u2019s prior testimony \u2014 admissible?<\/h2>\n

<\/p>\n

Prosecutors are seeking a ruling from the judge to let them use the testimony Murdaugh gave at his first trial.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

In that trial, Murdaugh waived his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination and took the stand, admitting at length how he \u201clied repeatedly to law enforcement, his family, his friends … and about his whereabouts during a crucial period on the night of the murders.\u201d<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

Murdaugh spent more than a day on the witness stand, undergoing emotional direct examination by his attorney Jim Griffin and then a grueling cross-examination by Waters.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

During his testimony, Murdaugh also admitted to stealing from clients and his law firm.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

If the judge does decide to admit portions of Murdaugh\u2019s testimony, she will have another decision to make: whether to allow the jury to see video or hear audio of Murdaugh\u2019s testimony or have a transcript read to the jury.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

Dismiss murder indictments?<\/h2>\n

<\/p>\n

In a filing Monday, Aug. 10, Murdaugh\u2019s attorneys moved to dismiss the murder indictments on the alleged grounds that a former South Carolina Law Enforcement agent admitted \u2014 following Murdaugh\u2019s 2023 murder trial \u2014 that he gave false testimony to a Colleton County grand jury in 2021 that led to Murdaugh\u2019s murder indictments.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

The filing said that more details will be presented in a future memorandum to the court elaborating on how former SLED agent David Owen allegedly admitted during the first trial that he presented false physical evidence the grand jury that indicted Murdaugh.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

The attorney general\u2019s office is expected to contest the significance of any alleged false testimony by Owen.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

Prosecutors have not yet replied to that motion.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

Evidence of Murdaugh\u2019s motive<\/h2>\n

<\/p>\n

In Murdaugh\u2019s first trial, prosecutors were successfully able to introduce evidence of financial pressures on Murdaugh they said led him to kill his wife and son.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

To do so, they put up numerous witnesses who testified that Murdaugh was on the verge of being discovered for using his job in his law firm to steal from clients and law firm over a 10-year period.<\/p>\n

Read more More than 130 jobs headed to Lexington as cable company expands SC footprint<\/a><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

They want to put up the same kind of evidence at Murdaugh\u2019s second trial.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

In a Monday, Aug. 10, filing, prosecutors wrote, \u201cMurdaugh has been charged with murdering his wife and son \u2014 two integral members of his own immediate family. Since people are naturally expected to love their wives and sons instead of brutally gunning them down, why<\/i> Murdaugh did what he is accused of doing will unquestionably weigh on any rational juror\u2019s mind when deciding whether the state met its burden of proof.\u201d<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

Moreover, prosecutors wrote, Murdaugh himself brought up the idea of motive when he told the first law officer who arrived on the scene that whoever killed Maggie and Paul may have been seeking revenge for a 2019 fatal boat crash Paul Murdaugh was involved in.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

In the Supreme Court\u2019s May 13 decision that overturned Murdaugh\u2019s convictions, justices wrote that the trial judge had let the jury hear more than 12 hours of evidence about Murdaugh\u2019s financial crimes.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

That amount of testimony was too much, wrote the Supreme Court, advising that the testimony could have presented \u201cin a fraction of that time.\u201d<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

It will be up to Judge McCaslin to make a decision on how much financial crimes testimony will be presented to the jury, and in what form.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

Change of venue<\/h2>\n

<\/p>\n

At the June pretrial hearing, McCaslin asked each side for suggestions on where a new trial should be held. Colleton County, the site of the first trial, has not been ruled out.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

Defense lawyers prefer to have the trial elsewhere, they said in a motion.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\u201cThis is among the heavily publicized criminal prosecutions in the history of this state,\u201d defense lawyers said in a June 24 motion.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\u201cFor years, Defendant, his family and the law firm with which his family was associated have been the subject of saturating, sensational and continuing media coverage.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\u201cThat coverage has been especially intense within the five counties that comprise the Fourteen Judicial Circuit \u2014 Allendale, Beaufort, Colleton, Hampton and Jasper \u2014 where the Murdaugh name has been synonymous with the legal system for nearly a century, where the population is small and interconnected, and where the very documentaries, books and films that have shaped public opinion were researched, filmed and produced.\u201d<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

Defense lawyers said they want the case transferred out of the 14th Circuit to avoid a pool of potentially prejudiced jurors.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

DNA evidence<\/h2>\n

<\/p>\n

A potentially contentious issue is whether the defense can have DNA from underneath one of Maggie Murdaugh\u2019s fingernails analyzed by a private lab. The DNA is from an unknown and unrelated male and is not consistent with DNA from any known party, including her husband or sons, defense Murdaugh\u2019s attorneys have told the judge.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

Such evidence would indicate that someone other than Alex Murdaugh was close enough to her to have participated in her killing, defense attorneys contend.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

Defense attorneys also contend that SLED has already examined the DNA sample and it is time for the defense experts, who use a different method of testing, to do their own examination.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

In the first trial, SLED was unable to analyze the DNA, but science has made significant advances in the technology since then, defense attorneys assert.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

In an Aug. 7 filing, prosecutors made these points about the DNA sample:<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n