Episode Transcript
[00:00:00] Speaker A: Foreign.
[00:00:05] Speaker B: It's Lacy and I'm Lauren and welcome to another episode of the Llamas podcast.
[00:00:11] Speaker A: And today we're going to kind of continue our murdaugh because I finally had time to like read the order and actually understand some of it and I still don't think we have a whole lot of answers from the order as far as the financial crimes go because I know Lacey had a question about that, but I kind of have some issues with the way they wrote the order on that one.
But Lacey also wanted to talk about the lawsuit Murdoch has filed. I did not. I haven't seen anything about that. I've actually been on vacation this weekend and up till today. So if you see me today, I'm just doing office catch up work which is why I look terrible and have on no baby.
[00:00:53] Speaker B: Lets start with a question. What is your favorite vacation spot?
[00:00:56] Speaker A: Disney World.
[00:00:57] Speaker B: I was wondering if it was the beach or Disney World. I was kind of curious.
[00:01:01] Speaker A: So I'm not like to spend a week at the beach person. I get bored.
I like to read on the beach but like my children don't really let me do that and I don't like if I can just sit there and read. But otherwise it's high, it's nasty. I want to be if I'm. I don't want to sit in the sand. I'm not a build sand cast person and my children like that so. But no Disney. Hands down.
[00:01:29] Speaker B: I would pick the beach, specifically St. Augustine. We've started going there a few years ago. We love it. We go for the whole week. This year we're only going for five days because of Italy. Me and weren't going to Italy. But yes, I would absolutely pick the beach at St. Augustine. My kids love the beach. We go in the pool and the beach and it's awesome. It's the most relaxing. I actually when I leave feel like I had a vacation that was leisure.
[00:01:56] Speaker A: So I don't feel like that with the beach because my children are up at the butt crack of dawn.
Yeah, I mean we literally Saturday leaving for the beach. We left our houses when we went to Myrtle beach because we hadn't been there in like five years because yeah, I have a conference every other year at Kiawah and so if we go there that's our beach vacation. We don't go anywhere else. And K is ridiculously expensive. Yeah, almost our resort but ridiculously expensive.
So we did Myrtle beach this year because we hadn't been and we wanted the girls to play like put, put and all that stuff. But on Saturday when we left, we were rolling by 7 o' clock we got to the beach before lunchtime.
At the beach they were up and see at Disney I don't mind getting up cuz I have stuff to do. But at the beach like my children are just.
And my children don't nap anymore. So there's no like break time. It's go, go, go, go, go.
[00:02:50] Speaker B: I do have to tell you I'm going to Salt Lake City in October.
There's a CLE that I really want to go to and it's there. But I'm also just so excited to go to Swig and you're getting one in Greenville. It's. Well, it's not the same. You have to go to Utah.
Well, I will be going in October. I told Paige we needed to hit chase up and see if he'd meet up with us.
He's my favorite Mormon wife. I guess.
So anyways, I will actually went to
[00:03:23] Speaker A: Salt Lake City for some conference years ago and she went and she saw the whole like the Mormons, you know, have their history book or whatever at the church. She. Oh cool. She went to the church. I was at a conference then I think I was in New Orleans, I think and my mom was in Utah. My mom. So just as background, my mom knows a lot about the Mormons because my mom worked at a hospital for years. And Mormons, when they go out and do their sabbatical thing or whatever they call it, where they go out for two years, they're usually required to volunteer. This is the men that do that. I don't know if the women do it or not, I'm not really sure. But the men that do it and they have to volunteer. So my mom always had the Mormon. My mom was over volunteers a lot at the hospital.
So she would have the Mormons volunteer when they came in. So one of them, she got really close to one like during the whole time he was there, like his mom died but they wouldn't let him come back home and he needed like a mom figure and all this stuff. So when she went to Salt Lake City she went to the Mormon church that has like the big book and everything in it.
But I'm about to go there.
