EXCLUSIVE: S.C. Attorney General Alan Wilson & Creighton Waters on Retrying Alex Murdaugh | WIR

Added: 2026-05-24

[00:00:02]So you guys secured convictions in the highest stakes, highest profile, highest pressure murder trial that South Carolina has ever seen. Did an amazing job.

[00:00:16]Now you got to do it again. How is that reality settling on you guys in the week since the Supreme Court issued its reversals?

[00:00:24]I mean, I think we've kind of resigned ourselves to it. I mean, obviously, we have always asserted and believed that uh Becky Hill's conduct and her interactions with the jury, while inappropriate, once we learned of them long after the fact, uh were were harmless error and the the uh Gene Tol obviously had the post-trial hearing agreed with this, but the Supreme Court um decided to go in a different direction and we respect the court's decision and so we have already kind of turned the page on this and we're looking to the future. Did you feel like it was coming or?

[00:00:58]>> Well, uh, no. Um, you know, we're always very hopeful. Uh, you know, the thing that you that we litigated, for example, the financial evidence, you know, as a prosecutor, you have to deal with double jeopardy. So, you have to be, you know, aggressive as long as you have a good faith basis in the rules. And, as you know, we filed multiple 20page motions prior to trial. Uh, presented all that financial evidence and why we thought this was a unique case for a unique application of the law. And Judge Newman agreed with all of that. So, you expect that and we talked about that before trial that you would be litigating that on appeal. That's a calculated strategic risk that you do. Uh to have the court hang its hat on on the conduct of the clerk. Uh that's certainly very frustrating. But ultimately, you know, I've been doing this a long time. I've done appellet work. Uh it's all part of the process. And you know, I need my folks to know that uh it's going to be okay. We'll just go dust ourselves off and go do the job again.

[00:01:52]>> Well, they did an amazing job. I was actually at a panel in Camden, South Carolina with three of the members of your team a little over a year ago >> and I told that crowd, I'm a big guy for for taxpayer value. And I told that crowd in Camden, you got your money's worth with this team. They did a incredible job. I >> you know, I' I've got the best staff, uh the state grand jury staff, and then of course our law enforcement partners as well. But and most of those folks are still together. you know, I still have my number two, David Fernandez, obviously, uh, John Meadows, Savannah Gout, and John Conrad, as well as, uh, you know, my investigators and staff and that sort of thing. So, many of the same faces are still here, and we'll be working hard >> bringing the band back together, >> getting the band back together.

[00:02:32]>> General Wilson, your rivals in the race for governor of South Carolina, which you are arguably the front runner, they have pounced on this reversal. They have tried to portray it >> as some sort of an indictment on you politically. What is your response to the political criticism that you've received in the aftermath of the reversals?

[00:02:52]>> Well, of course they're going to do that. I mean, first off, what I love about this is the Supreme Court laid blame squarely on the shoulders of Becky Hill, not on anything that our office did. And the people who are trying to exploit this for political opportunism, it just kind of smacks of desperation in my opinion. Um, at the end of the day, you know, when they attack me, they're really attacking him and they're attacking all those names you just mentioned. They're attacking the investigators. Um, but I tell people who ask questions like the one you just asked for. For everyone who's read the order and everyone who has watched the news coverage of this, the only people who are attacking me or this office are the people who have something to politically gain. But everyone who is unbiased, everyone who has uh is looking at this with objectivity can see that our office did an excellent job and this is to be laid on the shoulder squarely on the former Carlson County clerk of court. Her conduct was conduct we did not know about at the time. So I think the vast majority the vast vast vast majority of people uh re see this for what it is and they're going to be very dismissive of those political opportunists.

[00:03:56]>> And neither of you saw any of that coming from Becky Hill. There was never any inkling during the trial, any suggestion that she was talking out of school to the jurors.

[00:04:05]>> If there was, we would have said something.

[00:04:07]>> Oh, absolutely. In fact, I wish that we had known about it because we could have fixed it very easily at trial. Uh the fact of the matter is those are kind of issues that if you become aware of them, you can pull the jury right then and there and fix it before the charge, you know, and the judge can address things on the scene. Uh I I wish we had known about it uh then. Now, she has since been prosecuted by uh Solicitor Rick Hubard in the 11th Circuit. A lot of folks have asked why wasn't she charged with jury tampering? Obviously, that would that was a decision you entrusted to solicitor Hubard. Is it correct to assume that it's a vastly different standard when you're looking at Becky Hill as a defendant uh whose conduct is prosecutable under jury tampering statutes versus conduct that may or may not have impacted jurors? Is that two different standards safe to assume?

[00:04:58]>> Yeah, I I I think uh you know and again I'm not here to litigate and we can't the rules for prosecutors uh and and comment we can make are much much different than they are for the defense.

[00:05:08]So uh you know we have to be guardians of the process. So wouldn't be appropriate for us to litigate uh you know what Solister Hubard decided to do or not to do. Uh but what it is appropriate to say and what I would say is is is yes as prosecutors the standard is very high as you know ultimately we have to prove cases beyond a reasonable doubt and that means you have to have credible witnesses uh who are corroborated to do so. And so that's the that's the weight of every decision we make as prosecutors. And that would have been tough in this case cuz you had 10 jurors if I'm not mistaken who said they didn't hear anything.

