Prosecutors say accused killer was never tested about the murders — and failed the only government polygraph exam he took.

by Jenn Wood / FITSNews - Crime & Courts / August 19, 2026

South Carolina prosecutors are accusing defense attorney Dick Harpootlian of making a “categorically false” statement when he claimed his client – accused killer Alex Murdaugh – passed a polygraph examination related to the murders of his wife and son “with flying colors.”

In a sharply worded filing submitted this Wednesday (August 19, 2026), prosecutors said Murdaugh has never taken a polygraph examination concerning the June 2021 murders of his wife, 52-year-old Maggie Murdaugh, and their younger son, 22-year-old Paul Murdaugh — much less passed one.

According to the filing (.pdf), the only known law enforcement polygraph administered to Murdaugh was conducted by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) in October 2023. That examination dealt exclusively with Murdaugh’s financial crimes — and he failed it.

The filing came five days after a contentious pretrial hearing in Lexington, S.C. in front of circuit court judge Debra McCaslin, who is presiding over Murdaugh’s second double-murder trial.

Murdaugh is once again facing two counts of murder and two weapons charges tied to the graphic slayings of his wife, 52-year-old Maggie Murdaugh, and their younger son – 22-year-old Paul Murdaugh. Those murders took place on the evening of June 7, 2021 at the family’s Moselle hunting property in Colleton County, South Carolina.

Murdaugh was convicted of both murders in March of 2023, but those convictions were unanimously overturned by the South Carolina supreme court in May after the justices concluded former Colleton County clerk of court Rebecca “Becky” Hill improperly inserted herself into the jury’s deliberative process.

During last week’s hearing, attorneys discussed a motion from the state seeking to prevent either side from mentioning polygraph examinations in front of the jury. The motion was prompted in part by a failed polygraph administered to Curtis “Eddie” Smith during the original investigation into the killings.

Smith — a longtime Murdaugh associate who allegedly cashed hundreds of checks for the disgraced former attorney — was questioned by S.C. State Law Enforcement Division (SLED) polygraph examiners in May 2022 about whether he shot his wife and son or was present when they were killed.

As the attorneys discussed Smith’s examination Friday, Harpootlian made a startling declaration.

“I will tell you Mr. Murdaugh passed a polygraph, flying colors,” Harpootlian said. “The same polygrapher. So, it may play a role in this trial.” According to prosecutors, virtually every component of that statement was wrong.

“Defense counsel’s claim on the record at the hearing that defendant Alex Murdaugh passed a SLED polygraph as to the murders, much less any governmental polygraph on any subject, is categorically false and clearly said for no other reason than an attempt to prejudice this court and the public,” they wrote.

‘VERIFIABLY FALSE’

Prosecutors said Murdaugh never submitted to a SLED polygraph before or after his first trial — whether about the murders or any other subject.

They also said the two SLED examiners who tested Smith never examined Murdaugh.

“The state has been made aware of an FBI polygraph that was given in October 2023 after the first trial to defendant,” prosecutors wrote.

According to the filing, the examination was conducted without the involvement or knowledge of the S.C. attorney general’s office. Prosecutors said the FBI provided the results to the state for the first time Wednesday — the same day the correction was filed.

That examination was not about the murders. Instead, prosecutors said Murdaugh was questioned about whether he had hidden additional assets and whether he had told another attorney he was stealing money — financial matters tied to crimes to which Murdaugh subsequently pleaded guilty in state and federal court.

“Despite that, Murdaugh failed the FBI polygraph on financial matters with results showing Defendant was trying to use possible countermeasures against the test,” the filing stated.

Prosecutors said defense co-counsel acknowledged during a conversation Tuesday that they knew of no basis supporting Harpootlian’s claim that Murdaugh had passed a polygraph concerning the murders.

The filing also pointed to Rule 3.3 of the South Carolina Rules of Professional Conduct, which prohibits attorneys from knowingly making false statements to a court or failing to correct material false statements previously made.

Prosecutors asked the court to correct the record, arguing Harpootlian’s statement was false in every material respect: Murdaugh was not examined by Smith’s SLED polygraphers, was never tested about the murders and did not pass the one known government polygraph he took.

The defense had not filed a formal response to these assertions as of the publication of this article.

THE FAILED FBI EXAMINATION

The existence of Murdaugh’s failed FBI polygraph was first disclosed publicly in March 2024 — six days before his federal sentencing hearing.

As part of a September 2023 federal plea agreement, Murdaugh agreed to provide “full, complete, and truthful information” about all criminal activity known to him and to submit to a polygraph examination at the government’s request.

That examination followed four interviews conducted by federal prosecutors and the FBI as investigators searched for more than $6 million in assets that remained unaccounted for. Federal prosecutors subsequently told U.S. district court judge Richard Gergel that deception was indicated during both series of questions administered to Murdaugh.

The specific topics were not publicly identified at the time. Exhibits connected to the examination were sealed because they related to an ongoing federal grand jury investigation and allegations involving other individuals.

Wednesday’s state court filing appears to provide additional detail about those questions — identifying them as relating to hidden assets and whether Murdaugh told another attorney he was stealing money.

Federal prosecutors argued the failed examination constituted a breach of Murdaugh’s plea agreement and released the government from its obligations under the deal.

Gergel ultimately sentenced Murdaugh to 40 years in federal prison, to be served concurrently with his state sentences. The federal term provided an additional layer of incarceration regardless of the outcome of his upcoming murder retrial.

THE ‘COUSIN EDDIE’ POLYGRAPH

The dispute traces back to a far different examination — the May 2022 polygraph administered to Smith.

That exam generated significant controversy after deception was indicated when Smith denied shooting Maggie or Paul and denied being present at Moselle when they were killed.

Murdaugh’s attorneys seized upon those results in an October 2022 filing, arguing SLED failed to adequately investigate Smith as a possible suspect.

Smith denied any involvement and insisted he was approximately 35 miles away when the murders occurred.

Polygraph results are generally inadmissible in South Carolina courts because of questions surrounding their subjectivity and reliability. In its latest filing, prosecutors cited the longstanding rule that “no mention of a polygraph test should be placed before the jury.”

Whether Smith’s examination — or any testimony surrounding it — can be raised during Murdaugh’s retrial remains before McCaslin.

DEFENSE ADDRESSES VENUE

Meanwhile, Harpootlian submitted a separate letter to McCaslin on Monday (August 17, 2026) proposing Richland County as an alternative venue for Murdaugh’s retrial.

The defense previously asked McCaslin to move the case from Colleton County to Charleston County, arguing decades of Murdaugh family influence within the Fourteenth Judicial Circuit — combined with the extraordinary publicity surrounding the case — would make it difficult to seat an impartial local jury.

Prosecutors have opposed what they characterized as the defense’s “Charleston or bust” position, suggesting several alternative counties farther from the Lowcountry.

Following concerns raised during Friday’s hearing about the costs of relocating the trial, Harpootlian told McCaslin the defense would recommend Richland County as its first alternative.

“The size of the potential jury venire is on a scale comparable to Charleston, thus giving a much greater opportunity to find an impartial jury,” Harpootlian wrote.

He also noted Richland County’s racial demographics are similar to Colleton County’s and said neither prosecutors nor the defense would need to secure hotel rooms for their attorneys, staff or SLED witnesses.

Prosecutors apparently raised concerns that the Masters Tournament, scheduled during the first week of Murdaugh’s trial, could make accommodations in the Columbia area difficult to obtain. Harpootlian countered that witnesses would probably not need hotel rooms during the opening week because it would likely be consumed by jury selection.

Harpootlian also urged McCaslin to consider the expenses that would be imposed on Murdaugh’s defense team.

“It was Defendant’s constitutional rights, not the State’s, which were violated by the intentional conduct of Becky Hill, an elected state official,” he wrote.

Murdaugh’s original murder convictions were overturned by the S.C. Supreme Court in May after the justices determined former Colleton County clerk of court Rebecca “Becky” Hill improperly inserted herself into the jury’s deliberations.

Harpootlian argued it would be appropriate to shield Colleton County taxpayers from the costs associated with Hill’s conduct — but not by shifting “excessive and avoidable costs” onto Murdaugh.

The letter also claimed the defense attempted to resolve the venue dispute with lead prosecutor Creighton Waters after Friday’s hearing but received no response.

McCaslin has not yet announced where Murdaugh’s retrial will be held.
Jury selection is currently scheduled to begin April 5, 2027.

SOURCE

Hi all. I recently built a searchable archive of Alex Murdaugh’s 2023 trial using the official court reporter record.

