Episode Transcript
[00:00:00] Speaker A: Foreign.
It's Lacey. And unfortunately don't have Lauren today. So welcome to another episode of the Llamas podcast.
But we do have my good friend, another criminal defense attorney here in Columbia, Lori Murray, with us today.
We told y' all last week on our podcast episode that me and Lauren just do not know a lot about federal sentencing, federal laws. And here with Alex Murdoch's case, case being overturned and him getting a new trial, that's just been kind of a hot topic. And so I know we were talking about, Lori, we were talking about some of the issues for the new trial, kind of the vagueness of the court on the financial crimes. But, you know, one question that's come up when we've talked about the Murdoch case is the financial crimes, you know, and how does federal sentencing work? So thank you for coming today so that we can kind of talk about that. So I do state only. I don't do federal court.
I just don't want to. Lori has offered to teach me in a case, but I don't know, I just, I like what I do. So we have some things in. Laura, you do stay in federal, too. We have some charges that if you get time, it is 65. You only serve 65 of that time. And then we have crimes where it's day for day and sometimes 80. You only serve 85% of that time.
I know his sentence for the murder that's now been overturned was life, which means life. He's, he's not getting, getting out, not parole eligible. But can you kind of talk to us about federal and how that's different in the sentencing? Can we kind of start backwards with the sentencing part?
[00:01:50] Speaker B: Yeah, we can.
So federal is vastly different. First of all, there is, you know, you talk about doing 65% or day to day on state crimes. It's vastly different in federal court. They don't have any parole in federal court. So you're doing day to day.
You can. No, they do not have any parole. So you can do like, you can get a little credit for good time, but they're not going to say, okay, this is when we're going to parole you and see if you can be on good behavior when you're out. When you're out, you're out, but you're on supervised release. That's their, what they call their version of parole, I guess. But they do make you check in just as if you are on parole. But it is still pretty much day for day. I mean, I think it comes down to about 85% generally on every case, potentially, like if you earn the good time.
[00:02:35] Speaker A: So with his case, let's just say he's found not guilty of these, these murders. I don't think that's going to happen. But if that did, when would we expect him to be released for the federal crimes that he was convicted of and pled to, you know, and I
[00:02:52] Speaker B: meant to, Sorry, I didn't actually look at the actual sentences again, but I think it was, you know, if it's a life sentence that he got in federal court, but I'm not sure it is. I think it was 40 something years.
[00:03:03] Speaker A: It was 47 years is what I keep googling. But like, we just didn't know if he had to serve all of that time.
[00:03:10] Speaker B: I mean, he'll get credit for the time, you know, good time in there, but he's pretty much in there for all of those years. So him coming out, he might be 90 or something. Like what? You know, because he was around my age, I think he graduated law school like a year ahead of me, maybe two years ahead of me.
So I think that he would be in his 90s by the time he got out, if he was to ever get out. But, you know, he's not, he's not going to get out. But this, it's, I mean, the, the difference to here. Another thing about federal court, which I think you do know, even with a state practice, is that you, you can run your state time concurrent to your federal time, but you cannot run your federal time concurrent to your state time. Meaning that if you are going to do or try to get credit, you need to plead to the federal stuff first. And then if you plead to the state stuff, then they can run that concurrent. In this particular case, though, he got a special concession to be able to run his federal case concurrent with his state so that he can serve his time in state prison instead of federal prison, which sometimes most people say, why is that? Why would you do that? It's crazy because just the Department of Corrections here is so.
It's not nearly as nice as the federal Department of Corrections, but with the federal Department of Corrections, they are going to send you wherever they want to send you. And if you are in the state of South Carolina Department of Corrections, you are located here in South Carolina. Most of my federal clients at the time, they end up getting sent to Florida and that's like the closest one there is one here in South Carolina, FCI Williamsburg, where I'm from. But I think I have one client that ended up going there. It's very low security.
So most of the people that I have ended up going someplace like Florida. And I guess he wanted to stay in the state of South Carolina.
[00:04:57] Speaker A: Yeah. And what all do you practice? I know you do state criminal defense and federal. And I believe you have a contract for the federal stuff.
[00:05:06] Speaker B: I was doing the contract for the federal case, but I just exited out gracefully, backed away. You know, I mean, when we're in private practice, we can choose what kind of cases that we want to handle. And you lose that ability when you're on those lists. Was taking the case if my name was up on the list. And that was the case that I got. And I ended up getting a human trafficker, which is fine. Like, you know, I'll take any kind of case. Especially, you know, it's anything that's. That's within my realm, anything that I can handle.