[00:05:41]>> Well, 11. Well, you 10. Yeah. And one heard something minor, but you know, we had 11 jurors in front of uh Judge Tol who were rock solid that this was uh you know this there was no effect on the verdict. They didn't hear anything. This is uh and then they had the one juror who him and Halden was all over the place. And Judge Tol recognized that in her order. uh you know from our opinion uh and this is what Judge Tol found this is what we argued to the Supreme Court this was all about these jurors and uh you know this idea that after six weeks of trial all those witnesses all that evidence judge Newman the prosecution team law enforcement the defense team the idea that Becky you know makes a couple of you know un toward comments and some juror's like well I didn't know what to do but I guess because Becky said something I'm going to vote guilty is absurd it's absolutely absurd that is not to say that any clerk should be making editorializations uh to a juror. So, I mean, don't get us wrong with that. It's just that clearly with the weight of the evidence here and when you looked those jurors in the eyes, uh you know, the idea that this verdict was compromised, uh we said didn't make sense. Judge Tol, who actually looked them in the eyes, found the same way. Supreme Court saw it otherwise. But like the general said, we respect the process. We respect the court. We may not agree with it, but we respect the court and we move on. Well, and the people are conflating what the state supreme court said with jury tampering. Okay. The Supreme Court is obviously looking at a different presumption obviously of the presumptions in favor of Mr. Murd who's the defendant in that case whose rights were being alleged to have been violated. And if we in a prosecution against Becky Hill or any defendant, we can talk generally. The presumption is going to be that they are innocent of the statements, not that the statements occurred, but they didn't occur and we have to prove that they occurred. And obviously the burdens for a criminal prosecution are much much higher. And so those were all determinations that the solicitor made. And I want to go back a little bit further. You know, you covered this very closely, Will back when all of these allegations of Miss Hill's conduct were becoming out into the public and I think you reached out to me one day and I said, "Hey, we're we're gonna let this thing play out. Get give it give us some time." And eventually I assigned a detached, impartial, neutral prosecutor to review all of the conduct that Miss Hill engaged in, not just relevant to related to the trial, but you know, obviously the post-trial hearing and the perjury and the misconduct in her office, the things that she engaged in outside of the trial. and a and the reason I did that is is that I didn't think it would look appropriate for our office to be investigating the individual who could have compromised our prosecution of Mr. Murdo who we had secured convictions on and I just thought that would have been a bad look. So I thought it was appropriate for a detached person to do that review. Solicitor Hubard did that review. Obviously he can speak to that because we had no role in that because it would have been inappropriate at least from an appearance standpoint. So, at the end of the day, um, you know, people can talk about wanting to go after Becky Hill for jury tampering, but I assigned that was it about a year and a half ago is is it was it was a year and a half, two years, whenever it was.

[00:08:52]It was over a year ago that was sent to a separate solicitor to to be resolved and he handled it according to all the facts and the law that he had in front of him.

[00:09:01]>> And he told me this week, he said, "I'm comfortable with my decision and I'd like for all the information to come out. Are you both of the opinion that those files should now come out?

[00:09:10]>> Well, uh, absolutely to to some extent.

[00:09:13]For example, there's the sealed discussion at trial. Uh, the, um, both Joe McCulla, who represents multiple jurors and, you know, is a close ally of Dick and Jim has filed a motion and Dick and Jim have filed the same motion to unseal that sealed discussion. U, you know, again, we have to be careful to protect uh, juror's names. uh and ultimately a judge needs to decide that.

[00:09:35]But I have no problem with that coming out and frankly look forward to it. Uh on top of that uh you know we have records of the investigation that was done leading up to the new trial and again you have interviews with jurors and things like that. Our courts are very very careful to protect those identities and all the rest of that. So there are things that we would have to work through. there's still information that uh that um generally is protected by the law for for very important reasons particularly as it relates to the privacy of jurors. Uh so within those parameters we're absolutely in favor of of you know information being uh released to to the public.

[00:10:11]>> Let's talk to the extent that you are both able about this second trial.

[00:10:16]>> You've indicated you want it to happen within the calendar year in Walterboro.

[00:10:22]You believe that either of those things are realistic possibilities? I mean, look, I was speaking aspirationally. I'm also I'm a realist and and a pragmatist.

[00:10:30]I mean, look, would I like that would I like to have this thing handled prior to the end of the year? Of course. Would I would is my intent to try to do that?

[00:10:39]Yes. But obviously, this is a momentous thing to do. Um, you know, we're obviously considering all of our legal strategy has to be reconsidered in light of the fact that we've got guidance from the Supreme Court. we didn't have before. Um the defense has seen our complete trial strategy from the first trial. We have seen their complete trial strategy. Um there's some things that they're probably going to modify in their strategy and then we're going to have to modify our strategy. So there's a lot that goes into this. Re-evaluating a case of this size is going to take time. And you know, does that mean that we're going to do it by the end of the year? I don't know. You know, it it seems I I will be I will concede. It seems to be very difficult to get done by the end of the year. I believe that we can have a trial date set up, you know, uh about when this case will be retrieded before the end of the year for sure. And >> Mr. Waters, what about the venue? Do you think that >> Well, first of all, I'll say General, if we can get a trial date for the end of the year, I'll be ready. Um and I'll get my team ready. Uh >> I'm trying to measure expectations.