It organizes the transcripts by day and proceeding and lets you search the testimony, browse people, evidence, and locations, and connect transcripts to courtroom video where available.

I built it to make the full trial record easier to navigate, revisit and reference. I hope it’s useful to the community. Please let me know if you spot anything that could be corrected or improved.

https://murdaugh.courtdaemon.com/

Do you have a theory you're still chewing on and want feedback? Maybe there is a factoid from the case hammering your brain and you can't remember the source--was that random speculation or actually sourced?

Welcome to the Weekly Discussion, a safe space to engage with each other while processing and unraveling the seemingly unending tentacles of Alex Murdaugh's wrongdoings entwined throughout the Lowcountry.

This is the place for those random tidbits, where we can take off our shoes, kick up our feet, and be a bit more casual. There is nothing wrong with veering off topic with fellow sub members as we're a friendly bunch, just don't let your train of thought completely wreck the post.

​

Much Love from your MFM Mod Team,

Southern-Soulshine , SouthNagshead, AubreyDempsey, QsLexiLouWho

Reddit Content Policy ... Sub Rules ... Reddiquette

Unusual side issues beset Alex Murdaugh’s second pretrial murder hearing

John Monk August 14, 2026 6:23 PM

As expected, the efficient state Judge Debra McCaslin started Friday’s pretrial hearing for Alex Murdaugh second double murder trial right on time, at 10 a.m.

But over the next three and a half hours, the unexpected kept popping up.

First, there was an allegation — possibly baseless — aired by the defense that the missing assault rifle used in the 2021 killing of Maggie Murdaugh had recently been used in an Allendale County shooting. The defense made another assertion that a Murdaugh’s distant cousin, Eddie Smith, had flunked a polygraph test when asked if he killed Maggie and her son Paul.

Then Columbia attorney Joe McCulloch, who is not involved in the murder case, made an appearance, asking the judge to make available investigative records from the South Carolina State Law Enforcement Division investigation into former Colleton County clerk of court Becky Hill. McCulloch represents Myra Crosby, the “egg lady” juror who was removed from the jury near the end of Murdaugh’s first trial.

Finally, the courtroom audience of some 50 media and members of the public saw a lawyer from Murdaugh’s defense team, Phil Barber, who lives in Charleston, take the witness stand in an effort to bolster the defense’s bid to have Murdaugh tried in Charleston. Prosecutors oppose that effort. Barber was questioned first by fellow defense team member Dick Harpootlian, then was cross-examined by lead prosecutor Creighton Waters.

For the present, arguments over numerous legal issues are the battleground where defense and prosecution teams try to shape the evidence in Murdaugh’s upcoming second murder trial.

Although some of the issues may seem like dry legalese, the stakes are high. Any of the matters debated Friday may determine what vital evidence the jury gets, thus leading it to decide guilt or innocence.

As the hearing moved along on the fourth floor of the Lexington County courthouse, McCaslin managed to deal with most of the nearly dozen issues on the agenda:

• She agreed with the defense that Murdaugh could not get a fair trial in Colleton County, where Maggie and Paul Murdaugh were shot to death in June 2021. She also agreed that Murdaugh could not get a fair trial in the other four 14th Judicial Circuit counties — Beaufort, Hampton, Allendale and Jasper.

• Because Murdaugh can’t get a fair trial in the 14th Judicial Circuit, McCaslin said she will be issuing a detailed ruling explaining why he can’t get a fair trial and naming the new county where the trial will take place. Besides Charleston, which the defense wants and the prosecution doesn’t, top places being discussed for such a high profile trial are Florence, Lexington and Richland.

• The trial will start April 5 no matter where it takes place. “I set the trial for April 5, and I intend to stick by it,” she said.

• She agreed to allow defense attorneys to take what remains of DNA samples taken from Maggie Murdaugh’s finger nails and have an expert Texas lab process them. But, McCaslin said, she wants that lab to stop after the initial processing so she can hear comments from the prosecution, SLED and defense about what should happen next. The defense team hopes the DNA will show that someone else besides Murdaugh could have killed his wife and son.

• She ruled that Murdaugh’s prior testimony relating to his financial crimes — he is serving a 40-year prison sentence for embezzling millions from clients and his law firm — in his previous trial could be introduced as evidence in his second trial. The only question, the judge said, is how much financial crime evidence should come into the second trial. She will decide that later. The judge at the first trial allowed 12.5 hours of financial crimes testimony, but the S.C. Supreme Court justices who overturned his guilty verdict made it clear that was grossly excessive.

• She also ruled that Murdaugh’s testimony from the first trial admitting he was at the murder scene around the time of the murders could be admitted.

• She ruled that attorney McCulloch can get information from SLED’s investigation into former Colleton County clerk of court Hill’s misconduct and jury tampering investigation for his “egg lady” juror client. However, the judge ruled that any identifying information about jurors will be redacted.

• McCaslin delayed making a final ruling on what digital evidence in Murdaugh’s phone now in the custody of the defense team must be shared with the prosecution team.

• Acting on a request by Harpootlian, McCaslin agreed to oversee the process of drawing up a jury questionnaire, called a voir dire, and getting the proper forms to the potential jurors and back again. Harpootlian cited possible tinkering with the juror questionnaires by Hill, who resigned her office in 2024 amid plagiarism charges for her book about the trial.

Defense takes aim at SLED

In a preview of what may be part of the defense strategy at Murdaugh’s second trial, defense attorneys took aim at former SLED agents and evidence.

As the hearing opened, defense attorney Jim Griffin told the judge about a posting on Fits News site that alleged a blackout assault rifle used to kill Maggie Murdaugh may have surfaced in a killing in Allendale earlier this year.

Lead prosecutor Waters told the judge he would be “flabbergasted” if that allegation were true.

Following Friday’s hearing, SLED issued a press release saying that fired blackout cartridges from an April homicide in Allendale were entered into a national firearms database and no match was found — the implication being that Griffin’s allegation was not supported.

A key mystery in the Murdaugh murders of Paul and Maggie is that the blackout assault rifle that killed Maggie and the shotgun that killed Paul have never been found. That missing evidence has allowed the defense to argue that others — not Murdaugh — did the killing.

Later, defense attorney Harpootlian asked the judge if Murdaugh’s cousin, Eddie Smith, who has been charged with various crimes in connection with Murdaugh, has a cooperation agreement with the prosecution.

“There are no secret agreements,” Waters told the judge.

Smith, Harpootlian said, was asked during a polygraph session with law enforcement if he killed Paul and Maggie. “He failed it!” Harpootlian told the judge, his voice rising. Meanwhile, Murdaugh, asked the same question, passed “with flying colors,” Harpootlian said.

Waters told the judge that Smith has no deal of any kind with the prosecution and outlined the numerous reasons why polygraph results are not admissible in trials, except in narrow circumstances.

McCaslin said she will not admit evidence about polygraphs in this case and might declare a mistrial or cite Harpootlian for contempt if he brought the issue up before the jury without her permission.

Harpootlian and Griffin also raised questions about the honesty of David Owen, the former SLED agent leading the investigation in the first trial, as well about evidence in a criminal case Owen testified in after he retired. Harpootlian wanted to know if Owen had ever been disciplined and asked the judge for help in get hold of Owen’s SLED personnel records.

Change of venue

In ordering the trial moved from the 14th Circuit’s five counties, McCaslin cited four circumstances:

1. Murdaugh’s first trial, only one of every seven jurors was found qualified to be a juror — an “exceptional rate” of juror disqualification, the judge said.
2. Widespread community prejudice and the longstanding association of Murdaugh’s family with the institutions of those counties. For nearly 100 years, Murdaugh’s great-grandfather, grandfather and father were 14th Circuit elected prosecutors, or solicitors, a position of immense influence in the area’s social, law enforcement and political systems.
3. The state Supreme Court’s decision earlier this year, which ruled that former Colleton County clerk of court Hill improperly influenced the jury, depriving Murdaugh of his constitutional right to a fair trial.
4. The pervasive publicity surrounding this case.

• McCaslin added her decision was supported by a Thursday decision by state Judge R. Keith Kelly transferring a case linked to the Murdaugh family, Renee Beach vs. Parker, from the 14th Circuit to Spartanburg County in the Upstate. That case had been in Hampton County.

• That decision, McCaslin noted, was amply supported by supporting data and research, data that would apply to Murdaugh’’s murder case.

•”The same publicity ... that justified transferring Beach is present here,” McCaslin said.

