LEXINGTON, S.C. (AP) — Alex Murdaugh’s defense can do their own tests of unidentified DNA found under his wife’s fingernails after she and her son were shot to death in 2021, a judge said Friday, part of an increasingly bitter battle over what evidence can be used in his murder retrial next year.
The DNA belonged to a male who was not a member of the Murdaugh family, and investigators haven't found a match. Although this piece of DNA evidence didn't feature prominently in the first trial in 2023, the defense wants to test it themselves at a private lab. The judge called Friday’s hearing after Murdaugh’s lawyers filed a flurry of motions saying prosecutors were dragging their feet sharing evidence.
Get The Latest News!
Don't miss our top stories and need-to-know news everyday in your inbox.
Murdaugh, a once-rich and imposing heir to a Southern legal dynasty, is scheduled to face another jury in April over the killings of his wife, Maggie, and younger son, Paul, on their sprawling property in the rural Lowcountry region of South Carolina. While admitting he is a thief, insurance cheat, bad lawyer and longtime opioid addict, the 58-year-old Murdaugh has adamantly denied the killings.
The state Supreme Court overturned his convictions earlier this year, ruling that a court clerk influenced jurors during his trial. The case has captivated the true crime world with its mix of treachery, corruption, power and Southern accents.
Judge Debra McCaslin refused to let the defense examine every casing and bullet found in shootings for the past five years in eight surrounding counties involving the same type of gun as one of the weapons used in the killings. The judge called it a fishing expedition.
“If there’s any casings that come through that’s going to match this crime, red flags are going up,” McCaslin said of testing the state has done on all the evidence. “Bells are going to ring and you’re going to know something is going on, and none of that has happened.”
The judge ended Friday's hearing by admonishing both sides to be professional and not turn the trial into a circus, after barbed comments like “facts matter” and “glad to hear it.”
“Y’all need to stop this, OK?” McCaslin said. “I don’t want this tit for tat between y’all. Y’all are lawyers — you’re professionals. This is a court. This isn’t a sound bite.”
Regardless of what happens in his next murder trial, Murdaugh will remain in prison. He is currently serving a lengthy prison sentence after pleading guilty to stealing millions of dollars from clients.
Prosecutors said Murdaugh killed his wife and son because his law firm was close to discovering that he was stealing, and he thought the sympathy generated by the killings would buy him time to fix things.
Murdaugh wore a dark suit in court on Friday because the judge has ruled that wearing his prison jumpsuit during pretrial hearings could influence future jurors into thinking he’s guilty.
The judge has moved the trial to another county, saying extensive publicity surrounding the case in Murdaugh’s home county could prevent a fair trial.
Nothing was said Friday about the most intriguing dispute of all.
Defense lawyers want to know whether prosecutors have called a grand jury to investigate a police officer who was friends with Murdaugh. The defense says prosecutors suggested the officer arrived at Murdaugh’s home before other law enforcement officers and could have helped hide bloody clothes or weapons. No clothing or guns have been found.
Murdaugh’s lawyers say the evidence is critical because prosecutors argued during the first trial that he acted alone. Prosecutors said no one else was at the home between the killings and Murdaugh’s return from visiting his mother, when he called 911 to report the shootings.
The defense says another person’s involvement would cast doubt on testimony from witnesses who said at the first trial that he acted alone. Murdaugh’s lawyers also demanded any evidence prosecutors have of possible accomplices or a grand jury investigation into them.
In response, prosecutors declined to say whether any evidence exists, citing legal restrictions on disclosing whether a grand jury is meeting. Because of that, the motion was not argued Friday.