[00:11:36]>> You're absolutely right.

[00:11:37]>> But here's the thing. I mean, like >> if if I don't want to put an undue burden on our team, okay? Uh, all of my decisions are made not in a vacuum, but >> he's got the band back. He's ready to roll.

[00:11:48]>> We got most of the band back and obviously we, you know, we got, we got some people who've retired on at SLED and whatnot, and we'll have to bring all them back. But if if we can get this thing teed up before the end of the year, then I will actually move for that to happen. Um, but again, that's going to be in consultation with our team who have to do all the the heavy lifting.

[00:12:06]>> Yeah. And and in all seriousness, obviously as it relates to venue, as it relates to a trial date, uh you know, our goal is going to, you know, as soon as reasonably possible, and the general is absolutely correct that there's a lot of moving parts to that and we'll have a status conference at some point where we'll uh raise those issues. We'll discuss issues of venue. Uh you know, it wouldn't be appropriate for us to to litigate that right now. Uh again, because of those rules that prosecutors have that are far more restrictive than any other attorney because our obligations are much higher. Um so we'll litigate those issues. Uh but again, I will say that that my marching orders uh you know, the marching orders I've got from the general is uh within reason. Uh let's get this thing rolling as soon as we can.

[00:12:45]>> Let me let me say this real quick. You know, last week when this thing was all new, right, the fog of war, you know, I think if I think all my statements are like, look, it's my intent to try this thing back in Walter Burough County and that was my intent at the time. It is still my intent. That does not mean when I say that all options and all strategies are on the table, we can evaluate. I mean, the the defense, you know, obviously very frustrated with me.

[00:13:07]Um, but they get to re-evaluate their strategy in light of the second trial.

[00:13:13]We get to do the same thing. Well, >> let's talk about all the options being on the table because you've also taken some heat in the last few days with the considerations regarding the death penalty. Mhm.

[00:13:23]>> This was obviously a case that you guys consulted on initially and decided not to pursue the death penalty in the first trial, but you indicated shortly after these reversals that this time everything's back on the table, including the death penalty. Walk us through that calculus.

[00:13:37]>> Well, so the other day the defense had a press conference and Mr. Mr. Harput, I mean, as he is known to do, he speaks a lot before he thinks a lot about some things and he made some allegations about, you know, me talking to my political >> said it was vindictive.

[00:13:54]>> Yeah. Well, he c he said that and that's fine. I'm not going to comment on that.

[00:13:57]But the first person I called when we got we got a question from another news outlet um about whether or not we would consider the death penalty, the first thing I did is I called Kraton and we had a sidebar and you know what we both agreed was we have to treat this trial as if it never happened before from the point from from the you know obviously from the consideration standpoint.

[00:14:19]Obviously, our strategy is going to change, but so we're going through a a checklist of everything and we're re-evaluating this case from the ground up. You know, obviously in 2022, um the death penalty wasn't a functioning method at the time. I mean, we hadn't executed anyone since I think 2012 because of all the issues that have since been fixed in our law. Um but obviously, we have to consider everything that happened since the trial as part of that. And so there's so many things we have to consider, but yes, we are going to evaluate this case from A to Z, from top to bottom. And we're going to re-evaluate every single decision we had to evaluate the first time in light of everything that's happened.

[00:14:58]>> And it fits multiple statutory criteria for a death penalty case, not just one, it fits several.

[00:15:04]>> It does. It does. And obviously there there's other things we have to consider since this wasn't since we didn't take it up the first time. There's other things we have to now look at. But again, >> do you think he should pay for these crimes with his life if he is in fact the one who committed them?

[00:15:18]>> I'm I'm going to resolve reserve that conversation for our internal evaluations. Um so again, all I said and all I've ever said is we're evaluating everything. Doesn't mean we're going to do it. Doesn't mean we're not going to do it. It means we're just going to go through the process. So capital punishment was on the table the first time and we looked at a bunch of factors uh for for various reasons and decide to go with the strategy we did but we're back to ground zero again. So we have the right to consider everything just like the defense does.

[00:15:51]>> We would be remiss as lawyers uh because we are at square one if we didn't you know rethink all of these decisions. uh you know, but ultimately if capital punishment was sought, uh it's not for us to say. It would be for a jury to say whether what the penalty should be. And again, uh as lawyers, um it is our jobs when we're at whatever stage of the process to think through every option.

[00:16:14]Doesn't mean we're going to do it.

[00:16:15]Doesn't mean we're not going to do it.

[00:16:16]What it is is is that we were all will have a process about every aspect of the case just like we would in any case. By the way, footnote, um, members from the unofficial side of my office, the campaign side, because we're in the middle of this election, uh, when they read about it in the news, like everyone else, my phone blew up. Like, kind of been nice to have a heads up on this.

[00:16:35]So, >> you didn't run it by your political?

[00:16:36]>> No, no, I ran it I ran it I ran it with my in my team on the inside and that decision was made internally and they and and the political people learned about it like everyone else.

