Episode Transcript
[00:00:00] Speaker A: Foreign.
Hey, everybody, it's Lacey.
[00:00:07] Speaker B: And I'm Lauren.
[00:00:08] Speaker A: And welcome back for another episode of the Llamas Podcast.
[00:00:12] Speaker B: And as always, please subscribe to our podcast channels. Follow us on Instagram, everywhere we're at. Follow us on socials. DM us if you have questions. And today's topic, we think is going to be a fun one. It's another one related to South Carolina. Going to talk about Alex Murdaugh and his trial and how me and Lacy were glued to the TV the whole time, pretty much.
But first we're going to do our question, and we gotta ask this one. And I think this relates to all moms and, you know, attorneys, business owners, everybody. With being a mom and having to work and having your own business, what do we do to relax? Or do we even have time to relax? So. So, Lacey, why don't you tell us a little bit about what you do?
[00:00:58] Speaker A: So one thing I try to do is, you know, Legally Blonde is one of my favorite movies, and if you watch it, endorphins make you happy. And happy people don't kill their husbands, right? So I try to work out consistently. So I usually get up before my kids get up for school, and I try to work out five times a week. And I've. I've been pretty consistent in that for about two years. I definitely think that helps me mentally for sure. When I can't work out. Like after my car accident last year and I couldn't work out for a little bit, I could definitely feel my mental health just not being there. So for myself, I know that that's just important for me.
I have a really solid girl group of friends here in Colombia, which is where I live. And that's another way that I try to escape, you know, my job. And I've always said we wear so many hats, right? Lauren, we are moms, we are business owners, everything. Sometimes I just want to be Lacy. That's it. And so my friend group is a place where I can be Lacy and I don't have any responsibilities and I can relax.
I don't see them as often as I should, but whenever we do a girls night, I used to always take my kids, but. But I've really tried to make it a priority not to. So that way I can get that escape. And the last way is travel. I always try to take one trip with just my husband a year, and that really helps, too. Just getting away from the job and home life and stuff and just reconnecting with him each year, taking a big trip and I went to Seattle, which it was for cle, So I was doing some law stuff for two days, but I was there for a whole week. So I had five days to explore the city and be myself and just. It was just really nice to go and just not have any responsibility at all. You know, just have fun, explore and that. I came back really refreshed after that trip.
[00:02:57] Speaker B: That is great ways to relax for me. I hate exercising. I do it just because I know I need to. And I don't want to die at 50 years old. So I do it for heart health, not for relaxation. I guess my biggest thing I like to do is read, so that's what I like. I sometimes read thrillers, so that way I'm like this fast, you know, pace intense thing. Sometimes I like to read a good smut book, like A Court of Thorn and Roses. I have read those. If you're into those type things. Like, I like. I don't like real life smut. I like fairies, vampires, you know, werewolves, all that stuff. Smut, that's kind of every night. That's kind of what I try to do. Like, after I get the kids to bed, or if I'm trying to get them to bed and I'm sitting in the room with them, so I have a little candle, I pull it out. And I like to read to relax. I sometimes like to watch reality trashy TV because it's just fun and trying to just get outside some. So not to like. I like to walk around the neighborhood, that type stuff, just getting that fresh air when you can. So I think that's it.
[00:04:03] Speaker A: So.
[00:04:04] Speaker B: But we'll focus on Alex Murdo now. And I think today we're taking a little bit different angle than, like, a lot of things have done. So we're going to talk about two different things pretty much with this. We're going to look at social media and how it comes in and plays in cases, and we're going to look at when and when not to take the stand in a criminal case and how Lacey, like, goes over this with her clients and what ultimately it is the client's decision. So the attorney cannot tell you no, if you want to take the stand, you can, but how we weigh the pros and cons out in those situations. Because. Because we've seen interviews with a lot of the jury, and that was two of the biggest things that they said made them want to say he was guilty of murder in that situation. So we want to dig into those two, and I think let's start with him taking the stand. We all know it was gross when he had that snot running down his nose. But, Lacy, tell us a little bit about the criminal proceedings and taking this.
[00:05:03] Speaker A: So for me, it's always something I talk to my clients about before going to trial. So I know a trial is coming up. I'm trial prepping with my client, and I want to have them prepared. Right. So something that you can do as a criminal defense attorney is call in other attorneys to play prosecutor and prepare them with cross examination questions.