I just had never done a federal human trafficking. I learned how to do it in that process.
But, you know, the particular clients in those cases are different. We had. We end up with some narcissistic people that are very difficult to deal with.
And then I ended up. It was a very big learning experience with a difficult client. And then the next case that I got right after this one was a sovereign citizen white collar Nigerian money scam with 10,000 pages or more of bank record discovery. I'm not as big into white collar.
And so this was overwhelming to me. And especially when you have a client as you know, dealing with a sovereign citizen who doesn't believe that the government has any jurisdiction over them whatsoever, it's extremely difficult. So after those two cases, back to back, I said, thank you very much. I've enjoyed my time with you. I have been doing that. Lacy. Gosh.
I took my first case in federal court in 2002, so I've been doing it for 24 years. And I. Those two cases did me in. I backed right out.
[00:06:45] Speaker A: I feel like in state court you have more flexibility in sentencing, right? So if somebody is saying, plead straight up to a case, the judge can give a max or I can walk out with probation. And sometimes that is scary. But you have, you know, there, there is flexibility.
I feel like in federal court, there's not as much flexibility on the judge because I've heard you talk about guidelines.
They have to sentence to then guidelines. Can you talk about how that works?
[00:07:15] Speaker B: Well, and first of all, let me say that they don't have to sentence within guidelines. They just do the guidelines. There was a case that came out and said that the guideline guidelines are advisory. So a judge has the ability to depart from those guidelines, be it an upward departure and give you more time or a lower, you know, reducing reduction departure takeoff time. So the judge has the ability to do that. You know, looking at this Matthew Perry case out in California and those guys like. So the. I think the assistant is being sentenced today and that assistant was the one who gave him the fatal dose and two other doses that same day and left him in that pool after he shot him up with a big one. I had a case that was the same charge.
My guy pled guilty. The best deal that I could get for him was 20 years. Best deal.
The guy out there in California is going to get three.
That's what the government was asking for three years. So what they're trying. They're seeing factors, right? So one of them is the judge looks at all the sentencing factors. And that's one of the things at the very end and during the sentencing hearing they say I have complied with the sentencing factors. I evaluated to make sure there is no disparity in sentencing between the codependents. I should say that's lower disparity in sentencing between the code of meaning this guy did the same thing as this guy in this particular case and this guy got 10 years and this guy got five.
There are also. I wish I had them in front of me. But it's also the need to rehabilitate, the need to punish.
Just there's, I think there's six of them sentencing factors that the judge looks at. But you are right, there are guidelines in there. And each particular I try to explain it to my clients like this. There's a statute over here. This statute says that your mandatory minimum is 10 years and you have got to get 10 years. Now over here are your guidelines. These are advisory. So if the guidelines and this is all based on your drug weight or what your specific sentence is and your guidelines are going to guide where the judge sentence you, but you're still looking at the statute. So if your guidelines bring you in at less than the statute minimum, the mandatory minimum of 10 years, then you're automatically going to get the mandatory minimum of 10 years. If they bring you over, then you're going to get the over so mandatory minimum statute still trumps. But the guidelines are over there to act as an advisory to where to sentence them on.
That's your base level of understanding right there.
[00:09:48] Speaker A: So can you kind of tell us how if you remember how he got the 47 years was it did lack of criminal History come into play? Did the amount that he stole come into play? Like, what kind of led to that? 47.
[00:10:03] Speaker B: So the first thing that you look at when you are going to find a guideline sentence is what was the statute that he violated? And then you would find, and I can pull it. I don't think I have one sitting on my desk. But there are books.
But you go in there and you find what statute matches with which guideline. And then that guideline, you go to that and then it'll say, like for the money ones specifically, it will tell you if it's this amount of money. This is where you rank. This is the guideline. If it's this amount of money and then it goes up based on the amount of money. There are other things that make it go up. Like if you are a public official and you're missing using public funds, that's going to add to it. They'll say add two levels. If this. If it's something that, you know, makes it not quite as bad, they'll say reduce it by two levels. If this.
So he came in with that massive amount of loss and went under those guidelines and found the base offense level is what they call it, the base offense level based on the theft of that amount of funds. That's what got him as base offense level, then they will reduce it by three levels. If you accept responsibility and plead guilty, which I'm sure he got.
But another one is, you know, if there are more than two victims, that's an enhancement on a financial crime for the federal government. But the, the reduction is that I can only see one real reduction for him.