[00:16:46]I wanted to ask you, Kraton, a a difficult question because we've talked about the Supreme Court uh decision and what they indicated was their reasoning for reversing it and of course it was clearly the conduct of Becky Hill as you guys have cited, but it was a procureum opinion. uh we don't know exactly how which justices viewed specific elements of the arguments and so on the matter of the financial crimes. They did indicate that Judge Newman left the door wide open to use the the terminology. I interviewed the defense attorneys last week and during that conversation, Jim Griffin, one of the defense attorneys, claims that he warned you during the trial that you were going too far with introducing financial evidence and that you were risking a reversal. Do you recall him saying that? And >> absolutely not. And again, uh you know, we put all of that uh all our cards on the table. Um and we again go back and read those motions. We laid it out. I I don't play gotcha. And as I said before, prosecutors live with double jeopardy.

[00:17:50]If you have a good faith basis for evidence and you leave it on the table and and you get an acquitt, you have to live with that for the rest of your life. But we didn't play gotcha with anything. We we laid it all out.

[00:18:01]Ultimately, uh, Judge Newman, a very, very experienced trial judge, listened to all of that and issued a very careful decision, uh, and letting it in. So, again, this was a fair process. Uh, and ultimately, the Supreme Court recognized the viability of this evidence. They just said, uh, gave us some guard rails as to extent.

[00:18:21]>> And how does that impact this next trial? I mean, it to what extent will you go into that financial evidence?

[00:18:27]>> Well, I mean, again, we don't prosecutors don't create facts. the facts are what the facts are. So, we will read the Supreme Court's guidance.

[00:18:34]Again, I I can't uh litigate the case or litigate strategy here uh pre-trial in the media. And so, I won't do that other than to say we will read the Supreme Court's guidance, which again was a matter of extent, not of uh you know, admissibility. Uh and so we will uh we'll proceed according >> and I want to interject real quick and I I would direct this to Jim Griffin. I would direct this to the people who are attacking the office and me. Supreme Court did not base its reversal on the evidence we got in. The Supreme Court actually says it was permissible. Even said it was probitative uh outweighing the presidential effect and the Supreme Court said that was fine. Now, there were some aspects of that evidence coming in that they wanted to tighten up a little bit. Um but this reversal wasn't based on the financial evidence that and by the way, you sat in that trial for nearly every day of six weeks, every day for six weeks. the number of hours that we went in camera out of the view of the jury to go through everything meticulously so that the judge could evaluate that those financial records coming in or that financial evidence coming in was I mean we went we were very careful. Uh but the reversal was not based on any of anything that our office did. It was based on Becky Hill. Um so I would just remind those people of that fact.

[00:19:49]>> I'd say one other thing about that. Uh, you know, I I don't recall I'm I'm certainly not accusing anyone of mistruth. I don't recall that that conversation. You know, maybe maybe Jim might have said something like that after he stepped in it and opened the door to so much of this evidence uh during his questioning. Uh but I will say this uh you know, I I don't ever recall the defense trying to give me advice how to prevent their case from getting flipped on appeal. I don't recall that at all. Fair enough.

[00:20:15]>> Another question I want to ask that's a little bit difficult and it relates to what many people believe is the reason that this case relied so heavily on the financials and I'm referring to the blood spatter situation. You guys were put in a very difficult situation in the weeks leading up to the trial >> when the evidence that really convicted Alec Murdoch in the court of public opinion began unraveling. And there were several defense filings leading up to the trial, including one a week before the trial that curiously has yet to be ruled on. There's actually a pending motion from the first trial still hanging out there. But it all goes back to this blood spatter evidence that by all accounts appears to have been fabricated.

[00:20:57]Does it concern you guys that as we approach this next trial that the defense will make this an issue saying, "Look, they were trying to frame this guy from the beginning." Uh I am not aware of any evidence that's been fabricated. Um now we uh as prosecutors, it's our job to seek justice, not to win. And we take that very seriously.

[00:21:19]And you know this uh and you'll hear this from me over and over again that prosecutors are guardians of the process. And part of that is always taking a careful look at the evidence that's being relied on. I have never tried a case where I believed that uh a case is going to be one with my expert is better than yours. That's not the kind of evidence that is particularly important to me. But one thing I will do is only put in evidence that I believe uh holds water and we're always carefully analyzing that. And and so ultimately uh you know in the court of public opinion that also bothers me as well because frankly uh that evidence should have never leaked out to the public uh because that affects the process and you know in the end ams leak and that's you see the damage from that uh and ultimately we had to address that. That is my job to protect the process and to ensure that only credible uh evidence is presented and I take that very seriously. Well, well, let me get on my soap box for a minute.

[00:22:17]>> Sure.

[00:22:17]>> Um, you know, the reason we, and he was, he's very adamant. I'm very adamant. We take this so serious. Kraton says, "We don't just have to be guardians of what we do. We have to be guardians of what the defense does because if they make bad mistakes and, you know, we secure a conviction, they can go back and use their bad mistakes and throw themselves on the spike, right? You know, >> to get a new trial >> to get a new trial. So I mean they they get like another chance to say I was a horrible attorney and we can get the conviction overturn. So we have to guard not just what we do but we have to be careful to guard on the record what and this is not specifically with this case this is with any case. Here's something else to think about. When a judge makes a mistake, what do they call it in the law?