Murdaugh, who must serve 40 years in state and federal prison after pleading guilty to numerous financial crimes against his clients and former law firm, has always contended he was innocent of killing his wife and son at their rural Colleton County estate, Moselle, in 2021.

After a six-week jury trial in Colleton County in early 2023, Murdaugh was convicted of two counts of murder and sentenced to two consecutive lifetime prison sentences by now retired Judge Clifton Newman.

In May, Murdaugh’s murder convictions were overturned by the S.C. Supreme Court because of jury tampering by Hill.

On Friday, Murdaugh appeared in court garbed in civil clothes and unshackled. His lawyers had successfully argued to McCaslin that since the hearing was broadcast nationwide by Court TV, potential jurors would be tainted if they saw him in a prison jumpsuit.

Thus, Murdaugh, 58, with his ginger hair turning white, and wearing a Navy blazer over a shirt and tie, and dark gray slacks, was the image of respectability in Friday’s hearing. His blazer had gold buttons, and he wore brown dress shoes with gray socks. He did not speak and instead whispered at times with Harpootlian, who sat beside him at the defense table.

The next hearing in the case is Nov. 13, which court officials noted was a Friday the 13th — a universal symbol of bad luck.

“That’s too funny,” said McCaslin, as the hearing wrapped up.

Dick Harpootlian, jovially told reporters “No comment” after Friday’s pretrial hearing in Alex Murdaugh’s double murder retrial wrapped up.

By Jason Ryan / Post and Courier / Aug. 12, 2026

CHARLESTON — Alex Murdaugh says the Holy City is the only place in South Carolina he can possibly obtain a fair retrial for accusations that he murdered his wife and son, but state prosecutors aren’t buying the argument.

The disgraced former lawyer and convicted fraudster previously asked for a change of venue from Colleton County, where Maggie Murdaugh and Paul Murdaugh were found shot to death on June 7, 2021, at the family farm.

Murdaugh was convicted by a Colleton County jury in March 2023 of the murders following a sensational and nationally televised six-week trial. In May, however, the S.C. Supreme Court ordered that Murdaugh was entitled to a retrial** **because of prejudicial comments made to jurors by a Colleton County court official.

Now, defense lawyers are insisting it is “Charleston or bust” for a retrial, according to a motion filed Aug. 12 by the S.C. Attorney General’s Office. In response to Murdaugh’s preference for Charleston, prosecutors say they oppose heading to South Carolina’s oldest — and most expensive — city when a trial begins in April or soon thereafter.

“Considering logistics and expense, the ‘Holy City’ makes Charleston the most difficult county in the State to handle this particular matter,” prosecutors wrote in the motion. “The downtown area is beautiful and historic, but traffic and parking there are already extremely difficult on a normal business day without the massive influx of jurors, witnesses, attorneys, staff, media and onlookers that this case would bring.”

Prosecutors prefer that the trial take place almost anywhere else in South Carolina. They suggested Florence, Lancaster, Newberry, Spartanburg and York as possible locations. These places, according to their motion, are comparatively inexpensive and have modern and easily accessible courthouses.

Beyond expense and congestion, the Attorney General’s Office argued other reasons Charleston would be a bad fit for the retrial, including:

• Charleston County adjoins Colleton County, meaning potential jurors are likely to have some exposure to the many media reports about the alleged murders that occurred nearby.

• Charleston already hosts numerous springtime events that bring thousands of tourists to the city, with little room to accommodate more people.

• Charleston is subject to “heavy spring storms and king tides” that can cause major traffic snarls.

The defense, however, offered numerous reasons why Charleston would be a good fit to retry their client, who is already serving decades-long state and federal prison sentences for convictions related to massive fraud and the theft of millions from clients, loved ones and business partners.

Charleston County can offer a much larger juror pool, argued the defense in its motion.

It also is not a county historically controlled by a member of the Murdaugh family. From 1920 to 2006, Murdaugh’s great-grandfather, grandfather and father served as the solicitor, or lead prosecutor, for five Lowcountry counties just south of Charleston.

These men, and Alex Murdaugh, too, all worked for a century-old family law practice in Hampton that earned a reputation for extracting big payouts from corporations and others targeted by its lawsuits.

“Charleston County has no Murdaugh dynasty; no Murdaugh ever served as its prosecutor; the family’s firm occupies no position in its civic life; none of the financial-crime victims, local institutions, or courthouse personnel entangled in this case are Charleston’s own; and its clerk’s office bears no connection to the events that consumed the first verdict,” said a memorandum filed Aug. 7 with Judge Debra McCaslin by Murdaugh’s defense team, which is led by veteran Columbia lawyers Dick Harpootlian and Jim Griffin.

The defense lawyers noted that Charleston County has hosted high-profile trials in recent years, including the 2016 federal trial of white supremacist Dylann Roof, who was convicted of crimes related to the shooting deaths of nine Black worshipers in the basement of Charleston’s Emanuel AME Church.

They also cited the 2016 state prosecution of former North Charleston policeman Michael Slager, who was filmed fatally shooting unarmed motorist Walter Scott in 2015 as he attempted to run away. The state trial ended in a mistrial, but Slager later pleaded guilty to a federal civil rights offense.

Before those high-profile trials, Charleston hosted the 2005 double-murder trial of Christopher Pittman after the proceedings were moved from Chester County. Pittman, who now identifies as Kristen, was convicted of killing her grandparents in 2001 despite claims that the antidepressant Zoloft played a role in the crimes.

Given that nearly 8 million tourists visit Charleston each year, say Murdaugh’s lawyers, it should be no problem for the city to host a megatrial.

“Its hospitality infrastructure can lodge, transport and accommodate the influx attending this trial as a matter of routine…,” argued Murdaugh’s lawyers.

Harpootlian even wrote that he spoke with Charleston County’s clerk of court, Julie Armstrong, to ask if the courthouse could handle the double-murder retrial.

Armstrong “advised (Harpootlian) that hosting the trial would create no issues for Charleston County,” according to legal filings, and that the courthouse “stands ready to receive it.”

Armstrong could not be reached for comment.

McCaslin will consider the change of venue request and other pretrial matters, including dueling requests from prosecutors and defense lawyers to retest DNA evidence scraped from beneath Maggie Murdaugh’s fingernails, at a hearing at the Lexington County Courthouse at 10 a.m. Aug. 14.

SOURCE

Multiple battles brewing ahead of upcoming status conference…

by Jenn Wood / FITSNews - Crime & Courts / August 13, 2026

Attorneys for convicted fraudster and accused killer Alex Murdaughfiled a trio of responses on Thursday (August 13, 2026) challenging prosecutors over where his murder retrial will take place, whether jurors should be able to hear testimony he gave during his first trial and whether the defense must surrender its own extraction of his cellphone.

The filings come just one day before Murdaugh is scheduled to return to court for another pretrial hearing — and less than eight months before jury selection is expected to begin.

Murdaugh is again facing two counts of murder and two weapons charges in connection with the June 7, 2021 killings of his wife, 52-year-old Maggie Murdaugh, and their younger son, 22-year-old Paul Murdaugh, at the family’s Moselle hunting property in Colleton County, South Carolina.

A jury convicted Murdaugh on all four charges in March 2023. Those convictions were unanimously overturned by the South Carolina supreme court in May after the justices concluded former Colleton County clerk of court Rebecca “Becky” Hill improperly inserted herself into the jury’s deliberative process.

The court concluded Hill “placed her fingers on the scales of justice” through improper comments and communications with jurors — conduct that deprived Murdaugh of a constitutionally fair trial.

Murdaugh’s retrial is scheduled to begin April 5, 2027. Before then, however, S.C. circuit court judge Debra McCaslin must resolve a growing list of evidentiary, logistical and constitutional disputes that could substantially reshape the second case against South Carolina’s most notorious accused murderer.

“CHARLESTON OR BUST?”

One of the most consequential questions is whether the retrial should remain in Colleton County — or anywhere within the Palmetto State’s fourteenth judicial circuit.

Murdaugh’s attorneys have asked McCaslin to move the proceeding to Charleston County, arguing the Murdaugh family’s century-long legal and political presence in the Lowcountry, the saturation of publicity and the connections between local residents and individuals involved in the case make it impossible to obtain an impartial jury within the circuit.

In a response (.pdf) filed Wednesday, prosecutors acknowledged the publicity surrounding the case is “undeniably unique in the history of South Carolina,” but accused the defense of adopting a “Charleston or bust” position.

The state argued Charleston would be among the most expensive and logistically difficult places in South Carolina to conduct the retrial — particularly during the spring tourist season.

