00:00:00
Hi Crime Junkies. There has been some breaking news in one of the most high-profile cases of the last decade,
00:00:06
the Murdaugh family murders out of South Carolina. We covered this case last year
00:00:10
after Alex Murdaugh, a former prominent lawyer in the area from a family of prominent lawyers, was convicted of the
00:00:17
2021 murder of his wife Maggie and his son Paul. That conviction has just been tossed out. And Alex has been granted a
00:00:26
new trial by the South Carolina Supreme Court. Now, this isn't based on new evidence. The appeal that made its way
00:00:34
to the South Carolina Supreme Court centered around the court clerk in the original trial who confessed to doing
00:00:40
sketchy and illegal things like influencing the jury, lying under oath, and showing sealed crime scene pictures
00:00:48
to reporters, like just to name a few. Now, a new trial doesn't mean Alex Murdaugh just walks free now. There's a
00:00:55
lot at play here. And I don't know about you, but I have a lot of questions. So, thanks to our
00:01:03
reporter who originally worked this case, Malika Dollisaw, we got inside access to Alex Murdaugh's defense
00:01:09
attorney, Dick Harpootlian. And our breaking news reporter is ready to ask him all of the burning questions a Crime
00:01:16
Junkie would have about this new development. So, here is Briana Whitney. >> First off, thank you for giving us this
00:01:23
interview, sitting down with us after getting this ruling literally minutes ago. I mean, the bombshell here, new
00:01:29
trial for your client, Alex Murdaugh. This is what your team wanted. >> Absolutely. And we
00:01:36
um you know, we're we're shocked by the verdict until we figured out um >> [clears throat]
00:01:44
>> that the jury been fixed or it was an attempt to fix it by the clerk of court.
00:01:48
Then it made sense. Six-week trial, they came back in a week. Uh and the clerk of court was lobbying
00:01:54
them at every opportunity to not believe Alex and find him guilty. And we find out later on that she told people she
00:02:02
was writing a book and a guilty verdict would help her sell books. So, she was doing not only out of some sense of
00:02:08
moral outrage, if she has the capability to be morally outraged, but she also was
00:02:13
trying to monetize and make money out of this tragedy, which is extraordinarily uh
00:02:19
horrid. >> Now, to be clear, I just read through this reading, too. The ruling for the
00:02:24
new trial is solely based improper influence on the jury. Has nothing to do with the evidence
00:02:30
presented in this case, correct? >> Well, it it doesn't it doesn't. That the Supreme Court went on to say, uh you
00:02:37
know, because we're going to reverse it based on Becky Hill's conduct, we don't need to find additional grounds, but
00:02:45
cautioned in a footnote and in a very long explanation about different evidentiary issues we raised and said,
00:02:53
you know, to the to the next judge, you're not bound by any previous ruling. And on the financial crimes, clearly
00:02:59
found uh that that uh the state went too far and the judge allowed testimony that
00:03:05
they would not want done in a second trial. But again, um it's not binding on any trial judge, but
00:03:12
if I were reading that opinion as the next trial judge, I'd be very cautious about the financial crimes testimony,
00:03:19
and very cautious about the guns and the tool marks and all the other things that
00:03:23
we raised issues about. Um the cell phone expert that the state came up with over a weekend. There are many many ma
00:03:29
many many evidentiary issues. All those issues we dealt with in a second trial. And by the way, Alec was always going to
00:03:35
plead guilty to the financial crimes. >> The financial crimes though, you know, that's one part of this.
00:03:42
This case heavily based on circumstantial evidence, but part of the huge issue here is your client admitted
00:03:48
to lying, admitted to lying about where he was that night, admitted to lying to police. So, that doesn't change anything
00:03:55
in this new trial despite what happened with the court clerk, correct? I mean, how do you deal with that? He's admitted
00:04:00
to lying. >> I mean, what the court said is you can't go if you're going to put in evidence of
00:04:05
financial crimes, it's got to be much more limited. There's no forensic evidence tying him to the murders. No
00:04:12
fingerprints, no DNA, um uh no confession, no video, uh no uh matter of fact, forensic evidence
00:04:20
would indicate he didn't do it. So, >> [clears throat] >> the the it's up to the state to prove
00:04:24
him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. They've got him lying about where he was. That doesn't prove he murdered
00:04:29
anybody. Uh I mean, Alec plead guilty to the financial crimes. Clearly, he's not going to get out of
00:04:34
jail anyway. Um and so, the jury will examine the evidence in the light of proving him guilty beyond a reasonable
00:04:42
doubt. Did he lie to the police? He admitted he did. He said he was had taken some drugs some um Oxy. He had
00:04:49
some in his pocket. You know, he lied. He did you know, he felt the police were looking at him as a suspect, so he lied
00:04:55
about it. >> Well, I mean, and they were. They they were looking at him as a suspect. So,
00:05:00
what do you do I mean, for people watching this, they're going to look at this ruling by
00:05:06
the South Carolina Supreme Court and say, "Okay, this was ruled on and ordered based on the actions of the
00:05:12
court clerk." But, by and large, the state proved their case and the jury found him guilty of these murders based
00:05:19
on the evidence presented. How do you expect that piece to go any differently in this next trial?