I always prepare my direct examination in advance so my clients will know what we're talking about.
And there's also something called psychodrama that I've done with my cases before. And what that is is putting the emotion behind it. Right. Because a jury doesn't know your client. They don't know the defendant in these cases. So what psychodrama helps do is pull out those emotions along with the case to hopefully get jurors to connect with your client. So there's all kinds of different tools that go into taking the stand to enhance your case. Right. And ultimately, like you said, though, it is your client's decision. So based on meeting with my clients, I may say, hey, this went really well. I think you should absolutely take the stand or this isn't going well. I don't think we, you know, and I don't think you should take the stand. And then also there's some cases where I'm like, I don't think you need to take the stand. I don't think with the evidence that the state has that they can prove their case. So let's, you know, let them put up what they put up and let me argue with the jury and argue with the judge with motions.
But like you said, it's ultimately the client's decision. So if I tell my client I don't advise them to take the stand, they have to go in front of the judge, steal, and decide not to do that. So in criminal cases on the record, the judge will ask the defendant, not me, not the attorney, do you want to take the stand? Is this your choice? And it's kind of like a plea colliloquy. So when you plead guilty to a crime, they'll go through, like, your rights and things that you're giving up and how it can or cannot weigh against you.
The same thing with choosing to take the stand or not. The judge will say, you know, the jury cannot hold it against you legally if you choose not to take the stand. So that's where you Know, with, with, with Murdoch's case, it was his decision. And I don't know if it's ever came out, whether or not his attorneys prepped him, advised him to take the stand, or advised him not to. But, you know, the judge will ask the defendant. They get to make that decision themselves. So I don't know. Do you know if that ever came out, whether or not they wanted him to?
[00:07:52] Speaker B: I believe they did not want him to. And he did it in his own interest because I think he thought he knew better, pretty much. But one thing to point out in criminal cases is a lot of times, and I don't know if this you ever. I think it depends on every case. But the ultimate goal. Yes. Is on the prosecution. And so sometimes criminal defense attorneys don't even put anything up because they think the prosecution did not meet their burden of proof, which is a very high bar. And so sometimes after the prosecution rest, that's the end of the case with the closing arguments, of course. But you don't always have to rebut everything.
[00:08:32] Speaker A: Yeah. And there are usually what you find with criminal defense attorneys. You will have a batch that, like, they absolutely do not put their clients on the stands. Like, it is rare. It's an exception. It's a blanket rule. They don't do it. And then you have another batch that always does it. They always believe it. They believe that if a jury gets to know their client, if they like their client. Client, they'll acquit their client.
So there's, you know, usually there's very strong views, and I don't think I have either of them. I've been around both sets of attorneys that have those strong beliefs. I have put clients on the stand and I've regretted it. I've. I can think of a case right now where I put my client on the stand, and it is the only reason I won that case.
If I had and I. I believe I truly would have lost that case.
So, yeah, there's. I think, I think in most of my cases, I have had my clients take the stand.
And I don't know, it's. It's just we are trained to talk and address questions on the fly. Right. That's what we do on a daily basis. That's part of my job. When we have clients come in, defendants, typically, that's not part of their jobs. So the concern with somebody taking the stand is if they get hung up, if they get thrown off or something in panic that they're not going to come across very well to the Jury. And I have personally witnessed that multiple times, even with preparing and preparing and preparing. But this case is different. Right. Because Murdoch was trained. He, he was absolutely trained as an attorney for decades.
He was a former prosecutor, so he was, he was trained for all of that. And you can see even in his case where he had that training, how it went south when he took the stand.
[00:10:39] Speaker B: Well, no matter what you do, you can prepare the best. Like, like in the cases this is civil or criminal, when you're preparing your witness, you can do everything, but you still. And you can play, you know, the prosecution, but you still don't know the way they're going to ask the questions, how they're going to ask the questions. Like ultimately it could be something little that could trip you up. And in his attorney's defense, they could have prepped the crap out of him on what to do on the stand. And once you get up there, your attorney can't do anything. You are. I know we have spent hours prepping clients before. And they get up there and do these exact opposite. Because they want to tell their story. And I think that's what Murdoch did, in my opinion. I think he thought, I'm gonna get up here and tell this story. And I'm such a charismatic. Even though we know he's not, but women are writing him love letters in jail, so whatever. But he's in there saying, I'm this charismatic, I can convince this jury. I think because he was an attorney, he thought he would have the skills to charm a jury.