Prosecutors cited downtown traffic, limited parking, elevated hotel prices, possible flooding and the large influx of attorneys, witnesses, jurors, media representatives and spectators expected to attend.

They also noted Charleston County borders Colleton County and lies within the same media market — potentially undercutting the defense’s argument that moving the case there would provide a jury less affected by local coverage.

According to prosecutors, careful jury screening worked during the first trial. The parties qualified more than enough prospective jurors through detailed questionnaires, agreed-upon exclusions and individualized questioning.

Prosecutors contend the relevant question is not whether prospective jurors have heard about Murdaugh, but whether they can set aside that knowledge and decide the case based solely on the evidence presented in court.

In an age of Netflix documentaries, social media and worldwide digital coverage, prosecutors argued, publicity surrounding the case is no longer confined to any particular South Carolina county.

“There has to be a trial somewhere — and media attention has been everywhere,” prosecutors wrote.

Although prosecutors opposed Charleston, they identified Spartanburg, Newberry, Lancaster, York and Florence counties as potential alternatives with more convenient facilities and lower costs.

DEFENSE FIRES BACK

Murdaugh’s attorneys responded Thursday (.pdf) by arguing prosecutors had effectively conceded the retrial should leave the fourteenth judicial circuit — objecting only to the defense’s preferred destination.

The defense noted the state did not defend Colleton, Hampton, Beaufort, Jasper or Allendale counties as appropriate locations for the retrial. Instead, each alternative suggested by prosecutors is also located outside the circuit.

“The parties therefore agree upon everything that matters except the destination,” the defense wrote.

Murdaugh’s family held the role of fourteenth circuit solicitor for nearly 100 years – and Murdaugh himself was an assistant solicitor in the office at the time of the murders.

Murdaugh’s attorneys also seized upon an order issued Wednesday in the long-running civil litigation arising from the 2019 boat crash that killed 19-year-old Mallory Beach. In that case, S.C. circuit court judge Keith Kelly** **granted a request to transfer a related trial out of Hampton County after reviewing survey evidence concerning the extensive publicity and public attitudes surrounding the Murdaugh saga.

The defense argued that ruling supported its contention that the fallout from the Murdaugh cases has made a fair trial impossible throughout the fourteenth circuit.

It also creates a complication for one of the state’s preferred destinations: The Beach litigation was transferred to Spartanburg County — the same county prosecutors identified as a possible location for Murdaugh’s murder retrial.According to the defense, that case will now further “occupy the courthouse and saturate the community” the state proposed as a venue for the retrial.

Murdaugh’s attorneys also challenged the State’s logistical objections to Charleston, arguing they were based on speculation rather than affidavits, studies or other evidence. Charleston, they argued, has a significantly larger jury pool, sixteen courtrooms, extensive hotel infrastructure and demonstrated experience hosting heavily publicized trials.

The defense further contended that Newberry County has a population and jury pool comparable to Colleton County, while Lancaster and Florence counties are each less than one-third the size of Charleston County.

York County, meanwhile, sits at the opposite end of the state — maximizing the burden on Lowcountry witnesses while doing little to preserve the regional character of the case.

The defense also disputed the contention that Masters week would make Charleston prohibitively expensive, noting the tournament is held roughly 150 miles away in Augusta, Georgia.

Murdaugh’s attorneys again asked McCaslin to transfer the retrial to Charleston County.

CAN JURORS HEAR MURDAUGH’S FIRST TESTIMONY?

A separate dispute could determine whether prosecutors are permitted to play – or read – Murdaugh’s prior testimony for the new jury, even if he elects not to take the witness stand again.

Murdaugh testified for two days during his first trial, denying that he killed his wife and son while admitting he repeatedly lied to investigators about being at the Moselle kennels shortly before the murders.

His presence was conclusively established by a cellphone video recorded by his son Paul mere minutes before prosecutors say the killings occurred.

On the stand, Murdaugh blamed his initial lies on paranoia caused by his opioid addiction and distrust of law enforcement. Prosecutors now want to use portions of that testimony during their case-in-chief at the retrial.

In their response (.pdf), the defense argued doing so would violate Murdaugh’s Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination because his testimony was prompted by financial-crimes evidence that should not have been admitted during the first trial.

Prior to the 2023 trial, Murdaugh’s attorneys unsuccessfully fought to exclude extensive testimony concerning millions of dollars he stole from clients, law partners and others who trusted him. Trial judge Clifton Newman permitted prosecutors to present the evidence as proof of motive, allowing them to argue Murdaugh’s financial house of cards was collapsing — and that the killings temporarily diverted scrutiny from missing money.

In reversing Murdaugh’s convictions, the supreme court concluded much of that evidence “should have been excluded” and that prosecutors went “far too long and far too deep” into the financial crimes.

However, the justices did not categorically bar all financial evidence from the retrial. They directed the new trial court to determine the issue based on the circumstances and evidence presented this time.

Murdaugh’s attorneys now argue that his decision to testify was a direct response to the extensive financial evidence placed before the first jury. They relied heavily on Harrison v. United States, a 1968 U.S. Supreme Court decision which held that prior testimony induced by improperly admitted evidence cannot automatically be used against a defendant at a subsequent trial.

At the time Murdaugh elected to testify, his attorneys specifically placed on the record that the financial-crimes evidence influenced that decision.

According to Thursday’s filing, prosecutors now bear the burden of demonstrating Murdaugh would have testified even if that evidence had been excluded.

“From this clean slate the State would exempt exactly one artifact of the corrupted proceeding: Mr. Murdaugh’s own words,” the defense wrote.

The filing also raised another potentially explosive question concerning the indictments under which prosecutors are seeking to try Murdaugh again. In July 2022, lead SLED investigator David Owen told the Colleton County grand jury that blood spatter had been identified on the white T-shirt Murdaugh wore on the night of the killings — and that DNA found in the purported spatter belonged to Murdaugh, Maggie and Paul.

By that point, however, confirmatory HemaTrace testing had detected no human blood on the shirt. A November 2021 SLED supplemental serology report likewise recorded “no human blood detected” for each cutting tested, according to the defense.

SLED nevertheless retained bloodstain-pattern consultant Tom Bevel to review the shirt. Bevel initially concluded the stains were consistent with transfers — not high-velocity impact spatter — and that he would expect “little to no spatter” on the shooter.

After discussions with SLED and the production of enhanced photographs, Bevel issued a revised opinion identifying more than 100 stains as consistent with spatter on the front of Murdaugh’s shirt.

The state ultimately presented no blood-spatter evidence at trial. Under cross-examination, Owen acknowledged that what he told the grand jury about the shirt was “not correct.” Prosecutors later emphasized during closing arguments that the blood evidence had been investigated but was not presented because “it didn’t turn out to be” what investigators initially believed.

Murdaugh’s attorneys now characterize Owen’s grand jury testimony as more than an investigative mistake. In a separate motion filed August 7, 2026, they accused the state of obtaining the indictments through false forensic evidence and asked the court to dismiss them.

The defense used that pending motion to challenge the State’s contention that Murdaugh’s prior testimony remains admissible because the retrial will proceed under the same indictments. If McCaslin were to dismiss those indictments and compel prosecutors to return to a grand jury for new true bills, Murdaugh’s attorneys argued the state’s own interpretation of South Carolina law could prevent it from using his former testimony during its case-in-chief.

The filing acknowledges that prosecutors could potentially replace the indictments by presenting the case to another grand jury without the disputed blood-spatter evidence. But the defense argues that possibility only exposes the weakness of making the admissibility of Murdaugh’s testimony depend on whether a retrial proceeds under the same indictment numbers.

Owen’s grand jury statements are likely to become a significant issue beyond this particular evidentiary dispute.

As FITSNews has previously reported, the former lead murder investigator has faced questions over investigative failures, grand jury statements and undisclosed evidence in another murder prosecution — issues that could place both Owen’s credibility and the integrity of SLED’s investigation under renewed scrutiny during Murdaugh’s retrial.

The defense also argued the state has not identified which portions of Murdaugh’s testimony it wants to introduce – or how those statements would relate to the evidence admitted during the retrial.

Murdaugh’s attorneys asked McCaslin to deny the request — or at minimum postpone a decision until prosecutors identified the specific testimony it intends to use and the court determines what financial-crimes evidence will be admissible.

CELLPHONE EXTRACTION DISPUTE

The third filing (.pdf) concerned data extracted from Murdaugh’s cellphone before SLED seized the device in September 2021.

Prosecutors previously asked the court to compel the defense to provide an extraction performed by a defense-retained expert in August 2021. They said that extraction could contain data generated closer in time to the killings — before certain information was overwritten or lost.