00:05:24
>> Because they won't have the clerk of court whispering in their ear every day,
00:05:27
"Don't believe him." She won't be trying to remove jurors who are expressing some
00:05:30
doubt. Uh she won't be lobbying them. It wasn't He didn't get a fair trial. He didn't have He had did not have a jury
00:05:37
that based their verdict on the facts cuz the the facts in my view, and I've been doing this a long time as a
00:05:43
prosecutor myself for 12 years. The facts, [clears throat] the forensic evidence
00:05:48
would not lead any reasonable jury to conclude he was guilty. >> The majority of the jurors had come back
00:05:54
and said that they did not feel they were influenced by Becky Hill's comments in terms of looking at the evidence and
00:06:01
rendering their own verdict. So, that's why I'm wondering how you think it would
00:06:04
be different this time with the evidence outside of Becky Hill. >> Clearly, the the the court also found
00:06:10
that the finan- much of the financial crimes evidence was prejudicial. It had a huge
00:06:16
impact on the jury, in my opinion. And again, this court in this decision said, "Don't do that again."
00:06:22
>> Right. So, you believe despite the ruling being made based off of Becky Hill's actions, you believe there's a
00:06:29
chance your client could be found not guilty in this second trial. >> Absolutely.
00:06:34
>> And what do you guys do to prepare differently now? Will he testify again? Will you have him testify again? Do you
00:06:40
prepare your witnesses and your plans of how you're going to present your case any differently now, given what's going
00:06:46
on moving forward? >> I guess the sort of the catty response to that is that's for me to know and you
00:06:52
to find out. >> [laughter] >> But, I mean, we just got this decision. >> Let me ask you this. Is Is there a
00:06:58
That's fair. Is there a chance though you'll put Alec back on the stand? Cuz that's a liability either way. And we
00:07:03
don't always see that from defense teams. I feel like usually it's the opposite. They don't want their client
00:07:07
to testify. >> Okay, our client's a lawyer. Now, he's a disbarred lawyer, but he is not your
00:07:11
typical client. Uh when he may- he will make the decision. We won't. Um and uh there are plusses and minuses to both
00:07:20
positions. And again, we don't know without the financial crimes, he's been convicted of them. If he takes
00:07:27
the stand, they can walk through each one of those guilty pleas, and uh the you know, and the jury will hear two
00:07:33
things. One, that he's pled guilty to stealing all this money. >> [clears throat]
00:07:38
>> And two, he's never going to get out of jail anyway. So, I mean, that sort of takes the heat
00:07:43
out I mean is a murderer going to walk free? No. Even if he's acquitted, he's in jail for
00:07:52
the rest of his life for the financial crimes. >> To your comment you just made. I mean
00:07:56
your client's a lawyer so there might be less liability putting him on the stand
00:07:59
but he's also a confessed liar. He's also a convicted felon. Does that change your viewpoint of the fact that yeah, he
00:08:07
has a legal background but still putting him on the stand I mean he's he's he's lied in the past.
00:08:11
>> The reason I said he's a lawyer is because what any client as you know, it's their decision. You know, I can
00:08:18
give him my legal advice but you know, whether to do it or not do it and we're wait I mean that's something a decision
00:08:24
to be made a week before a trial at preliminary essential where you know, we're ways
00:08:29
away from that. >> He could decide the day before he goes on the stand. >> He could decide the day of. I mean
00:08:36
the judge always said you know, have them stand up and say you've decided to testify or not to. You know, was that
00:08:41
your decision? And walk through I mean they go through warnings on it. So and I've had clients that have changed their
00:08:46
mind on the day of the trial. So it I can't project that and I can't project what our strategy will be. What
00:08:53
what what we do know is what the state's witnesses are going to say which we did not know
00:08:58
prior to the last trial. So that is a huge advantage we didn't have the first time around and if they testified to
00:09:05
something differently than they did the first time, we can use that transcript and impeach him. Now there's a state law
00:09:11
that prohibits the use of Alex's testimony in the first trial. >> Okay, so he would have so he would have
00:09:16
to testify again if >> He doesn't have to testify. If he doesn't but if he does testify
00:09:21
um they may may we're not sure because never really been tested whether or not they can impeach him based on his
00:09:27
previous testimony. >> With everything that surrounds this case in terms of attention, spotlight,
00:09:33
fanfare, media coverage, how do you find a second impartial jury for this next trial?
