Episode Transcript
[00:00:00] Speaker A: Foreign.
It's Lacey and I'm Lauren, and welcome to another episode of the Llamas podcast.
[00:00:11] Speaker B: And we are dropping this one. Like, we're actually recording this on Wednesday at about lunchtime 5:13. And we had a different topic planned, but we're evolving and changing to what just happened in the news.
About an hour ago, Myrdal just got issued a new trial here in South Carolina. And so we are switching on what we were going to talk about to be able to talk about this Murdoch situation while it happened and kind of tell you what it means now that he got a new trial and how this is going to impact him. And I would like to state that Chief Justice Toll, she is a retired Supreme Court justice, is the one who made this decision. So this came with a pretty big while. She's not a practicing circuit court judge anymore. She's retired. She can come off the bench for certain. She can come onto the bench for certain things, especially when there's cases like this, because.
So Murdoch, for procedural background, Murdoch filed for a new trial and just, well, Judge Newman recused himself from hearing that motion as he thought he was biased. So they brought in Gene Toll, who used to be one of our chief justices, to hear this. Kind of like she was in the bullpen and they pulled her up for this. So this is kind of a big deal that they made this decision because she was, she was Supreme Court chief justice. She actually swore me and Lacey in to be attorneys.
[00:01:51] Speaker A: Yeah, I, I'm not shocked based on oral arguments, but I was surprised at oral arguments because I kind of felt like because she was a chief justice for so long that they were going to have her back because, you know, like you said, this originally went to her when it was a motion for any trial. And clearly the Supreme Court disagreed with Justice Jean to and have said this is, you know, this is grounds for a new trial. So.
But I saw it coming with oral arguments. You could tell in oral arguments, they really had a bad taste in their mouth with what Becky Hill did. They really did. They were very upset about it. They were very angry. I don't think those, I think those emotions really was portrayed in the hearing.
So I'm honestly not shocked based on oral arguments. I was surprised that oral arguments went that way. But after seeing them, I'm not too surprised at the new trial.
[00:02:53] Speaker B: Honest trial court judges don't make decisions a lot of time because they want the Supreme Court to tell them what to do. So I'm like, with her denying his trial and then it getting up higher. It's not a shock if you work in, like, appeals or if you work in the trial level a lot. You know, a lot of times judges kick the can down the road a lot. I have realized, because nobody wants to make decisions. I have been in this situation myself with cases where I had a pro se defendant, largely a pro se plaintiff, and the pro se plaintiff was wrong every step of the way. But the trial court judges just kept giving them unlimited decisions because sometimes they don't want to make decisions. So in none of this, am I procedurally shocked at how we got here, because in a lot of times in the judicial system, if we can let somebody else make the decision, they will do that.
[00:03:45] Speaker A: Yeah. I have had the opposite experience in practice. I feel like I've had a lot of judges that really, truly take their time to get it right. Like the trial I just had with Judge Christopher Taylor.
I think he was really thorough in trying to make all of his decisions and in trying to not kick it down the road.
And I feel like I've had a lot of those judges, and he was a great trial judge. So much respect. I didn't win all my motions, but he was very thorough and explained things and took his time if he needed to, you know, in researching the issues.
But that's just my experience.
[00:04:23] Speaker B: But I think different when it's going to set precedent. That's true.
There are cases we've had that were setting precedent. Now, I will say we had a probate litigation that we won, but we wanted it to get appealed because we wanted it to set precedent because it was the first one of its kind in South Carolina, and the other side didn't appeal. But that judge did a very, very thorough order because he really thought it was going to get appealed, and so he was setting the record. But a lot of times, if you are making new case law, sometimes you have younger judges who are ready to go to make that case law, and sometimes you have people that don't want to rock the boat.
[00:05:03] Speaker A: Correct.
[00:05:04] Speaker B: And I feel this was not a minor decision.
This was a massive decision to undertake. And it is.
The impact of it, I think, is the biggest thing. Not as much that he's getting a new trial because.
But I think if he had not got the new trial, the impact of it would have been substantial because we would have allowed jury tampering and let it move forward. And that would have impacted, I think, a lot. I think this case.
I think the hard part is we all think Alex Murdaugh did it right. He didn't stand. He 100% had something to do with this. So I think that's the hard part in a lot of this is the fact that we want him to be guilty because we honestly almost all think he is. But if they would have not given him a new trial, that set a terrible precedent in our state because the jury was tampered with.