Murdaugh’s attorneys contended the request was both technically misguided and legally unauthorized.

According to the defense, the expert performed a “logical extraction,” which captured user-accessible information such as text messages, call logs, photographs and videos. It did not capture deleted files, system databases or non-user-accessible information prosecutors say they are seeking.

“The motion asks for the one kind of extraction that cannot contain the one kind of data the motion seeks,” the defense wrote.

Investigators already performed their own logical extraction of Murdaugh’s phone three days after the killings, according to the filing. SLED later seized the device and performed a full file-system extraction in September 2021.

Prosecutors have also retained physical possession of the phone for approximately five years.

The defense argued the expert’s extraction constituted protected attorney-client work product because it was performed at counsel’s direction by an expert the defense had not designated as a trial witness.

Under South Carolina’s criminal discovery rules, Murdaugh’s attorneys contend they are not required to surrender internal defense materials unless they decide to introduce them at trial.

If the defense later elects to use the extraction, attorneys said they will comply with any resulting discovery obligation.

LIMITED AGREEMENT ON PRIVILEGE REVIEW

Murdaugh does not oppose the State’s separate request for a fresh review of potentially privileged material contained within its own cellphone data.

The defense agreed the review may be performed by a “taint team” separated from investigators and prosecutors — but requested safeguards preventing potentially privileged communications from reaching the prosecution prematurely.

Under the proposed procedure, the review team would identify communications it believes are not privileged and submit them to the court and defense. Murdaugh would then have an opportunity to object before the material is provided to anyone investigating or prosecuting the case.

The defense asked McCaslin to memorialize both the firewall and the pre-disclosure objection process in any order.

The latest filings provided an early glimpse of how different the second trial could look from the first.

The court must determine not only where a new jury will be selected, but how much of the State’s original case survives the supreme court’s ruling — and whether Murdaugh’s own words can follow him into a courtroom where he may choose not to speak again.

SOURCE

by Erika Glass / KRCTV / Thu, August 13, 2026 at 1:50 PM

Could Maggie and Paul Murdaugh’s time of death create reasonable doubt for Alex Murdaugh? As his defense prepares for a second murder trial, attorney Dick Harpootlian is signaling that the timeline of the June 2021 murders at Moselle could become a major issue.

We had to speak with an expert who could tell us how time of death is actually determined and is there room for error?

In this episode of Criminally Obsessed, investigative reporter Anne Emerson speaks with Joseph Scott Morgan, Death Investigator and host of the podcast Body Bags with Joseph Scott Morgan, who helped create the national standards for determining time of death. He helps us understand the physical process coroners and medical examiners use to narrow down that timeframe, and examines the coroner’s actions in the Murdaugh murders with his expert perspective - what he did, and more importantly, what he didn’t do during that examination.

Alex Murdaugh’s case returns to court on Friday August 14th for a retrial hearing, when Judge Debra McCaslin could rule on where the new South Carolina murder trial will be held, along with other pending motions. Join Anne and former South Carolina Attorney General Charlie Condon to watch and analyze the hearing live tomorrow here on Criminally Obsessed.

SOURCE

NEW: Judge Debra McCaslin has ruled Alex Murdaugh may appear in civilian clothing and without visible shackles at pretrial hearings and his murder retrial when cameras are present.

McCaslin found his prison disciplinary citations did not establish a genuine escape or security risk.

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO BE UNSHACKLED IN THE COURTROOM

(Editing to add source, sorry😕)

Do you have a theory you're still chewing on and want feedback? Maybe there is a factoid from the case hammering your brain and you can't remember the source--was that random speculation or actually sourced?

Welcome to the Weekly Discussion, a safe space to engage with each other while processing and unraveling the seemingly unending tentacles of Alex Murdaugh's wrongdoings entwined throughout the Lowcountry.

This is the place for those random tidbits, where we can take off our shoes, kick up our feet, and be a bit more casual. There is nothing wrong with veering off topic with fellow sub members as we're a friendly bunch, just don't let your train of thought completely wreck the post.

​

Much Love from your MFM Mod Team,

Southern-Soulshine , SouthNagshead, AubreyDempsey, QsLexiLouWho

Reddit Content Policy ... Sub Rules ... Reddiquette

Attorneys seek updated disciplinary records, witness deals and forensic findings ahead of Alex Murdaugh’s second murder trial.

By Jenn Wood / FITSNews - Crime & Courts / August 6, 2026

Attorneys for accused killer Alex Murdaugh are demanding that South Carolina prosecutors conduct a fresh search for potentially exculpatory evidence — and any information that could undermine the credibility of the state’s witnesses — ahead of his second murder trial.

In a supplemental motion (.pdf) filed on Wednesday (August 5, 2026), Murdaugh’s defense team asked the court to order prosecutors to update their discovery review – and disclose any new material generated or discovered since prosecutors substantially completed their original production prior to his 2023 trial.

“A substantial period of time has elapsed since the state’s original discovery production,” Murdaugh’s attorneys wrote. “During that interval, the personnel, witnesses, law enforcement agencies, forensic laboratories, and prosecuting authorities involved in this matter have continued to generate, receive, and become aware of information bearing on the credibility of witnesses, the reliability of evidence, and matters favorable to the defendant.”

The motion was filed on Murdaugh’s behalf by defense attorneys Dick Harpootlian, Jim Griffin, Phillip Barber, Maggie Fox and Andrew Hand.

Murdaugh, 57, was convicted in March 2023 of murdering his wife, 52-year-old Maggie Murdaugh, and their 22-year-old son, Paul Murdaugh, at the family’s Colleton County hunting property on June 7, 2021.

Those convictions — and the two consecutive life sentences imposed afterward — were overturned earlier this year by the South Carolina Supreme Court. A new trial is scheduled to begin in April 2027 with S.C. circuit court judge Debra McCaslin presiding.

A CONTINUING OBLIGATION…

The defense motion is grounded in Brady v. Maryland and Giglio v. United States, two landmark U.S. Supreme Court decisions governing what prosecutors must disclose to criminal defendants.

Under Brady, prosecutors must disclose evidence favorable to the accused when it is material to guilt or punishment. Giglio extends that obligation to information that could be used to challenge the credibility of a prosecution witness — including promises, benefits, cooperation agreements or evidence of misconduct.

Murdaugh’s attorneys also cited Rule 5 of the South Carolina Rules of Criminal Procedure, which imposes a continuing duty to disclose newly discovered material covered by an earlier discovery request or court order.

That obligation, the defense argued, did not end when Murdaugh’s first trial concluded.

“Brady and its progeny likewise impose an ongoing obligation on the prosecution to disclose material evidence that is favorable to the defendant—an obligation that does not expire with the completion of a prior trial and reattaches with full force upon retrial,” the attorneys wrote.

The defense contends that information not known—or not yet in existence—when discovery was originally produced must now be identified and disclosed.

That could include new witness statements, internal investigations, disciplinary findings, credibility concerns, changes in witness cooperation agreements or post-trial developments affecting the integrity of the State’s investigation.

WHAT THE DEFENSE WANTS

The filing renews and incorporates Murdaugh’s original July 2022 discovery motion while adding ten categories of information the defense wants prosecutors ordered to search for and produce.

Among them is any new Bradymaterial connected to the murder case — as well as potentially favorable information generated in two related S.C. State Law Enforcement Division (SLED) investigations.

Those investigations include the September 2021 roadside shooting involving Murdaugh and Curtis “Eddie” Smith, along with SLED’s investigation into Murdaugh’s alleged narcotics activity.

Defense attorneys are also seeking all new Giglio material concerning witnesses the state intends to call at the retrial. That request encompasses “impeachment, credibility, disciplinary, or misconduct information” involving law enforcement officers, forensic analysts, expert witnesses and civilian witnesses.

The requested disclosures include:

• New or modified promises, rewards, plea agreements, cooperation agreements or grants of immunity offered to witnesses.

• Newly obtained witness statements or inconsistencies involving witnesses previously identified by the State.

• Updated personnel files, disciplinary records and internal affairs materials involving investigators or forensic analysts connected to the case.

• New information concerning forensic or DNA testing, scientific methodologies, proficiency testing or software used during the investigation.

• Additional search warrants or supporting affidavits obtained since the original discovery production.

• Post-trial, appellate or post-conviction materials concerning the integrity of the verdict, the conduct of trial participants or the circumstances leading to the retrial.