00:09:39
>> Great question. Um first of all, when >> [clears throat] >> the no trial judge has been appointed,
00:09:45
that'll be sometime in the future. Who knows, I mean, when the Supreme Court decides to do that. Once we have that
00:09:50
trial judge, we'll have to go to Colleton County for almost immediately for pre-trial motions about change of
00:09:56
venue. Um and I I don't think we even have to put up an evidentiary proffer to show
00:10:02
a Colleton County jury could not be picked. And then where do you move it? And you we're entitled to a jury from a
00:10:09
place that's demographically similar. In other words, you couldn't go to Greenville in South Carolina, which is a
00:10:15
uh Colleton County probably has a 35% African-American population. >> [clears throat]
00:10:20
>> Um it's primary primarily rural. I mean, I there are a couple of counties that
00:10:25
would meet that criteria, several counties. But I think we're going to have to do that examination. Now, when
00:10:31
you do that, when you get ready to pick a jury, I think voir dire has got to be extensive. Now, in South Carolina, we
00:10:37
don't have attorney-conducted voir dire except in a death penalty case. So, in this instance, we're going to have to
00:10:43
really work to get the judge to ask the questions that we want asked and need need to get asked about what you just
00:10:50
said. I mean, where are you going to find a jury that hasn't basically already made up its mind?
00:10:55
>> Especially in a smaller smaller county. >> This is an aspect of this case that's
00:10:59
very important. I can't really tell you what my opinion is yet. I mean, we until we got
00:11:05
this 30 minutes ago, um it was all speculation. Uh and now that we've seen uh what what the way of the land is, and
00:11:15
what the how the court I think has constrained the state in the evidentiary rulings. They didn't reverse on that
00:11:21
basis, but they did make very specific criticisms. Um that will somehow in some way affect how we look at a juror, how
00:11:30
we and the fact he's already pled guilty to the financial crimes. >> Right. I mean, there is definitely
00:11:35
aspects that are different going into this trial than you had the first go-around.
00:11:39
And thinking just about your evidence overall and and what you believe could be the case here, which you say is that
00:11:46
Alec Murdoch you believe is not guilty. Who do you believe did kill Maggie and Paul?
00:11:52
>> Well, let me let me say this to you. My opinion on his guilt or innocence is irrelevant.
00:11:57
I'm a lawyer. I represent him. My job is to see that he gets a fair trial and that that all the facts that are
00:12:05
favorable to him that are brought out and try to suppress on legal basis evidence that it would not be favorable
00:12:11
to him. That's my job. As I pointed out, I was a prosecutor for 12 years. I prosecuted 15 death penalty cases.
00:12:18
Put one guy in the electric chair. Tried to do it couple more times. So, it's not about my feeling. I'm a lawyer.
00:12:27
I have a job to do. We're not for murder. We're We're representing a client. Every under
00:12:34
the Sixth Amendment, as the court pointed out today, every person charged with a crime is
00:12:39
entitled to a fair trial. And we're there to make sure they get a fair trial. >> You're right. I mean, that's your job as
00:12:46
a criminal defense attorney. Let me rephrase my question a little bit. If you're [clears throat] going
00:12:51
forward with any sort of new strategy, are you going to try to suggest that somebody else
00:12:57
killed Paul and Maggie? And if so, are you going to try to specifically prove someone a certain person or persons did
00:13:06
that? >> Well, I think evidence is not evidence, but we received information since the
00:13:11
conviction that could lead us in that direction. But to be frank with you, without the ability to subpoena
00:13:18
phone records, without the ability to do a a investigation backed by the legal process, we have been unable to pursue
00:13:25
all that. But we will be. And I can't tell you at this point whether we'll present such a defense or not. Uh but
00:13:31
but that's one of the things we need to do before we go to trial. >> Is that kind of the next step? Almost is
00:13:37
it like a next discovery phase or or what happens now that you've got the ruling? I imagine you got to talk to
00:13:43
Alec today about this. So, what's next? >> Well, we need a judge appointed, and then we probably need to have a pretrial
00:13:49
conference where we talk about a schedule, rules of the game, um I mean I mean there's all kinds of
00:13:56
logistical issues to consider. I mean, Alec is at a prison very hours away from here.