[00:23:01]Reversible error.

[00:23:03]>> Whoops.

[00:23:03]>> If if a defense if a defense council defense attorney makes a mistake, what do they call it? ineffective assistance of counsel.

[00:23:11]>> Darn.

[00:23:13]>> If we make a mistake, what do they call it?

[00:23:16]>> Prosecutorial misconduct. And it doesn't matter if it's inadvertent or not. Those are the standards we live by. And you know what? I wouldn't have it any other way because that is the way the system should be. It's a responsibility that we take very very seriously.

[00:23:29]>> So when people attack prosecutors in any case and they make all these comments about we got our hands, you know, we're trying we're trying to go after a conviction. We're the ones that have our integrity malignant simply by the labels they assign to people. They can make mistakes all day long and it's like just little vanilla, you know, ineffective assistance of counsel and then they get another bite of the apple. Our entire, you know, we get accused of committing misconduct even if it's inadvertent and and that is something that we take very serious. Our bar licenses are on the line and so we have to guard the process at the end of the day. Kraton's 10,000% right at the end of the day seeking justice, which is seeking the truth. And I can tell you right now, we dismiss more cases than we try because we seek the truth and we find out the evidence wasn't there to get secure a conviction on a charge. We dismiss cases all the time. Every solicitor in the state does because that's our that's our job is to look at the evidence and if we can't I've said it in the past, we don't prosecute what we believe. We prosecute what we can prove beyond a reasonable doubt.

[00:24:28]>> And I'll say this too. Um, if we had evidence that somebody intentionally fabricated evidence, we would prosecute them. I think I've been involved in indicting seven sheriffs, uh, multiple police officers, high level officials.

[00:24:42]Uh, I think the record of the state grand jury since he's had me in charge uh, is extreme uh, in the amount of public officials that that we have prosecuted uh, and obviously lawyers as well. Um we uh obviously he's innocent until proven guilty, but we just indicted another lawyer. Uh and uh so uh you know we are not uh at all afraid to hold those in law enforcement uh and in uh the legal profession to a high standard. Uh and and so if you know again if I was aware that evidence had been fabricated, I would have prosecuted whoever did it. Another difficult position that the state law enforcement division put you guys in related to the guns. Uh obviously Alec Murdoch traveled to his parents' home in Almeida on the night of the murders then returned and uh you made a very effective case uh creating a trial that this was to create an alibi.

[00:25:42]That property was not searched though.

[00:25:43]In fact, it wasn't searched until many many months later. And there was the implication at trial that the guns involved in this tragedy were disposed of at that property or stored at that property or taken to that property. I just wanted to ask where are the guns? Where do you guys think the guns are? And also, I got to ask another question. Do you think you do you think there's only two of them? Do you think there were more?

[00:26:10]>> Well, again, it it's uh you know, we're prosecutors and as I said before, the rules are different. we can't sit here and and litigate the case uh in the media. And also, I'll I'll say this, like I said before, uh we don't create facts. The facts are what they are. Um SLED did a uh I will say this, SLED did a great job in this case in a very very difficult situation. And hindsight in 2020, it's always very easy to go back and say, "God, I wish I'd done this or or I wish I'd done that." But the re reality is is that the facts are what the facts are. And as prosecutors, we have to take that and and present the case as best we can.

[00:26:46]>> So, you're both convinced there are only two guns.

[00:26:49]>> Well, again, it's not appropriate for us to sit here and litigate uh uh the the case. Again, uh we'll make our position in court uh and when as soon as we get a trial date.

[00:26:59]>> I want to ask another question that I hope hope doesn't come off as as brusque, but you run the state grand jury, >> right? You have taken down big drug networks across this state. You guys do amazing work. In fact, I was in court up in Greenville a few months ago on one of the big cases that your unit has been working.

[00:27:17]>> Yeah, that was one of my babies was to address the fentanyl uh problem and we actually even before passage of the over death statute, which we had been advocating for a long time, we were charging fentanel dealers with murder for deaths on their dope.

[00:27:32]So, how do you look at this case involving Alec Murdoch and the people that he rolled and sat with >> and not pull the thread on this broader drug network that he's tied to? How is that not something that the state grand jury has dove into with both feet?

[00:27:48]>> Uh, and I'm not sure what uh your this broader drug network that you're talking about. But I mean, people can allege all kinds of things. And again, I can't sit here and litigate the facts other than to say the history you just mentioned, we ain't scared. We ain't scared to follow anything. Um, >> what about cousin Eddie Smith? He's been sitting for >> and he has charges he has charges still pending against him. And again, at this point in time, because he has charges pending, the rules do not allow us to sit here and litigate his case. Uh, but he was charged and those things are pending. Um, again, this was an exhaustive investigation and the history that you just mentioned, the history of of this office going after the powerful, going after the dangerous, we ain't scared. And so, I promise you that there's never a checkup in anything that we do. And certainly not under the leadership of this guy.