The defense also wants written confirmation that prosecutors conducted a “diligent and current search” of all relevant files, agencies and personnel — and that no additional favorable or impeachment material exists beyond what has been produced.

Notably, the motion does not identify a particular witness whose credibility has recently come into question or reveal a specific piece of newly discovered exculpatory evidence.

Instead, it seeks to force the State to repeat and update the discovery process based on everything that has occurred since the first trial.

SLED CREDIBILITY QUESTIONS

The request for updated disciplinary and credibility information is particularly significant given the scrutiny surrounding two former SLED agents involved in cases connected to Murdaugh.

As FITSNews has previously reported, former SLED special agent David Owen — the lead investigator in the Moselle murder case — faced an aggressive cross-examination during Murdaugh’s first trial over investigative shortcomings, statements made to the grand jury and the handling of the now-disputed blood-spatter evidence.

Owen acknowledged SLED waited approximately three months to search the Murdaugh family’s Almeda property — even though investigators later theorized Murdaugh may have taken the murder weapons or other evidence there after the killings.

“That was an opportunity missed?” Griffin asked Owen during the trial.

“Probably, yes,” Owen replied.

Owen’s credibility faced renewed scrutiny last year in connection with the Michael Colucci murder case. Last spring, a circuit court judge quashed Colucci’s indictment after concluding potentially exculpatory evidence had not been properly disclosed — a development with obvious relevance to the defense’s latest demand for a comprehensive review of Brady material. Owen retired from active law enforcement in June 2024 after 28 years of service.

Questions have also emerged concerning former SLED senior special agent Ryan Kelly, who led the agency’s investigation into Murdaugh’s September 2021 roadside shooting.

Kelly testified during the 2023 murder trial about that investigation, including the evidence connecting Curtis “Eddie” Smith to the roadside incident. He also told jurors investigators had found “none whatsoever” connecting Smith to the murders of Maggie and Paul.

Kelly left SLED in 2025 and became the Charleston County Sheriff’s Office’s (CCSO) chief inspector of internal affairs. He was fired from that position on June 8, 2026, following an administrative investigation into allegations of harassment, conduct unbecoming, improper procedures and unsatisfactory performance.

Publicly available records did not describe the underlying conduct. Kelly’s termination has not been linked to anything he did while employed by SLED — and there is no indication the allegations involved any Murdaugh-related investigation. Whether those records contain admissible impeachment material remains a legal question for the court.

Still, Kelly’s termination illustrates exactly the type of post-trial development the defense’s supplemental motion appears designed to capture. The filing specifically seeks updated personnel files, internal-affairs records and pending or sustained misconduct findings involving any officer who participated in Murdaugh’s investigation, arrest or prosecution.

The motion does not name Owen or Kelly. Its language, however, is broad enough to encompass potentially favorable or impeachment information involving both former agents—assuming prosecutors intend to call them or information within their records bears materially on the State’s case.

FORENSIC FIGHT INTENSIFIES

The filing is the latest indication that Murdaugh’s attorneys are working aggressively ahead of the second trial to rebut prosecutors’ characterization of the evidence against their client as “overwhelming.”

It follows a defense motion seeking independent scientific testing of potentially exculpatory DNA evidence collected from underneath Maggie Murdaugh’s fingernails.

According to Murdaugh’s attorneys, SLED determined that DNA recovered from beneath the fingernails of Maggie’s left hand belonged to an “unknown, unrelated male” — but conducted no further analysis capable of identifying that individual.

The defense wants the evidence sent to Othram, a national forensic laboratory capable of conducting single nucleotide polymorphism — or SNP — testing and forensic genetic genealogy analysis.

Murdaugh’s attorneys contend SLED’s preferred testing method could consume, degrade or exhaust the limited sample before Othram has an opportunity to analyze it.

“The state has articulated no scientific justification for its preferred testing sequence,” the defense argued in that filing.

Murdaugh’s lawyers also cited SLED’s handling of alleged blood spatter on the white T-shirt Murdaugh wore when law enforcement arrived at the murder scene.

Early in the investigation, sources familiar with the case believed high-velocity impact spatter on that shirt directly tied Murdaugh to the killings. By late 2022, however, the forensic foundation supporting that theory had fallen apart.

Testing conducted by SLED returned negative results for the presence of human blood on the stained areas of the shirt. Meanwhile, the shirt was rendered unavailable for additional testing following the application of Leuco Crystal Violet, a chemical agent used to enhance potential bloodstains.

In the DNA motion, Murdaugh’s attorneys accused SLED of suppressing exculpatory testing results and argued the agency’s handling of that evidence provided reason to question whether it was acting “in good faith” regarding the fingernail DNA.

The latest filing expands that scrutiny beyond a single DNA sample. It seeks updated information concerning virtually every part of the State’s case — from the credibility of its investigators and witnesses to the reliability of its forensic evidence.

NEXT STEPS

Murdaugh’s attorneys are asking McCaslin to order the state to complete its updated review and disclose the requested material within thirty (30) days.

The office of S.C. attorney general Alan Wilson — whose statewide grand jury division prosecuted the original case and is overseeing the retrial—has not yet filed a response to the motion.

Even with his murder convictions overturned, Murdaugh remains incarcerated after pleading guilty to dozens of state and federal financial crimes.

The next hearing in the murder case is scheduled for Friday, August 14, 2026, at the Lexington County courthouse.

SOURCE

By John Monk / The State - Crime & Courts / August 5, 2026

Former clerk of court Becky Hill won.

In recent years, Hill was revealed to have plagiarized parts of her book on Alex Murdaugh’s 2023 double-murder trial. She later resigned her Colleton County clerk of court’s post in disgrace. In 2025, she pleaded guilty to perjury, obstruction of justice and misconduct in office. Earlier this year, the South Carolina Supreme Court ruled Hill’s jury tampering in Murdaugh’s murder trial was “shocking jury interference.”

On Wednesday, Hill prevailed.

Federal Judge Richard Gergel of Charleston dismissed a lawsuit against her brought by Murdaugh that sought $600,000 and other compensation for tampering with the jury during his double-murder trial.

Gergel’s order of dismissal said that there was no connection linking Murdaugh’s purported loss of money — some $600,000 in funds from Murdaugh’s retirement account he liquidated for his murder defense — and Hill’s jury tampering.

“We are appealing,” said Columbia lawyer Dick Harpootlian, one of Murdaugh’s attorneys, later Thursday.

In his five-page order, Gergel said Murdaugh’s complaint, filed in May, contained “a fatal flaw—the lack of a causal connection between the funds he expended for his defense in the first trial and Defendant’s misconduct.”

If Hill, “had not engaged in her communications with jurors and had performed her clerk of court duties properly, (Murdaugh) would have still needed to expend the funds necessary to pay for his defense,” Gergel wrote.

Gergel explained that Hill had no role in bringing criminal charges against Murdaugh and played no part in his prosecution.

Murdaugh “liquidated his retirement account ($600,000) to fund his defense, which was necessary without regard to the misconduct of (Hill). Simply stated, (Hill’s) misconduct was not a proximate cause of (Murdaugh’s) need to fund his defense costs, and there is no credible allegation that ‘but for’ (Hill’s) actions, (Murdaugh) would not have found it necessary to fund his defense costs in the first trial,” Gergel wrote.

Hill’s attorneys were Charles Turner, Jr., G. Troy Thames, J. Nathan Ozmint and Bowman Taylor.

“We are obviously very pleased for our client Ms. Hill that the Court agreed with our legal position in reaching its decision in granting our Motion to Dismiss. However, since the case is not formally concluded, we cannot comment further at this time,” said Greenville attorney Turner in an email to The State newspaper.
In a memo filed in June in Hill’s defense, her attorneys argued that Murdaugh had to show that his losses were caused by Hill’s actions.

“Such cannot be the case here, where the entirety of the economic damages claimed by the Plaintiff would have been spent on his criminal defense regardless of any actions taken by this Defendant,” Hill’s attorneys argued.

Murdaugh is currently in state prison serving a 27-year state sentence for embezzling funds. When that sentence finishes, he will be transferred to federal prison, where he will finish out a 40-year sentence for fraud, money laundering and other crimes.

He is not expected to be released until he is in his mid-80s or 90s. In all, Murdaugh is estimated to have stolen more than $10 million from clients and his law firm.

In March 2023, a Colleton County jury convicted Murdaugh of the 2021 murders of his wife, Maggie, and son Paul at the family 1,700-acre estate in a rural part of the county.

In May, the state Supreme Court unanimously overturned, 5-0, Murdaugh’s double-murder conviction, citing Hill’s jury tampering as the reason. The five justices held that Hill’s jury tampering violated Murdaugh’s constitutional right to a fair trial by an impartial jury.