There's no question of it. It happened. The jury was tampered with.
And if we hadn't given him a new trial, we would have allowed it to be okay to have people come in and give their opinions to jurors who were not on the stand, who were not under oath, who were in positions of authority. Because the clerk of court is in a position of authority, but their role is to never give you an opinion as a juror. They're there to make sure you are taken care of, in a sense. Like, the clerk of court is there to organize the jury room, to send out the jurors, and then to have snacks and drinks and be there for questions.
Not about the trial, but about, like, where do I park? Are you going to validate my parking?
It shouldn't be questions of, is this person guilty or innocent? What evidence do I need to listen to? They are not there to give you any of that. They are there just to help you through the process.
Right.
[00:06:57] Speaker A: And I have to say, I'm kind of upset about it, though. Like, I agree. Based on law. Right? Based on the law. This was wrong. And one thing they look at is, you know, did it prejudice the case? I absolutely do. And I fully 100 support, 100% support this decision because I agree with everything you said that I've lost things where I know I was right on the law, and I've had to go through an appeal and, you know, win those. And there's some I'm. I'm waiting on, but I literally just got an order from a judge, and I know that I'm right. I know that I'm right. Like, and now my client goes to trial.
And that's what kind of bothers me. And I'm. You know, my friend group has been chatting a lot, too, and I think this is what's bothering them, too, is that now a powerful white man gets a new trial. But how many people have deserved a new trial but didn't get it? Because maybe they didn't have the funds for a good attorney, for an appeal or something like that? Because some of these contract. And I'm. I'm not bashing everyone, but I'VE dealt with people who gets get a contract for appeals and pcr. And I can't remember the attorney called one time on one case and she said, this is just one of those run the mills where they're guilty and I don't really need to do much. Right. And I'm like, actually, no, you have somebody who's wrongfully convicted and they need a new trial. But I worry that some people get cases on contract and that's their basis. You know, this is just around them and they don't really put invest a lot in it, you know. And I hope that what I just explained is the minority and not the majority.
But, you know, when I get hired for PCR and appeals, it's because a lot of times the attorney assigned to their case hasn't gone to see them and hasn't talked to them to find out what issues, you know, might not be in the transcript or something, you know. So I am a little like it is the right thing to do legally, but being in the trenches and seeing injustices and unfairness, it. It kind of sucks.
[00:08:56] Speaker B: I'll say that the unfairness is there in the civil side as well.
Yeah, I guess it's different because a lot of times it's money we're dealing with. But if you go up. So say you're a small person and you're going up against an insurance company. This is why we say insurance defense attorneys are the bad guys a lot of times. Right. So you got a car wreck, you're out of work for weeks. The insurance defense has tons of money. They pile you up in discovery. They.
You don't get a fair trial. And I think that's fair across the board. But I think the bigger issue here is this wasn't even a question of law. At the end of the day. This was somebody straight up going into the jury room and telling them what to do. I don't feel like this was one of those areas where you could be like, well, I interpret the law this way and I interpret the law this way on a case to make a ruling.
Somebody went in and did this for money. She wanted to write a book on this and she did. She wanted to get famous. She was chasing that.
[00:09:59] Speaker A: I mean, yeah, but Justice Toll's interpretation of the law is vastly different from the five justices. I mean, she basically be appealed.
[00:10:05] Speaker B: There's no doubt in my mind she didn't want to make the decision.
That is all that came down to. She didn't want to make the decision. She passed it to somebody else. And that happens. Yeah, I have personally watched that happen in my cases so many times until some judge finally gets fed up and makes the decision. She didn't want to make it.
She knew what was going to happen. She's smart. Yeah, she's probably one of the smartest attorneys and women out there.
[00:10:32] Speaker A: Very.
[00:10:32] Speaker B: She knew what she was doing. And I would say, my Lord, Chelsea agreed with.
[00:10:36] Speaker A: Okay.
[00:10:36] Speaker B: We both believe.
[00:10:38] Speaker A: Interesting.
[00:10:39] Speaker B: Because we've seen it so much from a civil side.
[00:10:42] Speaker A: They. Yeah, I just don't have that experience on my side.