[00:28:38]You know, you ever you ever be out in your ever been in your front yard and pull a little tiny root system and you start pulling it and the little root becomes bigger and you keep pulling it and it starts to become thicker and pretty soon you're you look you look back and you you've ripped up a your yard and the roots now like 4 in thick and you're you're at a stump. That's kind of how these trials start. We we pull a small root and we don't stop pulling the root till we get to the source. And the difference between my analogy of pulling up a root in the yard, you get to see where the root has been pulled in the process of the criminal justice system, especially in the state grand jury, which are very complex, very evolved, usually involve multiple jurisdictions within our state.

[00:29:22]Some cases they bleed over into other states in in conjunction with the feds.

[00:29:26]You know, the public doesn't get to see that system and it's very very difficult. We can't, and I'm talking generally, so we can't always, you know, when people don't hear stuff happening or see stuff happening, they assume that nothing is happening or that we never looked. Um, we could have pulled a root system and it goes two feet and all of a sudden we're there. We're done. And then we could have pulled a root system and it takes us to a much much larger case.

[00:29:51]What I can tell you is we always follow the facts and we don't stop following the facts. And I can't tell you how many superseding indictments or how many times Kraton has sent up an indictment that's this thick because he's had to add new information to it and I have to sign it. Um, this happens all the time.

[00:30:08]And so what I can tell you about this guy and his team down there and my relationship with them is they don't stop pursuing the truth when they they don't they don't just stop at the border. They they keep going until they get to the end as far as they reasonably can. Anyway, >> by the way, Spencer Roberts went to prison. Well, I'll put him on the spot.

[00:30:27]Let me put you on the spot.

[00:30:29]>> And you know who Spencer Roberts was?

[00:30:30]>> One of the drug ties to Alec Murdoch.

[00:30:33]>> Correct.

[00:30:35]>> Let me put you on the spot on this. You are a staunch advocate for cracking down on public corruption. You have made that one of the centerpieces of your tenure as attorney general. Mhm.

[00:30:45]>> How do you not look at this case and the network that enabled, that facilitated, that propped up this Murdoch dynasty for for decades and not go after some of these judges, some of these other attorneys that were mixed up in this stuff?

[00:30:59]>> Well, wait a minute. Uh, you know, we're the ones who did this investigation, not the feds. Uh, you know, we got the 27 years on Alec Murdoch. Uh, they indicted him a year and a half later on our stuff. We're the ones who investigated and convicted Corey Fleming, his attorney buddy, and and and again, the feds indicted him a year and a half later. We're the ones who investigated uh and in first indicted Russell Lefit uh who the feds indicted later as well.

[00:31:25]So, all of that was state grand jury investigation. So, we took out uh the C uh the uh chairman or excuse me, the president of a bank uh and uh you know, two attorneys uh that actively were involved in uh in Alec Murdoch's schemes and all of them are in prison right now because of the efforts of this office and our partners at SLED. So, um yes, that's absolutely what we did. We spoke truth to power >> and you know, will I'm going to talk generally. I'm not going to talk specifically about this because I do not want to say anything that could compromise investigations or the process. But what I will say generally when it comes to public corruption, I think last count I've got se roughly 70ish since I've been attorney general, 70ish public corruption cases that have been that have resulted in convictions since I've been attorney general. There are lots of times that here's the thing.

[00:32:16]There is corrupt government or corrupt officials and then there are bad officials who are incompetent officials or doing bad things but there is not a criminal sanction for it like and and every you know there's three kind of remedies you get in government. There are legal remedies you can indict or you can sue to stop the government or to hold someone accountable. They're administrative remedies. They're admin, you know, there's an application process to get a permit. And then there are political remedies, right? You vote people out of office at the ballot box.

[00:32:42]You exert pressure on them. Everyone goes straight to indictment. You like, let's throw everyone we don't like in prison. And you see this, you saw it during the years when Trump was out of office, you know, the lawfare that people engaged in where we just started indicting people we don't like because it, you know, because of what we think was a bad bad decision they made.

[00:33:05]There's a lot of power, the power of this office. There's no other office like this in the state to deprive someone of their life, their liberty, their property, and even their reputation. Even if you don't get their life, liberty, and property, you can get their reputation. And where do they go to get it back? We are very careful. Um I have um gone after officials. People forget the the the probe gate everyone talks about. That started with me. That started with us, right?

[00:33:31]>> I was the one who got it flipped in the Supreme Court. And if you recall when and I was the architect of the Herald investigation and under his leadership uh and we uh had to and ultimately do what we called the Kopashi Maru uh to keep that uh investigation.

[00:33:45]>> You remember that scene?

[00:33:47]>> Star Trek 2.

[00:33:48]>> Impossible. Yes, it was an unwinable no- win scenario and we had to flip the script which is, you know, we were going to go to the feds because of the roadblocks being thrown up. That's another conversation for another day.

[00:33:58]What I will what I will say is um that I in my tenure as attorney general, they the things that brought down the former speaker were things that I literally found and then brought to Kraton and ultimately it got handed over to another prosecutor, but that was us that found that. So, we have gone after the most powerful people in this office, whether they're speakers, legislators, sheriffs, senators, town council, city council, school board, >> lieutenant governor.