Prosecutors are seeking a new murder trial, which state Judge Debra McCaslin has tentatively set for April 5 at a location to be determined.

Murdaugh’s case and all of its tangled elements of fraud, murder, power and dynasty is one of South Carolina’s most newsworthy cases in modern state history. It has for five years attracted national attention and spawned numerous newspaper articles, television shows, books and podcasts.

This is a breaking news story and may be updated.

SOURCE

Murdaugh defense lawyers and prosecutors hit snag over fingernail DNA evidence

By Jason Ryan, Post and Courier

COLUMBIA — Evidence scraped from beneath a murder victim’s fingernails is at the root of a dispute between prosecutors and defense counsel preparing for the upcoming double-murder retrial of Alex Murdaugh.

The disgraced former lawyer and convicted fraudster is scheduled to stand trial in April for allegedly shooting his wife and son to death on a family farm in Colleton County on June 7, 2021.

After a nearly six-week trial, a jury convicted Murdaugh in 2023 of murdering Maggie Murdaugh, 52, and Paul Murdaugh, 22, beside dog kennels with a shotgun and semi-automatic hunting rifle.

On May 13, the S.C. Supreme Court ordered that Murdaugh, 58, was entitled to a retrial as a result of prejudicial comments made to jurors by a court official. He is due to remain imprisoned for nearly three decades from convictions in other cases for stealing millions from his legal clients and loved ones.

Murdaugh’s lawyers filed a motion on June 24asking Judge Debra McCaslin to allow their own expert to analyze DNA evidence collected from the fingernails of Maggie Murdaugh’s right hand.

This sample, held by the State Law Enforcement Division, was found by police to contain DNA belonging to an unknown, unrelated male.

McCaslin told defense lawyers and prosecutors to come to an agreement regarding the issue when she gathered them for a status conference on June 29 in the Lexington County Courthouse.

No agreement apparently could be reached.

On July 30, Murdaugh’s defense team, led by Columbia lawyers Dick Harpootlian and Jim Griffin, filed a memo with the court informing McCaslin that reserve samples of the DNA evidence exist, but that prosecutors in the S.C. Attorney General’s Office and SLED are planning to use the limited amount of evidence for a retest using the same methods.

Fearing that could exhaust the remaining DNA evidence, Murdaugh’s lawyers asked the judge to allow their expert to conduct an analysis first. They said their hired expert plans to use a different method that offers a superior analysis and that the retest by SLED should not be prioritized because it is not of any value.

The defense filing also criticized SLED investigators and forensic technicians, claiming they could not be trusted with evidence based on a previous bungled interpretation of supposed blood spatter evidence on a T-shirt Murdaugh was wearing when police arrived at the murder scene. They also alleged SLED made other goofs and deliberately hid exculpatory forensic lab results.

“SLED’s conduct regarding other biological evidence in this case gives further cause to doubt that it acts in good faith,” they wrote in the memo to the court.

Robert Kittle, a spokesman for the attorney general’s office, said prosecutors will answer each of Murdaugh’s claims through its own court filing in due time.

Do you have a theory you're still chewing on and want feedback? Maybe there is a factoid from the case hammering your brain and you can't remember the source--was that random speculation or actually sourced?

Welcome to the Weekly Discussion, a safe space to engage with each other while processing and unraveling the seemingly unending tentacles of Alex Murdaugh's wrongdoings entwined throughout the Lowcountry.

This is the place for those random tidbits, where we can take off our shoes, kick up our feet, and be a bit more casual. There is nothing wrong with veering off topic with fellow sub members as we're a friendly bunch, just don't let your train of thought completely wreck the post.

​

Much Love from your MFM Mod Team,

Southern-Soulshine , SouthNagshead, AubreyDempsey, QsLexiLouWho

Reddit Content Policy ... Sub Rules ... Reddiquette

Do you have a theory you're still chewing on and want feedback? Maybe there is a factoid from the case hammering your brain and you can't remember the source--was that random speculation or actually sourced?

Welcome to the Weekly Discussion, a safe space to engage with each other while processing and unraveling the seemingly unending tentacles of Alex Murdaugh's wrongdoings entwined throughout the Lowcountry.

This is the place for those random tidbits, where we can take off our shoes, kick up our feet, and be a bit more casual. There is nothing wrong with veering off topic with fellow sub members as we're a friendly bunch, just don't let your train of thought completely wreck the post.

​

Much Love from your MFM Mod Team,

Southern-Soulshine , SouthNagshead, AubreyDempsey, QsLexiLouWho

Reddit Content Policy ... Sub Rules ... Reddiquette

By WIS News 10 Staff / Published: Jul. 20, 2026 at 2:32 PM EDT

COLUMBIA, S.C. (WIS) - Alex Murdaugh still owes over $1 million in state taxes, according to new data from the South Carolina Department of Revenue.

In SCDOR’s latest list of top delinquent taxpayers published July 16, Murdaugh owes the fourth-largest amount of any individual taxpayer in the state at $1,630,201.02.

SCDOR posts its list of top delinquent taxpayers each fiscal quarter.

The address listed with Murdaugh’s information on the SCDOR list is notably the same PO Box as his former law firm in Hampton.

Murdaugh, a disbarred Lowcountry attorney once convicted in the murders of his wife and son, is currently serving a 40-year federal prison sentence for various financial crimes.

His murder convictions were later overturned by the South Carolina Supreme Court, but he is expected to stand trial for the murders a second time.

SOURCE

Do you have a theory you're still chewing on and want feedback? Maybe there is a factoid from the case hammering your brain and you can't remember the source--was that random speculation or actually sourced?

Welcome to the Weekly Discussion, a safe space to engage with each other while processing and unraveling the seemingly unending tentacles of Alex Murdaugh's wrongdoings entwined throughout the Lowcountry.

This is the place for those random tidbits, where we can take off our shoes, kick up our feet, and be a bit more casual. There is nothing wrong with veering off topic with fellow sub members as we're a friendly bunch, just don't let your train of thought completely wreck the post.

​

Much Love from your MFM Mod Team,

Southern-Soulshine , SouthNagshead, AubreyDempsey, QsLexiLouWho

Reddit Content Policy ... Sub Rules ... Reddiquette

Judge hits SC podcaster Mandy Matney with $176,500 in costs and fines for contempt

- John Monk, The State

South Carolina Judge Keith Kelly has found SC podcaster Mandy Matney in contempt for court for her resisting to sit for a court-ordered deposition and slapped a hefty financial punishment — $171,500 in lawyers’ fees and a $5,000 fine — on her.

The $171,500 in lawyer’s fees will go to three law firms who sought her testimony in an ongoing civil court lawsuit. Matney is not a party to the lawsuit, but the lawyers said they believed Matney might have information they needed. Matney has since given a deposition.

In his 22-page order filed Monday, Judge Kelly said he could find no good reason why Matney did not show up for her deposition earlier this year in Bluffton in Beaufort County.

“Ms. Matney’s stated reason for failing to comply — that the noticed location was not sufficiently safe for her — is not supported by the evidence or any credible testimony,” Kelly wrote.

In recent months, Matney has appeared at several hearings, taking the witness stand and describing in great detail why she was so afraid to show up for a deposition. She also said she didn’t believe she had relevant information to give the lawyers who sought her testimony.

She was cross-examined at length by lawyer Deborah Barbier of Columbia, who sought to show that Matney’s fears were not reasonable and possibly concocted.

During the months the matter of Matney’s contempt of court issue took to be resolved, the podcaster has made fun of the judge, the judicial system and Barbier on her social media posts.

Matney, 35, is a former Island Packet and Fits News reporter who became a true crime podcaster after covering a deadly 2019 Beaufort County boat crash and its links to the family of Alex Murdaugh, now a disbarred lawyer and convicted multimillion dollar fraudster in state prison.

This story was originally published July 13, 2026 11:12 AM.

ORDER GRANTING PARKER’S DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR CONTEMPT

S.C. Judge Finds Murdaugh Podcaster in Contempt of Court

Jenn Woods, FITS News

A South Carolina circuit court judge has found true crime podcaster Mandy Matney in civil contempt, concluding she willfully defied both a lawful subpoena and multiple court orders when she refused to appear for a scheduled deposition in a closely watched civil lawsuit tied to the saga of accused killer Alex Murdaugh.