[00:11:37] Speaker A: Yeah. I also think his money and family and power there played a part into that.
The manipulation he has had in the past and the narcissism in. And I mean, you see that in the past. You see that with his son in the boating accident and stuff like that. And I think he was just thought he could, you know, use his Southern charm and privilege to get off.
[00:12:04] Speaker B: Yeah. And I think no matter what his attorneys did, I do think it was he took the stand of his own volition. He wanted to. And I think he just thought, you're right that he had all this privilege, he was going to get up there. And I think he thought taking the stand would be his way to get off instead of what it actually did was the opposite for him.
[00:12:25] Speaker A: Right. And just so everybody knows listening. So if somebody is convicted at a trial or they plea if they believe their attorney was ineffective. Right. So not they made mistakes that prejudiced the outcome of their case. There is something called post conviction relief. So a defendant can apply for post conviction relief to basically overturn their conviction. This is something that's really hard to overturn because it's the client's decision.
So if I advise my client to go forward and that's my trial strategy and it doesn't work out in my client's favor, they can't say I was ineffective because I. I'm not telling them, you have to take the stand. It's just, I think this is what's best for our strategy. Strategy. Even if it's. If it's not a good strategy and it doesn't work, that's not grounds to get to overturn your conviction. Every attorney is going into a case with a specific. Well, they should. Not every. Some, you know, really do make mistakes and stuff like that. I'm not saying that, but, you know, we will go in. We have a game plan. Just like a coach of a sporting event, you got that game plan. And sometimes that game plan doesn't work out. You can't say your lawyer was ineffective just because their game plan didn't work out in your favor. It has to be specific. Like my attorney said, I better take the stand. Didn't give me a choice, said this was, you know, if they felt pressured and coerced into taking the stand, yes, that could be ineffective assistance of counsel, and that could be, I think, argued to a judge. But just saying, like, my lawyer thought it was best if I did, or my lawyer thought it was best that I did it, and then it went south, that's not going to get you a new trial. That's not going to overturn your conviction, because that's just what they think is going to be the outcome. And as long as attorneys phrase it that way, I think this is what's in your best interest. And then you make that decision based on their advice, that's not going to get you a new trial.
[00:14:21] Speaker B: Well, most of the time with the PCRs, those are rarely granted, aren't they? Because most of the time, if it's a jury trial and you didn't do any, the jury just didn't believe it. There's not a whole lot you can do about that, typically. I mean, that doesn't mean you're ineffective, that doesn't mean malpractice. It just means your arguments weren't as strong to the jury as the prosecution's. Right, right, right. I mean, I think realistically with Myrtle, he shot himself in the foot with that one. But let's talk about social media. So did you ever think that Snapchat would be one of the factors in deciding a criminal case at this point?
[00:14:59] Speaker A: Yeah, it probably didn't surprise me. I mean, me and you have talked through years. I mean, we would see stuff on Facebook and say, oh my gosh, can you believe they posted this? Look at this and look at that. So it, it didn't surprise me. And I think we're gonna see stuff like that more often. You know, with, you know, the DNA evidence was such a.
A big new chapter in criminal law. Right. And I think social media is that next big thing that is going to be a make it or break it type thing in our cases. So, yeah, I think cell phone evidence and GPS data that you can store from it or get from it and social media, I think we're going to see stuff like that more often in criminal cases in the future.
[00:15:47] Speaker B: How does that work with admissibility and like authenticating? So kind of like the procedure to get it in because. Yeah, that's one of the big issues.
[00:15:56] Speaker A: So there's different ways. So one thing, to get anything into evidence, you have to authenticate it. So, for example, if we were in a trial right now, and I was the attorney and I'm trying to enter a picture in that Lauren took, and Lauren's my client, the way I would authenticate that is saying, lauren, do you recognize this? And she's going to say, yeah, this is. And I'll say, what is it? It's a picture I took on January 2, 2022. And did you take that with your cell phone? Yes, I did. Is that a clear and accurate depiction of the picture that you took? And she says, yes. Then we can enter that into evidence that way with cell phone data. I think you can still use that if the witness wants it in. You know, kind of like I just walked through with you. I think you can it. And it's always up to the judge. Right. So authentication isn't like clear blanket. This is how you do it. The judge has to determine whether or not it has been authenticated. So what I would do is if my client, if I'm putting something into evidence that my client took, I would try to authenticate it that way. In this. This, for example, you could authenticate it with the records custodian of Snapchat. So whomever saved those records, you could subpoena them to the case. So, for example, if you want a 911 call to come into evidence, this typically comes through the prosecutor, the state. The state has to call the 911 custodian to authenticate a 911 call before just blanketly playing a 911 call to the jury, they have to call the records custodian. How do you preserve your phone calls? How do you know what date this was taken?