00:14:02
If we're going to be able to we need to decide relatively early where we're going to be trying this
00:14:08
thing. And we've got some other issues we need to deal with I can't really talk about today in terms of those logistics.
00:14:14
Um we're going to be having a press conference on Monday where we're going to develop we're going
00:14:18
to answer questions about obviously the decision, but also about some things we think need to
00:14:24
be addressed before the trial. Um and I'm not at liberty to go into those today.
00:14:30
>> Any any uh I guess genre of what that's going to entail, what we can expect to hear about on
00:14:37
Monday? >> I really I mean, we just got the opinion today. We got to vet those other routes that we were talking about,
00:14:46
and it'll take us at least the weekend to figure that out. >> Yeah. And and and this is to to your
00:14:51
point the 27-page ruling. I mean, there's a lot in this. >> Yes, there is. There's a lot. And and
00:14:56
and and you know, I'm very proud of our Supreme Court. And they showed that the rule of law is well alive and effect and
00:15:04
in effect in South Carolina. Maybe not so much other places, but here clearly it took uh that clear-headed
00:15:14
focused examination of the evidence and the law to to write this opinion. It's an
00:15:20
excellent opinion. >> And and just so people know who are hearing that there's going to be a new
00:15:24
trial, I mean, the wheels of justice move slowly. There's a lot of prep work. This isn't happening next month. How
00:15:31
long realistically do you think it'll take to get to this next trial for it to begin?
00:15:36
>> I can't I mean, I really can't say because uh one of the things you got to do is
00:15:39
serve early on, serve discovery to get them to update. Is it has there been additional testing
00:15:47
that we don't know about? Did they miss any? I mean, just just one example on on the first trial. We read and heard
00:15:55
that uh Alex's shirt that night had been tested and they had blood spatter on it.
00:16:01
Blood spatter being a fine mist uh blood when you shoot somebody at close range it lands on you.
00:16:07
And initial report by the SLED lab, so they go on and forth with the lab was it was blood spatter and it was we were
00:16:15
told, well, it was not in the report, there was human blood spatter, although they couldn't type it, they couldn't say
00:16:20
it was Paul or Maggie's. Well, the trial was coming up January of '23 um and around Thanksgiving of '22
00:16:30
um a woman that works for me, Holly Miller, who's a paralegal, and actually almost I
00:16:35
mean, she'd probably have better lawyer than I am, was going through the file again and we got millions of pages of
00:16:40
stuff from them and saw a witness in a file witness name on a file she never seen before. So, she
00:16:45
opened it up uh it electronically and inside was a SLED lab forensic report on the t-shirt saying it wasn't human
00:16:55
blood. Remember now, this is less than 90 days um before we're getting ready to pick a jury. And all along we've been
00:17:02
reading in all the blogs and the podcasts, this revelation that he had Paul's blood or had Maggie's blood on
00:17:08
his shirt. We um asked to be able to examine it at one point and they destroyed they said they
00:17:14
destroyed it and they had in testing the testing they did they had found an expert in Oklahoma who was going to
00:17:21
testify with human it was blood spatter consistent with shotgun or something. And then we found that that evaporated
00:17:29
on them. But we found we we only found that report you could attribute the the fact that that report was contained
00:17:36
in a witness file. Maybe somebody was trying to hide it. I don't know. We found it. That's the
00:17:44
important part. And that that piece of evidence went away immediately. I think that in my opinion that's why this
00:17:53
financial crimes stuff became so important because without that they had nothing to connect him
00:17:59
forensically. No eyewitnesses, no video tape, no confession, no he he lied about
00:18:05
where he was. Well, we're almost entitled to a directed verdict if that's all they
00:18:09
have. >> I mean we'll have to see what the next jury does obviously. That jury despite that he still felt
00:18:15
that the state proved their case beyond a reasonable doubt. But to your point it's a new trial anything
00:18:22
could happen. >> Oh yeah, I'm looking forward to it. >> Dick I appreciate this. I know obviously
00:18:27
there's this has been a whirlwind trying to get the ruling come on do this. I appreciate your time and breaking down
00:18:37
your perspective on on this ruling. >> Well, thank thank you so much for having me on.