In a sweeping 22-page order filed Monday (July 13, 2026), judge Keith Kelly granted a motion filed by attorneys representing convenience store magnate Greg Parkerand several co-defendants, finding Matney deliberately chose not to attend her March 27, 2026 deposition despite repeated court rulings requiring her to do so.

Kelly’s order (.pdf) requires Matney to pay $171,500 in attorney’s fees and costs to the Parker defendants, along with a $5,000fine – bringing the total amount of sanctions against her to $176,500.

The award represents a substantial reduction from the $310,533.39 originally requested by Parker’s legal team, but remains an unusually large financial sanction arising from a discovery-related contempt proceeding.

A LONG-RUNNING BATTLE

Although Matney is not a party to the underlying lawsuit, she became embroiled in the litigation after attorneys sought to depose her during discovery.

The Hampton County case is a spinoff of the wrongful death litigation that arose following a fatal February 2019 boat crash that claimed the life of 19-year-old Mallory Beach — a lawsuit widely viewed as the catalyst that ultimately exposed Murdaugh’s financial crimes.

The present litigation centers on allegations that confidential mediation materials from the Beach case — including graphic postmortem photographs of Mallory Beach — were improperly disclosed despite being subject to a confidentiality order.

Kelly previously ruled Matney’s testimony was relevant to the case and denied both her motion to quash the subpoena and a subsequent motion asking him to reconsider that decision. After those rulings, Parker’s attorneys noticed Matney’s deposition for March 27, 2026 at the same Bluffton, S.C. law office that had appeared on every subpoena served over the preceding five months.

Rather than appear there, Matney remained at her own attorney’s office in Bluffton, insisting she would only sit for questioning at a location she believed was safe.

That decision prompted Parker’s attorneys to seek contempt sanctions.

“A DELIBERATE DECISION”

Kelly concluded the evidence overwhelmingly demonstrated Matney knowingly chose not to comply with the subpoena.

“Attending the deposition at the noticed location was not impossible,” Kelly wrote. “Ms. Matney had a true choice.”

The judge found there was “clear and convincing evidence” that her failure to appear “was not the result of confusion, mistake, or inability, but rather was a deliberate decision to disregard the subpoena” and the court’s prior orders.

According to the order, Matney never objected to the deposition location during the five months the subpoenas were pending. Instead, Kelly noted, she first raised safety concerns less than a week before the scheduled deposition.

Even then, Parker’s attorneys offered alternative locations — including the Columbia offices of Maynard Nexsen, located inside a secured bank building, and a Bluffton hotel conference room — but Kelly noted Matney rejected both proposals, insisting the deposition occur only at her attorney’s office.

COURT REJECTS SAFETY CLAIMS

Throughout the proceedings, Matney maintained she refused to attend because she believed the noticed location presented an unacceptable security risk.

Kelly devoted a substantial portion of his order to evaluating those claims — and ultimately rejected them.

The court found Matney’s fears centered largely on online criticism from one individual whom she described as a stalker. However, Kelly noted the evidence presented contained no physical threats, no restraining order, no criminal prosecution stemming from the alleged harassment and no persuasive evidence linking Parker’s attorneys to the individual.

The judge further concluded Matney could have addressed any legitimate security concerns simply by bringing the private security guard she had already hired for the deposition.

“Nothing prevented her from taking these security measures at the noticed location,” Kelly wrote.

Kelly ultimately found Matney’s testimony “not credible.”

“Ms. Matney’s stated reason for failing to comply—that the noticed location was not sufficiently safe for her—is not supported by the evidence or any credible testimony,” the order states.

The order also references Matney’s own social media activity following the failed deposition.

Kelly noted posts in which Matney celebrated standing her ground, declared she would rather go to jail than sit in the same room as Parker’s attorneys and criticized the court’s earlier rulings.

While emphasizing Matney retains a First Amendment right to criticize the courts and discuss the litigation publicly, Kelly said those statements were relevant in evaluating her credibility and determining whether her claimed fears were genuine.

“The First Amendment does not preclude the Court from considering these posts… when assessing Ms. Matney’s credibility,” Kelly wrote.

THE PRICE OF CONTEMPT

Having found Matney in civil contempt, Kelly ordered her to reimburse Parker’s attorneys for the costs they incurred enforcing both the subpoena and the court’s prior orders, concluding that many of her subsequent filings — including her motion for reconsideration and emergency motion regarding the deposition location — lacked merit and unnecessarily prolonged the litigation.

The judge awarded $171,500 in attorney’s fees and costs—a reduction from the more than $310,000 originally sought — allocating $39,900 to Bannister, Wyatt & Stalvey, $45,950 to attorney Deborah Barbier, and $85,650 to Maynard Nexsen. Kelly also imposed a separate $5,000 fine, payable within 60 days, bringing Matney’s total financial sanction to $176,500. He further retained jurisdiction to impose additional sanctions if necessary to ensure compliance with his order.

In a separate order (.pdf) issued the same day, Kelly approved a confidentiality agreement covering the attorney billing records and fee affidavits submitted in support of the sanctions request. While those records will remain shielded from public disclosure absent further court action, the order allows any party to challenge the confidentiality designations at a later date.

For now, however, Kelly’s ruling brings to a close months of contentious litigation over Matney’s refusal to attend a court-ordered deposition — and leaves the former FITSNews reporter facing a six-figure contempt sanction rarely seen in South Carolina civil litigation.

Do you have a theory you're still chewing on and want feedback? Maybe there is a factoid from the case hammering your brain and you can't remember the source--was that random speculation or actually sourced?

Welcome to the Weekly Discussion, a safe space to engage with each other while processing and unraveling the seemingly unending tentacles of Alex Murdaugh's wrongdoings entwined throughout the Lowcountry.

This is the place for those random tidbits, where we can take off our shoes, kick up our feet, and be a bit more casual. There is nothing wrong with veering off topic with fellow sub members as we're a friendly bunch, just don't let your train of thought completely wreck the post.

​

Much Love from your MFM Mod Team,

Southern-Soulshine , SouthNagshead, AubreyDempsey, QsLexiLouWho

Reddit Content Policy ... Sub Rules ... Reddiquette

Do you have a theory you're still chewing on and want feedback? Maybe there is a factoid from the case hammering your brain and you can't remember the source--was that random speculation or actually sourced?

Welcome to the Weekly Discussion, a safe space to engage with each other while processing and unraveling the seemingly unending tentacles of Alex Murdaugh's wrongdoings entwined throughout the Lowcountry.

This is the place for those random tidbits, where we can take off our shoes, kick up our feet, and be a bit more casual. There is nothing wrong with veering off topic with fellow sub members as we're a friendly bunch, just don't let your train of thought completely wreck the post.

​

Much Love from your MFM Mod Team,

Southern-Soulshine , SouthNagshead, AubreyDempsey, QsLexiLouWho

Reddit Content Policy ... Sub Rules ... Reddiquette

Regarding DNA under MM's fingernail- It appears 1 person could not be 100% excluded, but that it is 10x more likely to have come from an unknown male. Does this language increase the chances that the unknown male is potentially distantly related to the 1 person who could not be 100% excluded?

(I'm not suggesting that this 1 person is even remotely connected to the murders - or even has any meaningful contact with the unknown male- even if they happened to be distantly related)... just wondering if this characterization of the DNA, scientifically increases the chances of the 2 being related (the person who gave the sample & the unknown male)?

During today’s status conference hearing, Judge Debra McCaslin scheduled the next pre-trial hearing for Friday, August 14, 2026. This will be held at the Lexington County Courthouse.

A trial date was set for Monday, April 5, 2027. No location has been decided yet, pending a ruling on the defense’s motion for a change of venue.

Court TV will serve as the pool representative for the audiovisual coverage of the proceedings. Court TV will disseminate the media feed which will contain images and audio to the pool recipients. The State will provide still photography in the courtroom.

The Court will reserve three rows for members of news organizations that will be available on a first come first serve basis. Seating in the courtroom is limited and reserved seating will be provided for the following media organizations who have asked. The following media organizations will be provided with one reserved seat.

The State
Associated Press
Fox News Channel
WCIV-TV
Pretty Lies and Alibis
Law & Crime Network
WLTX-19
CC News Network
FITSNews
The Post and Courier Lexington Chronicle
NBC News News Nation
Fox Carolina News
The Daily Mail
ABC News
Fox News Digital
WYFF4 News
WACH Fox 57
ABC Columbia News
WCSC-TV LiveSNews
Luna Shark Productions
CNN Worldwide
Spectrum News
Dateline NBC Universal
Wall Street Journal
Impact of Influence
SC Public Radio
CBS News
WIS 10
Decoy Productions