[00:10:45] Speaker B: And maybe it's different judges in different parts of the state, but I literally could not win a case until I got in front of the same judge two times in a row on the same issue.
When one judge told me in a case they were in default, they were in default by 30 plus days. And he said, what's a month?
See, that is what we have dealt with. So like she just was kicking it down the road because she knew this and she didn't want to rock the boat in any way, but she knew deep down she knew no matter what she ruled, it wasn't gonna. It was gonna end up.
And I think in this situation he deserves a new trial. The issue is he's not gonna get a fair trial at this point. There's no way he gets a fair trial. So you can like say it's not fair. He got this when other people didn't.
But he is in such the media. There is no way he will have an innocent jury. There is nobody out there. They're gonna have to bring in a new judge probably to hear this because it's gonna have to be somebody that doesn't care about status. Because judges are human too. A lot of them like to get on tv. There are certain prosecutors who used to get their makeup done to get on TV with their cases. Like they're just human.
And that's going to be the issue.
[00:12:07] Speaker A: Did they? Because I mean, we literally don't had our podcast sets record before we really had time to read the order.
I'm curious if the order includes if the financial crimes should or should not have came in because that was another issue on appeal.
[00:12:24] Speaker B: Now, I didn't go through all of that. I don't know.
But you know what the biggest takeaway I think for me is he doesn't take the stand this time.
[00:12:34] Speaker A: Right, Right.
Let me see if I can find the order and say if he doesn't
[00:12:40] Speaker B: take the stand, that could open up. Not a.
Because wasn't that how it opened up? Because he got on the stand.
He opened it up by getting on the stand. I'm pretty sure.
[00:12:56] Speaker A: No, it came in before he took the stand.
Newman let it in before then.
[00:13:01] Speaker B: Okay.
[00:13:03] Speaker A: Trying to find the actual order.
I. Okay, so while I'm trying to find out about the financial crimes, we'll come back.
Let's see, you're Alan Wilson. You're running for governor. Do you retry this before which time's crunch in there or punta.
[00:13:25] Speaker B: Not gonna have it done before the.
[00:13:28] Speaker A: Yeah.
[00:13:29] Speaker B: Primaries. That's in a month early.
[00:13:35] Speaker A: Another question is, do you retry it?
Do you think the taxpayers of South Carolina want to pay for this again? He is already in federal prison for 40 years.
He is, what, 60.
[00:13:50] Speaker B: But his. If it's just the financial crimes, he could end up getting out.
[00:13:56] Speaker A: He's 57 years old. Yeah. I don't know what the percentage on the financial crimes is. I know he got 40 years. Just realize his birthday is two days after mine.
So he's 57 years old. 40 years, he says.
So he would get out at 97.
I mean, what do you do?
So you think for sure you retry it?
[00:14:20] Speaker B: I think you have to.
You're gonna. I mean, I think they're gonna retry it. I think you have to.
I think the court of public policy is gonna say you have to.
[00:14:34] Speaker A: Yeah, I don't know. I think they will. I think they will. If I were in that position, I don't know that I would.
Just being honest, it's a lot. It was. It's very time consuming. It's a lot of money. He's already going to do 40 years for the financial crimes. If it is, in fact, 40 years and day for day, or at least I would say 80%.
I don't know. I. I cannot find the freaking order.
[00:15:04] Speaker B: The one. Okay, it says the very end of here it is. Is noticed at the outset Hill shocking jury interference was accomplished outside the presence and knowledge of the outstanding trial judge and superbly competent and professional counsel for the state in defense.
[00:15:23] Speaker A: Did you find the order?
[00:15:24] Speaker B: Yeah.
[00:15:25] Speaker A: Oh, send it to me.
[00:15:27] Speaker B: Let's see. I'm trying to find if they said it's a really long order.
Like, we probably need to read this thoroughly and then give y' all an update.
[00:15:37] Speaker A: Right.
[00:15:37] Speaker B: I do want to point this out.
[00:15:40] Speaker A: They said our justice system provides, indeed demands that every person is entitled to a fair trial, which includes an impartial jury untainted by external forces bent on influencing the jury toward a bias verdict. Although we are aware of the time, money and effort expanded for this lengthy trial. We have no choice but to reverse the denial of Murdoch's motion for a new trial due to Hill's improper external influences on the jury and remand for a new trial.