How do you know what time this was taken? So they have to. That, that custodian has to testify to how they keep those records. How they know that is the 911 call specifically from that date in question that they're present to address in that specific case in order to authenticate that video or audio and play it. So the same thing is going to be with social media, bringing in records custodian from Snapchat, from Instagram, from Facebook. However, the prosecutor or defense lawyer got that evidence, subpoening that custodian to authenticate it. But like I said, I think hadn't tried it yet. But I think you can also, you know, if it's a Snapchat video that you saved, Lauren, and you were my client and you wanted in evidence, I think I can authenticate it with you. Is this a clear and accurate depiction of the Snapchat you took on that day?
So I think that's another way. But you have to have somebody that wants it into evidence in order to bring it in that way.
[00:18:35] Speaker B: How does this may be something you haven't had to deal with. We've had it a little bit in the civil world, but having to deal with the background and the metadata behind stuff to make sure people haven't, you know, altered stuff after the fact. Do judges understand that? Like, because that's pretty complex stuff we're dealing with, or like people with degrees.
[00:18:54] Speaker A: Have to deal with it, right? I don't think so. I don't think a lot of US Attorneys fully understand as well that something that's really come into the forefront at some of our continued legal education classes.
And when I talked about my trip to Seattle, that was that the CLE I went to there, there was actually somebody there talking about the metadata and little bit more complexities with digital evidence. Right.
So I think we are starting to learn about it and our judges are as well. And I think that is going to be something that we as attorneys are going to have to progress in education on, in either on the defense side defending and fighting against some of this digital evidence coming in to the jury. If we think that there's issues with it and how to raise those arguments and preserve them for appeal and, you know, for the, for the state, the opposite, and learning how to authenticate it, if there's any kind of issues there and the judge is understanding it to see, you know, is this digital evidence coming in accurate? Is it, should this come in, Should a jury hear, are there any issues with this digital evidence that may not be good evidence? So I definitely see in our profession that this is going to be something that is going to be an issue that we're going to have to face, you know, in the years coming up.
[00:20:26] Speaker B: Yeah, I definitely think this trial like brought social because I do think this trial had, you know, people around the world. Not maybe the world, but it's definitely the US because you have a super wealthy attorney who pretty much ruled this area of the low country. And if you don't know much about South Carolina, we're a small state in general and like, who you are matters a lot here. And like he did rule the area and this social media, this Snapchat came in and made a huge difference in his case. And I think this probably set some press, not pressing, I guess in the right word. But you know, other attorneys thinking, hey, I really need to dig into the social. I think family law attorneys have already been there because I think in family law it's a little bit easier to get like the social media. Like if you say bad things about your kids on the Internet, you know, it's the best interest of the child. But like in criminal law and especially business law, I think this is really going to change a lot. I think it's kind of the same way like the O.J. trial really brought in DNA for the first time in the US even done in the 80s in the UK but in the US that was our first big case we heard about with DNA. And I think this is the first really big case on this level of like murder type situation where social media came in and I think it is here to stay is going into evidence. And I think you're right. More judges, more attorneys, we're all going to get more educated on it in our continuing education where this is going to be the norm. We need to understand, or maybe we don't have to understand it, but we need to have experts in cases who can come in and understand it and explain it to juries so that way they get and know that this metadata and the background of it is true and accurate and not altered data.
[00:22:09] Speaker A: Yeah, because I mean, think about what we have now too. We have apps that you can use to hide your phone number to talk to somebody. So that's a concern of mine, you know, for example, because a lot of like if I have a client that's been charged with domestic violence. Most often they have a no contact order. Right. Where they cannot contact a certain person. Well, what if somebody is pretending to be my client and contacting the alleged victim and then that goes to the state and they file a motion to revoke bond? My client's like, I never contacted them. They risk being, you know, locked up in jail until their case is heard. That could be months and months that could force them into a plea if they're not guilty, because they just want to get out of jail.