When I'll say that again, the reduction I can see for him is definitely the acceptance of responsibility. But there is another one. We call it the safety valve.
And that's where your lack of prior record comes in. So if his mandatory minimum said, hey, we're at 10 or 15 or 20 years or whatever that number is, and he actually came down here, you know, because of his guidelines. Remember I told you that statute trumps not if you have no prior record. If you have no prior record, there is the ability to go below the statutory mandatory minimum.
[00:11:57] Speaker A: With all that in place, I've got two questions. We'll keep it with Murdoch and I'll come back to the other one with knowing that and how much time he has in federal court, do you think it is worth the state's time to seek the death penalty and do you think it's worth the state's time to even try this again.
[00:12:18] Speaker B: Okay, girl. You know, you know, this is not a punishment decision that they are making. This is 100% a political decision because we are in an election year and we've got an ag who room for the governor. So should they be sentenced or trying to go after the death penalty? Absolutely not. There are no more new factors there, no more aggravating factors now than there were back then. It's the same. Same case, no new evidence. It's the same thing. So do I think they should go after the death penalty? No, I do not. He's going to be in his 90s by the time he gets out. He's going to be.
He's probably in his 70s. Just on the state crimes. Remember he pled guilty in state court and federal court for the financial crimes.
[00:12:57] Speaker A: What about that? I thought it was federal. So that's what saying to one or the other. But he was able to.
Right, so the 47 years is concurrent for federal and state.
[00:13:10] Speaker B: Yes. Okay, 47. I think it's the federal sentence. I think that the state sentence is less.
Don't hold me to that. I cannot remember off the top of my head. And I should have looked at it and I'm sorry I didn't.
[00:13:21] Speaker A: So retrial.
[00:13:23] Speaker B: The retrial.
[00:13:24] Speaker A: Is that worth it?
[00:13:26] Speaker B: Huh?
[00:13:26] Speaker A: Is it worth it to retry him knowing that he's not getting out until his 90s? Like, because it takes a lot of money. It takes a lot of money to try this case.
I think Dick Cart Pullan said half a million dollars just based on the defense.
I would imagine the state spent just as much, if not more.
Is it worth our, our money for, for this retrial if he's not going to get out until his 90s? Or will they just do it for purposes of, you know, just our court system?
Everybody faces their crimes. Or do you think it's just all.
[00:14:02] Speaker B: I don't even think it's that. I think that this was the, the case of the century. The, the most important case South Carolina has ever had in a criminal case. And I don't think.
[00:14:13] Speaker A: I think this has taken her cr.
[00:14:16] Speaker B: Yeah, right. You're right. You know, you forget about Susan Smith being the two babies. She killed her own kids and. But they were babies too. That's make it, you know, somewhat worse.
But yeah, I think that this is a matter of. We cannot let this go at this point. This is not how this case ends with all of the documentaries and the books and the, you know, podcasts and, and everything. This is not how this case ends. You can't just leave it hanging out there. Like, did he do it? Did he not? So I definitely think they have to retry it 100.
And I think that, you know, I think that they're asking, you know, the defense would not ever take a chance of pleading guilty on this. He's never going to plead guilty to anything, regardless of the amount of money. So, yeah, it's gonna go.
[00:15:02] Speaker A: Yeah, I agree. I don't think they're gonna let it go. Do you think if it happened to, like, if this was an attorney not as prominent as him, like, if this, if it was me, if I was accused of these crimes.
[00:15:13] Speaker B: How dare you.
[00:15:14] Speaker A: I'm not prominent.
Do you think we would have the media attention and it be as big as it is? Because I don't think so. I think if it was another attorney not as prominent as the Murdoch and all these weird intricacies of the boat and the civil stuff going on, I just don't think it would be as impactful in the media.
[00:15:35] Speaker B: Well, I think that, yes, I agree. I don't think it would be the same if it was another attorney.
I don't know that it's necessarily the prominence, but that does add so much to the story. This, you know, I used to talk about it so much back during the trial. This was the case that kept on giving. Just when you thought that there was nothing else, that we've had every angle, then something else would pop up and you're like, holy cow, you. I mean, you've got speculative deaths all around you. You've got the. The wealth and the history of being in the solicitor's office, the history of abusing power, the son's bad behavior.