[00:04:33] Speaker B: Any other ideas? If she remembers something and she recommends it, tell her to let me know
[00:04:39] Speaker A: how many big Besides Disney, I am going to take my children to Houston for the first time in September. I have been to Houston, but they have not because Rashawn is getting married. So we will be Going, oh, my God,
[00:04:55] Speaker B: they need some cowboy boots. But. But, you know.
[00:04:58] Speaker A: Oh, I don't know if that will be accepted. I've been given a dress code.
[00:05:01] Speaker B: Oh, I'm sure if it's ran to get married, you have.
Well, digging into Murdoch at I guess let's start with the financial crimes. So the order was really muddy from my take. And Lauren, your take may be different because it was kind of muddy. It seemed that the court said that they didn't. First off, they did say they didn't have to rule on the appella issue of the financial crimes because they've already ruled a new trial on the jury tampering with Becky Hill, the clerk.
They said they would give some guidance to the trial court, though. And I think that's where it got kind of muddy. It seemed to me that whether or not the financial crimes were more prejudicial than probative, which is an evidentiary rule to determine whether or not something should come in as evidence.
They. They were kind of split. There was no. And they didn't give what number. But not all justices agreed as to whether or not the financial crimes should or should not have come in, but they did it seem. All agree that it went too far, that there was too much that was the issue.
[00:06:07] Speaker A: Like, it did seem that the financial crimes were, I guess, should be allowed in. Like, that they are. They do have actual value to the case.
But it was. But they let in too much. And it was weird. Like, the one thing they talked about was how, like the one like.
And we don't even know why this was relevant to begin with. The whole thing they went in that went too far was like the housekeepers that died. His son was in there and was her daughter. I can't remember all the details, but they were talking about the PR of the estate and why were you PR of the estate and all this stuff. And they're like, well, that was too far. I don't even know why any of that needed to come in anyway. So it was kind of confusing. It's like showing us what was too far with stuff I didn't think had any value to begin with.
And I guess for me, like, as the defense and as the pros, okay, so the prosecution is just going to throw it in. And when does the defense object? Like, do you just object every time? No, that just crossed the line. No, that just crossed the line. No, that didn't cross the line. Like, where do you know in all of this where it is too far? Because this is going to Be a long trial. Again, there's no doubt to that. And it is 100% going to be a trial. If the Murdaugh's attorney said he will not plea, Alan Wilson is 100% going forward with the trial. So we will have another trial.
And I just think it's going to be really hard to know where do we draw the line on both sides? Like, how does the prosecution formulate their strategy to know when did I hit that mark at 2, 4? And when does the defense object? Because the second it comes in, if you object, then no, they've said it can come in. It's where does the line cross?
[00:08:00] Speaker B: Yeah.
[00:08:00] Speaker A: And I don't think there's any clear guidance for the prosecution or the defense because they just said it went too far, but didn't tell us how it went too far or what went too far.
[00:08:12] Speaker B: Right. I agree.
[00:08:13] Speaker A: Loud, like 30 minutes of testimony on it, not three hours. Like there was. It's just. It was too much.
[00:08:20] Speaker B: Yeah. And it's not very clear. And so they're just going to have to. The state is going to have to be very strategic in what they do to try to gauge what might be upheld. Because if he's convicted again, I think the financial crimes coming in is going to be an issue on appeal again. So they have to tread very lightly, I think, because they don't want to do too much and then have to try this case a third time.
[00:08:47] Speaker A: One thing I did notice from the last time, he is only in jail for, I believe it is 26 years for the financial crimes. It was not as long as you
[00:08:55] Speaker B: originally said it is 40 years, but we weren't sure what percentage of that 40 he had to serve. So are you saying the percentage is 26?
[00:09:04] Speaker A: They said he was sentenced to 26 years is what I was watching. The financial crimes were 26 years, so it could have been a 40. And they did it at 26. I don't know, but the news said 26. So realistically, if he did not get a murder conviction, he could come out.
[00:09:25] Speaker B: I think, I think that he was.
It was state and federal time.
Yes. So he was sentenced to 40 years in federal prison, which he is serving concurrently with a 27 year sentence for estate crimes. But those are running concurrently.
