Judge Says State Can Use Alex Murdaugh's 1st Testimony In 2nd Murder Trial

A judge ruled today that prosecutors in Alex Murdaugh's murder re-trial can use his testimony from his first trial as evidence. Murdaugh testified in his 2021 trial that ended in three Creighton Waters: " at the first trial, mr. Murdoch, who of course had given multiple statements to the police in which he said he had never been down at the kennels, he had told all his law partners, all his friends, all his family that he had never been down at the kennels either." "And obviously, during the state's case in chief, we presented witness after witness who knew him very very well, saying 100% that's his voice on on the kennel video, which again was taken at the scene with the victims and according to the timeline, just moments before they died, and so he ultimately, you know, with the full waiver with Judge Newman said, 'I'm going to testify, and I want to testify.' And of course, right out of the gate, the first series of questions asked by Mr. Griffin on direct-examination was an explanation of why did you lie about being down at the kennels." "The issue, of course, boils down to to the statute, and of course, the statute says that the testimony of a defendant in a criminal case shall not be afterwards used against the defendant in any other criminal case except upon an indictment for perjury. And of course, our position in that is that this is the same criminal case. This is not another criminal case. It's the same indictment. It's the same allegations. It's the same case that we are doing. There's no question that we are starting the evidentiary presentation again from new, but that doesn't change the fact in the plain language of the statute that this is the same criminal case." 02:43 Waters: "Now the defense obviously argues that that because of ... the Supreme Court's guidance on the financial issues, that ultimately his decision to testify is somehow impelled by that, and and we would respond to that in two ways. Number one is the first thing is is very clear that the most important reason for him quote I want to testify is that is that he had to explain that kennel video, which again was the most important issue for the defendant to testify." 04:49 defense attorney Phil Barber "The statute here is 191150, which, as Mr. Waters said, prohibits using his testimony in another criminal case, and so we're concerned on what is the same cases versus another case. At 1023 a.m. in this hearing, Mr. Waters, standing at this podium, said, 'This is a new case.' That that was his statement on behalf of the state." 11:08 "First of all, just because I just got this from General Counsel at SLED that there was a there was a 300 blackout that was used in Allendale. However, it was entered , and there have been no leads or no matches on that. So that's what I was just informed." 11:40 Judge McCaslin: "You know, sometimes a real novel idea is to pick up the phone and call each other and talk. That's what we used to do when we were younger. Just call and ask if you've got a question, and then if you have a problem with it, I'm more than happy to settle it for you. I hate that we have to do this in court. I do. It's easier just to now. We can email you if you don't want to talk to each other. Just email each other and say, "Hey, you heard about this?" 14:32 Waters: "I'm going to find out more and double check, and we're going to run this down. But but again, there is no. From what I'm was just told by SLED, that there are no leads or hits on that blackout that was used in the Allendale shooting. I promise you, though, that I'm going to find out more." 17:57 Judge: "Well, I've read the case law. I've read the statute in this case, and I think it's pretty clear: a criminal defendant's testimony from a first trial is admissible at a retrial in the same case." 19:18 "Here, the defense argues that the evidentiary decision of the trial judge to allow evidence of the financial crimes coerced the defendant into testifying. However, you know I went and looked at the ruling again from our Supreme Court. The court ruled that the evidence of the financial crimes in this case is admissible in the new trial so long as it is probative to the murders. Accordingly, this is inherently different as an evidentiary issue versus illegal conduct."