And I think all that comes because of who they were. You know, there wasn't. Like that is that. That is the outflow of him being able to get away with everything that he did get away with. So, yeah, that comes from the prosperity of family and that family relationship and standing in the community. So, yeah, yeah, you're right. I mean, I'm just looking at it individually. That's what those little things are that make it so big and so great. But those things are a result of his. His prominence. So, yeah.
[00:16:38] Speaker A: So looking at the trial, do you think.
So one thing about the financial crimes, the court was kind of vague in the order on whether, like, it was clear that too much went into the financial crimes, but as to how much, they didn't really say. And one thing that's been going through my mind is the Crimes of dishonesty. You can impeach someone if they take the stand with those crimes.
When the first trial happened, I don't think he was impeached with convictions because I think everything was still pending then. Correct?
[00:17:12] Speaker B: Yeah, go ahead.
[00:17:14] Speaker A: So do you think he will take the stand this time, or does it really not matter? Because they're going to come in anyway because that's their motive.
[00:17:21] Speaker B: Well, remember that he admitted all of those things when he got on the stand. So I don't think that changes the ball game any. Any way, shape or form. I mean, he's admitted it and he can now actually say, yes, I did that and I lied. And I'm, you know, when he was up there snotting on the stand, you know, crying for all of the things that he had done, at least now he can say yes, and I've taken responsibility for that. So I do think that they come back in. And to your point about the judges or the justices not being very.
Not being very clear on what is too much, they can't. I mean, imagine down the road, you can't limit yourself to a number of hours. That's going to be up to the judge. But they're sending a warning to. And I, from what I've heard, it's Judge Taylor.
They're sending a warning to him to be aware. This is too much. You can't let it go on this long. And, you know, when you were watching the trial, you knew it was too much, but, you know, you can't. This is the thing. You know, I have had cases with Creighton. He is a tough prosecutor and tough to deal with, even. But you can't fault him. And I know that the people are so upset by this case being overturned, but you can't necessarily fault him for putting that evidence in. I have dealt with Creighton a lot in the past, and Creighton is a good prosecutor, and he's tough and he's not easy to deal with because he's so tough on crime. But the thing about it is that a lot of people, after listening to the Supreme Court ruling, they blamed the state for making mistakes that got the case overturned. And you can't really do that. That's not fair to Creighton or any of the other prosecutors that tried the case.
You have to. And I love Judge Newman. I grew up with him. He is a good friend of my family, love him to death. But this was a mistake made by allowing that evidence in was not a mistake made by the state. I would and you would too, as a defense attorney. Absolutely. Stretch it as far as they would let me stretch it. I would put it in there all day long. I would test the limits of the, of the deep end every single time, which is what they did. So, you know, now they have a conviction. It does make a difference, you know, and that's going to be interesting because it does make a difference.
The question is now does it come in just for motive or does it come in as a moral turpitude?
[00:19:32] Speaker A: Right.
[00:19:33] Speaker B: Yeah.
[00:19:34] Speaker A: Do we know who the judge may be?
[00:19:37] Speaker B: I, I have heard through a rumor mill and I don't have a.
I have nothing concrete on it, but I did hear that it was Heath Taylor.
[00:19:45] Speaker A: Okay. And he is on this week Court TV for Rick Chow case.
So if anybody's watching and wonder who that judge is, he is actually streaming right now on several news channels.
Do you believe that they will change venue?
[00:20:07] Speaker B: Yeah, I do. I think they were already. I mean there were so many rumors around it because there was pretty wide speculation that this would be overturned. I've said it from the very beginning that this case was going to be overturned.
But I think they started scouting areas and started at least thinking about where they would send this case next. I have heard Ori County. I have heard, you know, now with Ory county being as messed up as they've been with the Spivey case, I don't know that that happens, but I've heard sumter, you know, you could see, see them send it all the way to the upstate Walhalla.
[00:20:42] Speaker A: Thanks. Co host thinks it's going to be sent to the upstate and I, I kind of agree.
I think if you get up there, you can find people that just aren't following it like a lot of other people are, especially in that area. I mean, I'll have to even be honest. The Rick Chow case, I knew a little about it, not a lot. And I practice criminal defense here in Richland county. And like I said, that case is being tried this week. But if I were on that jury panel, even as a criminal defense lawyer in Richland County, I could have been a fair and impartial jury juror because so I just did not know a lot about it. It was very like during opening arguments I was so engaged because I didn't know anything about it. And I learned so much just in that, you know, you know, how they're shaping what the evidence will show.
And so because of that thought in myself in that trial, I do think the upstate would be a better place to have it because I think you're going to have people that may have heard about it like I've heard about that other case, but aren't as entwined with it as.