[00:09:52] Speaker A: It did. The news did say, like, I don't know if they went and read everything, but said that yes, if he does not get for murder, he probably will get out in his lifetime. So I don't know if. Because the 40 years, if once he serves as 27. If, like, that's probation or, like, you can get out, I don't know. Or if they do, like, you know, so many times you serve so much, then they let you out for good behavior.
Huh?
[00:10:21] Speaker B: The only way they can let you out for good behavior is if it's parole eligible.
[00:10:25] Speaker A: And financial crimes would be. Right.
[00:10:27] Speaker B: It would make sense to be the only. I mean, there are some things like murder now is not parole eligible. There are many offenses that aren't parole eligible.
You know what? We really need to get Lori Murray on here because she does federal court and she knows the guidelines and how all of that works.
So I think we can maybe do an episode on. On that part. And since she does state court and federal court, she can kind of give us some guidance on what we're looking at. So I think we can get some answers.
[00:10:55] Speaker A: I'll.
[00:10:55] Speaker B: I'll reach out to her and get her to come on.
[00:10:59] Speaker A: That was kind of the thing from the news was like, there's no reason there that they wouldn't go forward with the murder trial because he easily could come out in his lifetime because he's what, 50 years old?
[00:11:11] Speaker B: Six.
I can't remember how old is he?
[00:11:18] Speaker A: He's 57. So if he got out in like 20 years, he could be 77 years old. Now, granted, I don't know what he's like, but they did say there is a very, like, compelling reason. And I was just watching the news because they did so like the Today show.
One of their anchors, which I've talked about before, is went to Walford, which has a connection with Murdoch because his son and he is from Columbia, South Carolina. So they. That Dick carpool in was on the news that next morning, like, they are ready to go. So it'll be interesting to see what they do.
[00:11:55] Speaker B: I know. And so they also have announced that they are going. They're considering the death penalty. We're hoping to get somebody on to talk about that too, because I've got a lot of questions. Is that going to make the trial more expensive? It seems like it will, yeah.
[00:12:11] Speaker A: Because it's gonna have to be two phases at that point.
[00:12:14] Speaker B: Correct.
I think the voirdir is longer and more intense, which is the questions that you use to asters to, you know, take out any biases.
[00:12:24] Speaker A: Jury wasn't sequestered in this. Correct. The pr.
I don't think they were sequestered. With a death penalty, you're more than likely going to have to sequester the
[00:12:34] Speaker B: jewelry, which means hotel rooms. You got to Pay hotel rooms and food.
So, yeah, so definitely have a lot of questions about that and that process, what it would look like.
I know that we have two state capital defense attorneys. So if he has Dick Harpan, do they automatically come on the case to try it with them or like be co counsel? How does that work? So there's just lots of questions. We're going to try to get somebody to come in and answer those.
And I think our last update on Murdoch is that he did, his attorneys did, on his behalf, file a federal lawsuit against Becky Hill, which is the clerk that they.
That tampered with the evidence or tampered with the jury, I should say. And I mean, she's pled to it. She tampered with the jury at this point, she pled. She has pled to similar charges and it was overturned on appeal. And I did recently learn she actually didn't plead to this particular case for messing with a jury. They got her for other stuff that she was doing in other cases because they didn't want her to plead to anything with this jury in this case because they thought it would hurt the appeal. Well, I guess it didn't matter because, you know, the appellate court said she doing this. Then she did something and something else because I did hear like what she actually pled to is not this specific instance because the state was hoping the conviction wouldn't be overturned, which was smart and strategic, but it didn't work.
Sirens so it is annoying as a person that didn't grow up with much seeing Murdoch sue her in federal court for expenses, knowing how much money he's had his entire life. So I definitely get people's feelings on him suing Becky Hill because essentially, like, the money's gone. Dickart Poy and said the money's gone. They did say they had another, you know, avenue that looking at. And clearly now we know what the avenue is. They are filing suit against Becky Hill to try to get money for the new trial. So on the one hand, like growing up with not a lot, it's annoying. Like he could have afforded two trials. He could afforded 50 million trials, probably. I mean, this is somebody that was born into money, always had money, stole money. Like this man has never, until all this happened, like, had to worry about any of this. Right. And so that is annoying.