So I don't know if I'm reading
[00:16:11] Speaker B: about the financial crimes are on page 22 of the order trying to see if they actually roll.
[00:16:19] Speaker A: While you look at that, I'll share with what was just sent.
Alan Wilson posted. We respectfully disagree with the court's decision.
We will aggressively seek to retry him.
[00:16:33] Speaker B: I knew they would retry.
[00:16:35] Speaker A: He will remain in. Let me be clear. This decision does not mean he's going to be released. He will remain in prison for his financial crimes.
[00:16:49] Speaker B: It's.
Let's see. We agree with the state that evidence of Murdaugh's financial crimes made the state's theory of motive probable.
The more difficult question is whether the trial court should have excluded all or some of the financial crimes pursuant to Rule 404B or Rule 403.
It's a lot.
[00:17:11] Speaker A: Okay.
[00:17:12] Speaker B: Let me just tell you, when you read these orders, they can't ever just make it easy for you. I know.
Like, here's the bullet points.
[00:17:20] Speaker A: Yeah, you can do it or you can't do it. That's what we need at Supreme Court. Just a headline of saying, judge Newman was wrong, should not have let this in. Or Judge Newman was right. It can be used.
[00:17:32] Speaker B: Let me see. I will send this to Lacy and also we'll read this. And I think maybe we just each can, like, summarize different parts of it that we think matter to us. To give you, like, a little followup, maybe to post after the podcast.
[00:17:45] Speaker A: Yeah.
[00:17:46] Speaker B: Because I can't sit here and read this whole thing and take it in right now. But we just had to bring this to you. And I guess the thing is, I imagine they're going to move for change of venue for sure.
[00:17:57] Speaker A: I don't think you can try it in Colleton County.
[00:18:00] Speaker B: I have a feeling it's coming up here to the Upstate.
[00:18:04] Speaker A: I thought you. I'm saying here in Columbia, I was like, why would it come here? I could see that. I could see it being moved to the Upstate. Actually.
[00:18:12] Speaker B: I really want them to bring the judge I clerked for, Judge Cole out of retirement and make him try this case because he would be amazing at it. Okay. He is not biased. He does not care about the media. Like, literally.
[00:18:24] Speaker A: Yeah.
[00:18:24] Speaker B: He's not there to make a name for him.
[00:18:25] Speaker A: So I think that's the issue that Way too. I'll say.
[00:18:28] Speaker B: Yeah. I think Judge Newman was great from the start, and he was retiring. So, like, I think the issue if they bring in a really young or not young, but brand new judge, they're gonna want to, like, make a name for themselves. You got to bring in somebody who the media isn't going to rattle and literally doesn't care because they're near the end of their career.
[00:18:47] Speaker A: Yeah.
Well, I definitely think you need a judge that's had a lot of experience.
[00:18:52] Speaker B: Judge Kof meets that. He was on the bench for 20, 30 years. He was a. He worked in both the prosecution and criminal defense. So he's been on both sides of it.
[00:19:02] Speaker A: Right.
[00:19:02] Speaker B: Background was almost all criminal. And he learned civil, obviously, and he was in the days of general practice, but he was a prosecutor then came out and opened his own firm to do criminal defense. So I think he'd be a great person for it. So I'm gonna vote for him.
[00:19:18] Speaker A: I would love to see Judge McCaslin do it. I would just love to see a female judge up there.
[00:19:24] Speaker B: I.
[00:19:26] Speaker A: I like Judge McCaslin. I don't think she cares about the media or anything like that, but she can be theatrical sometimes when she wants to be. And I just think she would just be great. So if I could pick anybody, I would pick Judge McCaslin.
[00:19:43] Speaker B: I 100 in my own Cole. Because I love when he pulls him little glasses down and stare.
[00:19:47] Speaker A: Yeah.
[00:19:47] Speaker B: When you're like, you don't know what he's thinking. And I will say he's good at not showing bias in any way. Like, he's pretty neutral. And I will say, like, the whole time I was with him, I never felt any real bias one way or the other. And he knows the law back and forth. There are certain judges that I don't think should be fit for this, because here in South Carolina, we technically, our circuit court judges do both criminal and civil. And this is a big point of contention I think needs to be dealt with, because realistically, there's a lot of judges who have only done personal injury cases or insurance cases and medical malpractice, and they're sitting on the bench for criminal. But on the flip side, there's a lot of people who've only been in criminal trying to learn civil cases. I think our court's eventually going to need to split and have judges that are qualified criminal versus civil.