[00:34:27]>> Yeah. I mean, we we have gone we we have prosecuted officials from all walks of life. But here's the other thing we have to do. Sometimes we go look at a case and we find out that the person u that we've been looked at, there is not a criminal violation of law. they did something stupid or they're bad at their jobs, but people want us to go prosecute them anyway. They I mean, they want us to turn into the very same Justice Department that the Biden administration turned their justice department into.

[00:34:56]And it's like, whoa, whoa, wait a second. You want me to go destroy someone's reputation because you hate them or because you don't like them? You know, the other day I was in a forum with some other candidates for governor and they were asking us to define corruption. And some of the candidates for governor were defining corruption as just people not spending money the right way or or or exercising their judgment poorly. And I'm like, are we really going to do that? So, I don't ever want to destroy unnecessarily destroy a life. I do want to hold officials accountable, but I don't want to unnecessarily destroy lives and and destroy people's reputations.

[00:35:32]>> Yeah, we've we've been very aggressive about that. But if you go back and look at that Bobby Herrell Supreme Court argument that I did, uh the one thing I told the court there is we don't play gotcha with the criminal law. We uh always are looking for criminal intent because we understand the power that we have. Whoever sits in that chair over there needs to understand those guard rails. It doesn't mean you're not aggressive, but it also means that you don't regulate bad government by indictment. You only regulate crime by indictment. And that's a standard that we take very uh seriously because we know the effect it's going to have on somebody. And somebody who's willing to just play gotcha with that uh that's an awful lot of power for them to have. The things that keep you up at night are for me particularly is is those decision points of has someone's conduct moved from just bad government into criminality? Uh and and we we debate it.

[00:36:25]We take it very seriously and when we act it's because we have that evidence uh that is going to support that. Uh but we don't do it lightly and I promise you you don't want somebody sitting in that chair who takes that responsibility lightly.

[00:36:39]>> A lot of folks running for that chair right now. They've all said they would retry Alec Murdoch. Incidentally, um I want to return briefly to Becky Hill. As you both know, there has been a federal lawsuit filed uh by Alec Murdoch against Becky Hill, arguing that as an actor of the state, as an agent of the state, that she deprived him of his sixth amendment rights. A lot of folks view this as Dick and Jim's way of getting paid for a second trial. Certainly, I believe that's part of the calculus, but part of that lawsuit involves digging deeper into the jury tampering and what some would argue was jury rigging. And in fact, Myra Crosby, the juror who was removed, has alleged that there was a broader conspiracy to get her kicked off of that jury. And so I wanted to ask the two of you, do you think Becky Hill acted alone or do you think she had help?

[00:37:39]>> Again, um there's a lot of things that are still sealed at this time, but I can assure you that a uh complete investigation was uh done in this particular case. Uh I think you also have to go back and look at those jurors who testified on the stand. And of course, their faces weren't shown, but you were there. Uh I remember you were there, as were many people in the gallery. Uh and so what you're going to have to accept with all of that is somehow there's some huge conspiracy. Uh but yet all of uh you know, 11 jurors got up there and lied about it. Uh and obviously Justice Tol found that that wasn't the case. As to the specifics of their uh you know lawsuit, I haven't read it and it would be inappropriate for us to comment on it other than to say that justice is always our goal and and that's what we uh you know try to do and ensure uh happens in every case that we have.

[00:38:33]>> Well, my my Crosby did name some individuals in her book. She referenced Mark Tinsley. I know he was a very important witness in this case. He was very close with you. Passed a lot of a lot of notes to you during the trial.

[00:38:45]Did any of those notes reference jurors or anything related to the jury?

[00:38:49]>> Well, again, I haven't read Myra's book.

[00:38:52]I haven't read anybody's book uh except for uh Valerie Boraline. And if we had any uh information regarding juror conduct, then it would be brought to the judge and uh uh ultimately um you know, that's the right way to do it. And and that's what we did. Again, I wish that Becky's conduct had been made apparent uh to Judge Newman. And like we said before, we are not opposed to unsealing the sealed inc camera hearings took place over that juror uh that took place. And uh I think uh you know, if a judge sees fit to unseal it, we'll be happy for everybody to read that.

[00:39:32]>> But the agency that conducted that investigation is the same agency that said there was high velocity impacts pattern when there wasn't. Well, that's not AC accurate at all. Um, and again, in what had happened in the uh investigation, first of all, there's a separation between investigation and the lab. And the lab had hired an outside expert, okay? Who was not associated with the lab, but was a nationally recognized expert. That is who issued that opinion. Ultimately, as I looked closer at that particular evidence, uh, I elected not to to put it into trial.

[00:40:05]And and so that's again that's part of what I talked about before. So to sit here and say the same agency that did that did that that's not the case. Uh we again take our our obligations seriously and I've been doing this for 28 years and frankly uh you know um you know we I think our the proof is in how we conduct ourselves and I hope people can see that.

[00:40:27]>> Well, you're not wrong to ask these questions and I don't it doesn't offend me that you're asking them but I do want to say this. Let's go. Kraton alluded to it. I'm going to restate it.