But as a matter of law and as a lawyer, this is the right thing to do. Imagine if I had a client fair,
[00:14:56] Speaker A: like for her, yeah, maybe she didn't plead to it, but civilly. But the thing is, he may get no money from her. This is the thing about civil lawsuits. She probably don't have crap. She was a clerk, of course, what, six figures max. A hundred thousand a year, depending on the county, which. It was a small South Carolina county. She may have been making 60,000 a year. We. She honestly. And most the time the judges in these civil cases, if you have a house, there's a lot of exemptions to where they can't liquidate your house. So in all reality, I think this is not so much to get the money, but just to show we're gonna go after you for what you did. Because she probably. And if her husband's name. I don't know if she's married or not. I don't know. But if her husband's name's on the house, they can't even collect on the house, so.
[00:15:41] Speaker B: Right, yeah.
[00:15:43] Speaker A: Nothing there. They can get there.
[00:15:45] Speaker B: There might not be, but, you know, I do think, like, if a client hired me for a trial and they came up with, let's say, $30,000 and then didn't get a fair trial because someone tampered with the jury. Well, my fee agreement doesn't cover a retrial, and most of the agreements don't, you know, we're not banking on that. And so there's a new fee. You have to do a new trial. So somebody caused that first trial to be unfair and tampered with, with the evidence, hampered with the jury. Yes. They should be held accountable financially for you being able to afford legal expenses for another trial.
So as a lawyer, of course I support doing this again. I'm with you, Lauren. I don't know what they'll be able to collect. I know in certain things you can collect insurance, but, I mean, I wouldn't.
We have to have professional liability insurance. But I imagine she does it in her capacity.
[00:16:38] Speaker A: So, I mean, like, whatever she had is still coming out of the It. It's coming out of the budget that the state allots for when state officials get sued. So it's still. If. If there is money to be got from her for some type of insurance policy, is this money set aside from the state?
So it's not. It's still taxpayer money, if you want to know.
[00:17:00] Speaker B: Like so. But can they collect on that? I guess I'm gonna try.
[00:17:05] Speaker A: That's what I think the issue is going to be, is would insurance cover such. This was not malpractice. This was truly.
[00:17:13] Speaker B: Right.
[00:17:14] Speaker A: A personal like. So our malpractice insurance will cover if we make a mistake, but if we intentionally screw up, I don't know if it will cover that. So in her situation, I don't know if that's insurance, but if they get a judgment against her personally, like, if she did this, this was not malpractice. This was intentional infliction with the trial.
Right. I don't know if there's actually a tort that calls that. It's kind of like infection, like contractual. You can intentionally interfere with the contract, and that's a separate tort. So I don't know if there's something that does that, but I don't know if her insurance would cover that. Um, and there's a lot of protections. Like, they can't go against certain salaries, they can't go against, like, certain things like your 401k. There are a lot of protections. And see, we see all that. Like, this is hard when you're in the civil realm, because there are people that do truly horrible things. But people know how to make themselves judgment proof. For instance, if you got a mortgage on that second property you have, even if we could liquidate it, the bank takes all the money, so there's nothing there kind of thing. So I don't know, like, in her sense, she may be judgment proof. She may not have any assets to her name. And I mean, I will say at this point, Murdoch's attorneys aren't doing any of this to get paid. They're doing it for the fame and publicity. So they're not worried about that paycheck because Right. On all the news shows hitting the circuits like that is more than enough for them. So I don't think at this point, money is an issue.
But if, at this point, he did need an attorney, if they face the death penalty, he has to be given death penalty certified attorneys, which the state would pay for.
[00:19:10] Speaker B: Yeah, that's. So Bobby will have to be on it. Our friend Bobby works for Capital.
[00:19:14] Speaker A: If he had no money and they weren't. But at this point, Dick Harpouli. And saying. Oh, he's already said that.