[00:20:35] Speaker A: Yeah, I did text Kenny. You know, he was one of the experts in the case, and now he's become a good friend of mine. And I said, are you surprised?
And he said, no. You know, I think a lot of us after oral arguments are not surprised. But he did have to say he was only mentioned once and it was complimentary. So he's taken it as a win in his personal book. He didn't say that. I'm saying that, like he's taken a. A personal.
[00:20:59] Speaker B: We were filming this from our friend Jillian, who's in law, who was in law school with us, and she lives up north now. She lives like, for. She text. She goes, this Paul ready to go back on the sand. So. Because, you know.
[00:21:11] Speaker A: Yeah. Our friend Paul Greer was in the trial. He was a sled ballistics expert.
[00:21:16] Speaker B: Yeah, I want to text him, but I know he probably can't respond about it because I'm just going to track him down. He goes to church with my parents. He's their music director. I'm just talking to me about this.
[00:21:28] Speaker A: Yeah.
[00:21:29] Speaker B: Maybe when it's all over, we can get him as a guest because we love him.
[00:21:32] Speaker A: Well, Kenny will. Come on. We just have to get a time that works for all of us, for sure.
[00:21:37] Speaker B: And also that they probably don't need to say anything right now.
[00:21:42] Speaker A: I think he could talk about his experience and testimony because it's in the transcript. He wouldn't be able to give anything outside the transcript, though. I don't think he could at any time, though.
[00:21:53] Speaker B: There's a new trial and it's over. He could probably talk about whatever. So true. It's gonna be interesting to see. It's gonna be interesting to see who. Is Murdoch going to use the same attorneys? Are they gonna.
Completely different trial strategy because he used two of the most prominent. I mean, he was with the most prominent criminal defense attorneys in our state. Here's the big question, Lacey. If they ask you to join the defense team, would you do it 1 million percent?
[00:22:18] Speaker A: In a heartbeat? In a heartbeat. I've always, like I've said, you know, I won't be a part of it now because of the statements I've made in the past. But I always said I felt like he knew what was going on. Whether he did it or not, I don't know. But I probably won't be used because they'll. They'll play or the jury. I guess I'd have to make sure the jury in Voirdir hasn't heard any of my statements in the past to weed them out. But I think he needs a female lawyer. 100 think he needs a female lawyer that's actively involved in his case. He's accused of killing his wife and baby. You need. You need a woman. But yeah, heck, yeah, if y' all see me, I don't care.
[00:23:00] Speaker B: Also, shout out like cnn, msnbc, the Today Show, Good Morning America, if y' all need local people to discuss CS and you want correspondence down because I would love to do that. That's my dream job, is to just be a correspondent that talks about legal cases and. Look, I know I don't got no criminal experience, but half the people on your staff don't. So we're good. Just come after me.
[00:23:26] Speaker A: Come after Lauren. She's ready here.
[00:23:29] Speaker B: I'm ready. I'll get my money. I'll go buy a new suit. I'll sit in the courtroom all day.
[00:23:33] Speaker A: Lauren is ready to change her career.
[00:23:35] Speaker B: She's.
[00:23:36] Speaker A: She's here for you. I'm probably not that dedicated. I can give you a little bit of time, but it is not my dream to be a court correspondence, even though I was a journalism major. That, to me, that sounds not thrilling at all.
[00:23:48] Speaker B: I would love it.
What am I going to do with that yet? Nothing.
[00:23:53] Speaker A: She's. You're ready for the midm cases, too. Let's go now.
[00:23:58] Speaker B: I'm ready for all the IP I got you.
[00:24:00] Speaker A: So, yes, call her.
[00:24:03] Speaker B: But we will definitely be back discussing this over probably the next few days on our socials because we've got to dig into this order. And we will still talk to you about Sam Baitman, and we are going to talk about the Long island medium. We just. There's been a lot going on.
[00:24:18] Speaker A: We.
[00:24:18] Speaker B: That coming up.
[00:24:20] Speaker A: Yes. All right, we'll see you all next week.
