By Vic MacDonald | Regional Editor
Ahead of a high-stakes evidentiary hearing this Friday, the Defense for disgraced attorney Alec Murdaugh, in his double-murder re-trial, has responded to State claims that it has turned over evidence that the Defense is seeking.
The Defense filed 4 replies to State responses ordered by the presiding judge to be submitted by last Friday. The next hearing will be this Friday in the Lexington County courtroom of presiding judge Debra R. McCaslin.
One of the things the Defense wants the State to do is explain who testified before the State Grand Jury in a reported hearing about weapons disposal in this case. The State says it will not do that — "The State cannot prematurely confirm or deny the existence or contents of any State Grand Jury investigation until when appropriate,” its response filing says, in part.
The State says it is “happy” to provide original scans of the double-murder scene at the Murdaugh’s sprawling Lowcountry estate.
The Defense tells the judge in Oct. 9 filing responses, “The defense is glad to hear it. It wishes only that the State had said so a month ago.”
The Defense is hinting at asking for a continuance.
It says the April 5, 2027, trial date set by the judge will be difficult to keep if the State is not more cooperative. “This type of recalcitrance, if it continues, will make it difficult to keep the April 5, 2027, trial date,” the Defense motion cautions the judge.
The Defense wants the State to produce evidence related to .300 Blackout ballistics. The State has said it will produce any “relevant” evidence.
But the Defense wants the judge to make it clear that it is entitled to see evidence related to this kind of ammunition, “for the Moselle (Murdaugh estate) cartridge cases and for the cartridge cases from the April 25, 2026, homicide of Frank Brown and the April 24, 2024, Allendale shootings …” and other reports.
Examination of these other cases, the State has said, produced “no leads” in relation to the Murdaugh cases. The Defense says it is entitled to see, in detail, what led the State to its “no leads” conclusion.
“Evidence that a weapon the State says Mr. Murdaugh hid has since been fired by someone else would be favorable and material by any standard,” the Defense tells the judge.
The two sides also are negotiating the further production of DNA evidence.
The Defense’s fourth reply concerns “support of motion to compel disclosure of evidence concerning the disposal of the murder weapons.”
The Defense argues that the State’s response to this issue “is notable for what it does not say.”
The Defense filing continues, “It does not say that SLED received, in 2023, a statement that a police chief spoke of arriving early at the scene and of providing Mr. Murdaugh a change of clothes, and that the weapons and clothing were taken to a police station. It does not deny that the lead case agent knew of it. It does not deny that nothing was done with it until August 2026, or that the State told the Court on August 14 that it knew of no discovery issues seventeen days before its lead prosecutor caused the State Grand Jury to subpoena Chief Alexander. And it does not address the distinction on which the motion turns. … The response for some reason devotes two of its three pages to the record of the first trial that Chief Alexander and Mr. Murdaugh were friends. But the State does not say what follows from it.”
The Defense wants the judge to order the release of SLED investigative files, but not secret, grand jury evidence. It says, however, that evidence and grand jury testimony could be reviewed by the judge alone (in camera) to determine if it is eligible for disclosure.
In a footnote, the Defense says it is “entitled to know if the State intends to change its theory of what happened to the murder weapons, …”
The person referred to here is Yamassee Police Chief Greg Alexander. In an October filing, after news reports, the Defense accused the State of withholding an Alexander statement. At the time of that filing, Alexander’s attorney, Joe McCulloch, said, “The same explanation has been provided to SLED. That truth will outlive any ridiculous rumors and gossip.”
The Defense, at that time, said a second Yamassee officer allegedly was under investigation for “transporting and concealing weapons and clothing.”
Judge McCaslin previously set a Nov. 13 hearing in this continuing legal battle, but added the “urgent matters” Oct. 16 hearing due to a flurry of legal filings.
The hearings are in her Lexington County courtroom.
The April 5 trial will be conducted in the Sumter County Courthouse.
Murdaugh is charged in the June 7, 2021, killings of his wife, Maggie, and his son, Paul, and he was convicted in 2023; that conviction was overturned by the South Carolina Supreme Court this past May.
Murdaugh is serving federal and state time for financial crimes, to which he has confessed (in a McCormick facility); but he has steadfastly denied killing his wife and son.
This tale of a prominent attorney, from a well-connected family, and his fall from grace has captured worldwide attention. It has been the subject of books and documentaries for more than half a decade.
Murdaugh was found guilty the first time in a trial conducted at the Colleton County Courthouse in Walterboro. Misconduct by a county official and an error by the presiding judge were cited by the high court as the reason for overturning the double-murder verdict.
The State chose not to seek the death penalty.