[00:19:20] Speaker B: Like, but will Bobby be on there too, or. No.
[00:19:23] Speaker A: What's that other guy? Is he death penalty certified?
[00:19:26] Speaker B: Yeah, Bobby works with. Oh, God, if you hadn't asked me his name.
I know his name.
What am I blinking?
[00:19:35] Speaker A: But the other attorney on Murdoch's case, is he death penalty certified?
[00:19:38] Speaker B: Oh, you're talking about Jim.
Oh, I thought you're talking about the guy that works for Bobby.
[00:19:43] Speaker A: I don't know if he's death penalty certified. He's got two people right there. I mean, I think it depends. There's a limited number of attorneys that are death penalty certified, but my gut tells me the two of those probably are.
[00:19:55] Speaker B: Yeah, Dick is. Because he was a prosecutor and he fought the death penalty on Peewee Gaskins.
[00:20:01] Speaker A: Yeah. Yeah, he is. I mean, like, there's a decent amount in the criminal world. I mean, it just depends if his other attorney is or not. But if not, you are afforded one and you have to be given one. And that was how old Ted Bundy's whole issue was. He wanted to represent himself, but it was a death penalty case, so could he or could he not kind of thing. But no, Myrtle, I mean, here's the thing, too. I feel like we are never going to. He will never get the death penalty. Like, even if they give it to him, it will get overthrown on appeal, I feel like. Because at this point, there is no impartial jury in the world.
[00:20:43] Speaker B: Yeah.
[00:20:43] Speaker A: It's gonna continue to keep getting appealed and appealed. And so if I was the prosecution, I wouldn't go after the death penalty because, you know, goodwill. He's not going to get it. I think they just did it as a scare tactic to maybe see if he would plead or something.
[00:20:57] Speaker B: Yeah.
[00:20:58] Speaker A: Or, you know, Alan Wilson is running for governor. I think it's political, So a lot of this is driven by that. But, no, Alex Murdaugh will never be executed.
[00:21:09] Speaker B: Yeah, they said that they didn't then because we were not killing people. But now that we are, you know, he is considering it. But I agree with Lauren. I think it's a political ploy. You know, this is a case where, you know, it is circumstantial and it sounds like the circumstances are strong from what I've seen and read. But, you know, people. Some people still have their doubts. And I agree. I think it's a political move for votes.
But that's kind of our summary with everything going on with Alec Murdoch. We will continue to update y', all, and hopefully we'll get an attorney on here to answer some of our questions, too, about the death penalty and what that process would look like and how it be different from the first trial if they do decide to pursue the death penalty and get someone on here to talk about the sentences so we can. Because, you know, we're trying to figure it out. The news is reporting on it. Let's get some clear answers on how that works.
[00:22:05] Speaker A: So just, I think one thing to note with attorneys, just because we're licensed, so I'm not licensed to practice in federal court. I have never went and stepped to do that. So I do not know hardly anything about federal court because I have not applied to and I will not. I don't have the desire. I don't need to. But that's something too, to realize. Like, just because we may be licensed to practice one way doesn't mean we're licensed. Like, I can never go in front of the Supreme Court and I don't ever intend to do. So for me, it's no big deal. Are you licensed in federal court?
[00:22:38] Speaker B: I am licensed. I've never done it, though.
So I believe it would be malpractice for me to take a federal case unless I worked under an attorney and learned how to do it.
So I would say I believe I would be committing malpractice if I took a federal case. But no, I am certified, though.
[00:22:55] Speaker A: It is very. My law partner practices federal law sometimes because there are certain cases that we have that are actually federal and it is very different than state courts. Like, they always have, like, a magistrate judge appointed and a higher judge appointed, and there's very specific scheduling. So I think, like, it would be great to have somebody that practices in the federal world criminally. Come on. Because I have no idea. Like, Chelsea does civil stuff in federal, and I still don't understand it.
[00:23:24] Speaker B: Yeah, yeah, we're gonna work on that and get that information to ourselves and our listeners. So just keep listening to the Llamas podcast and we'll get your questions answered hopefully soon.