So that's a concern of mine, too, is some of the things that we. The technology that we have with producing evidence that may not be accurate.
[00:23:03] Speaker B: I think our rules of evidence in every state are definitely going to have to get updated because a lot of them are not updated to the digital age. And I will say law is one of those professions that I feel we are way behind in the technology era because a lot of people don't want to have to deal with it. But I think laws of evidence are going to have to get updated to deal a lot more with all these new technologies, because there's apps that can erase your phone and do it where maybe people can't. I mean, and so many people, especially, like, the people younger than us, are so good at phones and the computers. And I feel like an old person right now. But we don't have those skills, and it's gonna change everything.
[00:23:45] Speaker A: Yeah, agreed.
Well, before we wrap up, have I told the story on our podcast about me actually seeing Alec Murdoch in person?
[00:23:55] Speaker B: No. Let's hear it.
[00:23:57] Speaker A: So I had to do a prison visit for a client, for a signature. And when I got there, there were two men from. I can't remember what government office in Columbia it was. I remember I looked it up afterwards, and it dealt with money. Something with money. I was talking to them. It's like, y'all came up from Columbia, too. Never dawned on me. So I don't know if it's still this way, but if you do, if you Google SCDC inmate search, you can look up anybody in the correctional system in South Carolina. So. But they did not put Murdoch on there. So you didn't know which facility he was housed at. So I had no idea that he was at the prison facility that I was visiting and had no idea that's who those two guys were there to meet. It just never even dawned on me. So I get in the back and I'm waiting for my client, and he was in confinement, which, if y'all read, you've Heard Murdoch's been kept in confinement as well. I don't know if it was just safety concerns or. So anyways, sitting there waiting, and the two guys come by me down the hall, and then there goes Alec Murdoch. And I was like, walked right by me. And what crossed my. Two things went through my mind. One, he was talking to them, and I'm like, did you not learn anything from being convicted and. And running your mouth? I mean, your inconsistent statements, like, so as a defense attorney, I'm like, you keep talking to government officials, and it keeps making your situation worse, but yet you're still talking to government officials. Why are you not saying, hey, I need my lawyer? But I don't know. I don't even know what they were was talking about. But that was my first thought. And my second thought was, man, he is tall. What were those trajectories again?
[00:25:43] Speaker B: Oh, yeah, he is huge. He's like five or something.
[00:25:48] Speaker A: Like, when you really get out in.
[00:25:50] Speaker B: The car, like, and you would see, like, the security guards are probably like, regular height, you know, walking them in and he's towering over them. No, I would have. I don't know. It's weird because, like, he is a murderer, and we should think, like, oh, I don't want to see him. But you're still, like, amazed. Like, I saw this person that's like.
[00:26:07] Speaker A: So I was like, dude, somebody asked, were you starstruck? I said, I wouldn't say starstruck, but it was definitely just a crazy experience that this notorious convicted killer, like you said, just walked right by me. And, you know, like, I said, I wasn't expecting at all. And then when the guards came by, I said, I saw who that was. And he said, oh, you did? I said, yeah. I said, you know, they don't post online where he's housed. And he goes, oh, everybody knows.
So he said he got lots of letters.
But to wrap up, it did make me question the trajectories, right? And I kind of wanted to go through that evidence. I haven't gone back through it yet because I'm just curious. But if I have to give my opinion, I don't think I can be convinced that he wasn't at least a part of it. Whether he was to shoot or not, I don't know. But I am firmly convinced that if he didn't do it, he knows exactly who did and he was a part of it. I. I don't have any doubts that he, you know, wasn't involved at all. I definitely think if he didn't do it. He knows who did it for sure.
[00:27:20] Speaker B: I. I don't know. I know he was involved. I don't know if he did or not. But for anybody looking for some real estate, it looks like Moselle is back on the market for, like, 2.5 million or something. And I'm sure some crazy, like, criminal enthusiast. That's rich. Will end up buying this to own it. But thank you all for watching today.
[00:27:43] Speaker A: Yeah. And give us your thoughts on the Murdoch situation about taking the stand. Do you think that hurt him like we. We think as well, or do you think that was helpful information?
Anything with a Murdoch case? If you have questions, drop them below. Comment, message us. And don't forget to subscrib and check our next episode next week. So we'll talk to y'all then. Bye.