[00:40:36]Let's let's think intuitively. Does it benefit us or does it hurt us to learn of some conspiracy of, you know, people affecting jurors? Does it benefit us or hurt us to try to be part of that conspiracy? Because remember, if we make mistakes, we're engaging in misconduct.

[00:40:53]Imagine if we intentionally do something. You know, judges, reversible error, defense attorney, ineffective assistance, in ineffective assistance of counsel.

[00:41:01]For us, we our incentive is to protect the process. And if we see something going down that smells bad, we stop the process. We hit the pause button. We shine a light on it. We bring it to the judge's attention because anything that we don't bring to the judge's attention could completely upend any conviction we would ultimately secure. So, it we are incentivized to bring things to the court, to bring things to the attention of the public. It hurts us not to. Um, so I just want to bring you back to what I said earlier. We uh had we known of anything, had someone passed us a note.

[00:41:39]I can tell you I know this guy. I know me. We would have said, "Everyone stop.

[00:41:43]Send everyone out of the room. We need to meet with the judge. Bring the defense over. Put it on the record.

[00:41:47]Protect the record at all cost." That is what we're incentivized. First off, it's the right thing to do. But from a personal integrity standpoint, we're incentivized to do that because we not only want to protect the process, we want to protect our reputations in the process.

[00:42:02]>> You mentioned the benefit though. If she stays on that jury, it is a hung jury and her removal was decisive.

[00:42:09]>> Again, let's let's uh let's see what that sealed uh transcript reflects. I know what she can say in her book now.

[00:42:18]There's a reason why she was not on that jury. And uh Judge Newman made that decision after an inquiry that took place over a couple of days where the defense was present, the state was present. Uh so it was all in the open and Judge Newman kicked her off for a reason. So let's uh let's wait. I'm happy for that to come.

[00:42:36]>> And again, we can't litigate things that are sealed and we can't there are different rules that bar us from going into things. Kraton's right. Um we're not afraid of of that document being unsealed. Leave it at that.

[00:42:49]What are the next steps here? Obviously, you guys have the option of having the Supreme Court revisit its own determination. Do you guys plan on asking them to take a second look at their decision?

[00:43:01]>> I don't know. I mean, >> I would say this. I mean, we don't want to sit here in the media again and and foreclose any options and and uh there's always an internal debate going on. Uh and we still there's still time left in that time period to seek reh hearing.

[00:43:15]there's still time period to potentially seek certain court. So we don't want at this point in time to just foreclose an option. But I would say our thinking right now is and I I think this is accurate. General is linking is leaning towards you know what let's just accept this opinion tee this thing up again and and get it done.

[00:43:32]>> Yeah. I mean we we have to be open to everything and we we have opportunities and timelines to avail ourselves of reconsideration and petitions to higher courts to the US Supreme Court. those until those those are options until they're not. And until they're not, we can consider them. But like Kraton said, we also are practical. We're realistic.

[00:43:52]We're pragnatist. We're looking at this.

[00:43:54]And obviously, I'm kind of operating as if, okay, let's start the process of evaluating the second trial. You know, not to say that we won't file something.

[00:44:02]So, if you read something next week where we filed something, don't be like we lied to you. We I Someone once told me, don't make a what an irrevocable decision um >> till you absolutely until you absolutely have to. Somebody told me that one time.

[00:44:17]Don't make an irrevocable decision until you absolutely have to. Um, and that was a really smart friend that told me that.

[00:44:23]So, I'm going to adhere to that advice.

[00:44:25]>> That's pretty good advice. General, >> one last question for you guys, and I appreciate you being so generous with your time. I was down in Hampton a few weeks ago for a funeral of a a very dear friend, uh, and he happened to be buried, uh, laid to rest in the same cemetery as Maggie and Paul. And so I walked over to to where they were buried and spent a little time at their grave sites.

[00:44:50]It really did feel heavy. The air there felt heavy. Kind of like at the courthouse in Walterboro, your opening with the rolling thunder in the background talking about that gathering storm. It all felt very heavy.

[00:45:02]>> Yeah.

[00:45:03]>> Have you guys spoken to the family members to get their thoughts on what to do next? And if so, what have they told you are their wishes here? Yes, obviously we we communicate uh and but it's would be absolutely inappropriate for me to sit here in the media and relate conversations that I've had with various family members. I will say this that early in in the process of the first trial uh I told all of the family I said I understand that there are different viewpoints that those viewpoints might change during the course of the trial uh but I've got a job to do but one thing I promise we will do is we will treat you with respect and uh and we will um you know always uh you know communicate and our victim advocate uh you know through the entire trial um brought all the family in you know and and into the courthouse.

[00:45:52]Even if they were sitting on the defense side, we treated them with the same respect and uh we'll always continue to do that. But we can't talk about that would be absolutely in inconsiderate to talk about private conversations with various family members or to disclose what they think.

[00:46:06]>> Agree with Kraton. I'll just add part of the evaluation process involves us talking to the family because they are by all intents and purposes the victims uh regardless of what their viewpoint is. And so decisions are not made in a vacuum. We have to make the decision but we we we will make that decision after evaluating and part of that evaluation includes those conversations. But yes, this office has been in touch with the family.

[00:46:31]>> Gentlemen, thank you.

[00:46:32]>> Thank you.