[00:21:48] Speaker B: Here's a better question for you.
Do you think that they will sequester them?
[00:21:55] Speaker A: Me and Lauren talked about that. We think they will sequester them.
[00:21:58] Speaker B: I think they almost have to. But I do hate, you know, having tried that case in February up in Anderson County.
I cautioned them for going to Anderson County. And I will say this like we had a ton of people coming to court every day to watch that trial because they had read something about it and the pre trial publicity was horrible up there with that case.
And you know, they moved the child case. They moved for a change of venue but they were denied. So I don't know, I. If Murdoch ends up in the upstate, that's probably the best place for him. I would hope that it wasn't someplace like Anderson. But Anderson does have a very nice courthouse and it's downtown and you know, so it's. And they have a, you know, like a media room and everything. So they're set up for something like that. It's a nice little courthouse.
But I think that some people out there a little predisposed and a little tough on crime. So it'll be difficult for him to get a win up there.
[00:22:54] Speaker A: My last question, I think I have said from the beginning he needs a female lawyer.
[00:23:03] Speaker B: I mean if you're one, remember he had one.
[00:23:07] Speaker A: One that needs to be way more involved. If you're a man accused of killing your wife and your baby, do you not think you need a very involved female lawyer?
[00:23:17] Speaker B: I do, but I. And by the way, I think her name is Maggie.
And was it Maggie or something, I think of his wife anyway, she works for Dick Harpitlan. So that decision is to not let her stand up and do anything was completely Dick Harpoon's decision. Decision. And Jim Griffin, she's wicked smart, also heard through the grapevine that she wrote all of their motions.
[00:23:40] Speaker A: So they're doing a disservice to their client by not letting her do more.
[00:23:45] Speaker B: But you remember like the first days of that trial, she was sitting at the table and she was talking to Murdoch and might have even been an emotion, but she caught a lot of grief on social media and just out there because she was having a conversation with him like he was a normal human being, which. He is a normal human being, which of course, course we do with our clients.
But she got a lot of Grief about that.
So I think that, you know, it just became the. The male show, this, what they call it, Sausage Party. And I. I agree that did a disservice. But then you need to show that you have someone who sits beside them, and it's just like a criminal sexual conduct case. You want a female sitting up there beside them showing that they're not a completely horrible person.
[00:24:27] Speaker A: Yeah. I mean, perception to the jury. I mean, like, they're the decider of the facts. And if the fact is there's a female beside you humanizing you as a male accused of these very horrible crimes, as a parent and a husband, you need to see that. I mean, to an extent, a trial is a production. It is a show. It is a dramatic. Let's all have some dramas based on trials. And I just really feel like they're doing a big disservice to him without, like, with putting her on the back burner and not bringing her to the forefront of this new case.
[00:25:03] Speaker B: Like I said, you know, first of all, like, I heard that she wrote those motions, and if she did, pure evidence of her being smart. The other evidence of her being smart is the fact that she has a job in Dick Harpoon's office. True, true.
[00:25:17] Speaker A: Well, thank you so much for coming on here. And we tell our followers how to follow you and where all they can find you.
[00:25:25] Speaker B: I am lawyer Lori on Tick Tock and Instagram and Facebook and on here on YouTube. And I am Lori Marie. Law everywhere else.
[00:25:36] Speaker A: Yeah. And what all types of law do you practice other than criminal?
[00:25:39] Speaker B: I also do personal injury red cases, workers comp cases, medical practice cases. All of the injury cases. Yep.
[00:25:45] Speaker A: So if y' all need anything, you know how to reach out to Lori. And Lori has really blown up on Tick Tock. She gone viral couple times.
[00:25:54] Speaker B: I mean, you know, I don't know, like, it's been a long road. I definitely have hit a couple million dollar videos. Million dollar. Not million dollar. Million view videos.
But, you know, it's just a weird thing that I've been doing for about almost seven, eight years now.
[00:26:12] Speaker A: Yeah. So definitely check her out. I know. I follow her stuff.
I think, as opposed to our podcast. It's different because it's more upto date. She's covering way more. Way more current events, and her summaries are just quick and nice to the point. So definitely follow her. And thank you so much. And don't be surprised if I reach out to you again when his case comes back up.
[00:26:34] Speaker B: Thank you, dear. I enjoyed it.
[00:26:36] Speaker A: Bye.
[00:26:36] Speaker B: Bye.
