Alex Murdaugh Conviction Overturned

Added: 2026-05-17

[00:00:03][music] The pillows are fluff [singing] thanks to Miss Emily.

[00:00:11]The [music] couch is wide enough. Join the family.

[00:00:16]It's [music] all love while we laugh at first criminalities. [singing] Hey, [music] hey, hey. Welcome to the sofa squad. Sip it from the cup. [music] Hey, [singing] hey, hey. Come live with the sofa squad.

[00:00:31]Can't roll my damn eyes hard enough. Oh, please.

[00:00:35]The puppies need [music] me.

[00:00:38][singing] Oh, please. My body is rejecting.

[00:00:44]None of that fancy credential stuff. I'm [music] just here for the cringe, [ __ ] Hey, hey, hey. Welcome to the sofa squad. Sip it from the cup. [music] Hey, hey, hey. Make him laugh with the soft spot. Can't roll my damn eyes hard enough.

[00:01:13]Oh, please. [music] My puppies [singing] need me.

[00:01:17]Oh, please. My body is rejecting. None [music] of that fancy [singing] credentialed stuff. I'm just here for the cringe bench. Hey, hey, hey. Welcome to [music] the sofa squad. Sipping it from the cup. [singing] Hey, hey, hey. Come laugh with the sofa [music] squad. Can't roll my damn eyes hard enough.

[00:01:45][music] Hey, hey, hey. Welcome to the surface squad.

[00:01:54]>> Hey everybody. How's it going? What's going on everybody? If you could drop a Whoa.

[00:02:02]Let's give it up for Cat's mom. Let's give it up for Cat's mom.

[00:02:07]All right, she just claimed her throne again. [laughter] How's everybody doing? Hello, Emily.

[00:02:14]Hello, Tori. Welcome to the sofa squad.

[00:02:17]I do appreciate y'all being here.

[00:02:25]I just love that. Um, I hope y'all are doing well. So, y'all, what we're doing tonight is we're doing a little bit early because I got to go somewhere. Um, we're going to go over the Alec Murdoch like the finding or whatever. Now, this is not going to be a we're going to read it verbatim every single thing of it or whatever, right? Um, we're going to go through like the highlights of it. Now, as we all know, yesterday Alec Murdoch situation blew up on the Corey Richen day stuff, [laughter] right? I was like, "What are we going to do? What are we going to do?" Right? So, his case was overturned. The the gist of it is is the Becky Hill situation was major. Also, the financial crimes being introduced into the trial was major. Um, I think we did a live chat on it before, I can't remember, but Shaina and I went to the hearing at the Supreme South Carolina Supreme Court and it was very interesting. So, to see what they to put the two together and to see the things that they were, you know, kind of like going in on the nuances that took place there at the hearing and to see what they came back with makes total sense, right? So I was like, "Okay, yeah, because they definitely went in equally on the defense for some things and the state for some things, right?" And so, you know, and a big thing obviously out of their control was like the Becky thing, right? I mean, that's just it is what it is. If I was her, I would be leaving town. I'm not going to lie, y'all. I would literally be leaving town. Um, so there's that. Now, the other part to that was the financial crime thing. And I remember one of the dudes up there, the Supreme Court, you know, just judges or whatever they're called, justices, whatever, was basically going in on the state and he was basically like, "Look, we could have covered that in like a couple of hours and you like went for like 12 hours."

[00:04:17]And I think I talked about this this morning in the video for this channel, you know, and I see both sides of that, right? The Becky Hill thing to me was like a no-brainer. like this is this is so compromised and so bad.

[00:04:32]Where are you going to go with that? You know what I mean? She tainted the jury pool. I mean, there's just there's not much getting around it. Um, so that was my take on it. So, I wanted to go through with this or go through this or whatever and just kind of see what they said, right? So, there you go. Um, and then let's see. Hey, Jessa, what's up? Hey y'all, real quick. Tonight at midnight on Netflix, I don't know what our brains are going to shut down this week, y'all. McKenzie Sharilla docu series releases and a Sherry Pini fictionalized movie about that whole situation releases.

[00:05:10]I think it's almost like a sofa Friday, right? Like what are we going to do?

[00:05:15]Like we want both of these all at once, all at the same time. So 100% watching that, 100% going to report on it tomorrow in the main channel. My review of Corey Richen sentencing um will be out tomorrow on that channel.

[00:05:30]And then I did a followup because today I went back over the memorandum, the sentencing memorandum with what we know now and kind of just used it as like a trauma throwup bond type situation. So that'll maybe be next week or something or Sunday. Oh no. So anyways, that's what coming out of the pipeline. Um, okay. Now, let me get this going. Hey, hey, hey. Welcome to the super squad.

[00:05:58]Please hold. Call currently important.

[00:06:01]Call currently important.

[00:06:04]Okay, first things first. Let's get a sip of water. You know, we're going to need that.

[00:06:13]Okay, so I'm jumping down over here, pardon me, to the factual and procedural background. I'm using the wrong micro or the wrong mouse, of course. Let me get my hand positioned over here. So, this is just going into the background of it, but we're going to kind of jump into the um you'll see what I'm talking about.

[00:06:36]Here we go. So, March 2nd, 2023, that's when Murdo was convicted of the murders.

[00:06:40]Of course, we're talking about his wife Margaret Maggie and his son Paul, right? And then the other things and possession of a weapon, etc., etc. Okay, so Judge Newman was a trial court, sentences him to life in prison. While his direct appeal of these convictions was pending at the court of appeals, Murdoch filed a motion to hold the appeal and abance obeyance to allow him to file a motion for a new trial. Court of appeals granted this motion. Then he moves for a new trial and this is when he asserts that he'll tamper with the jury. So this is the beginning of this, right? Pardon me. So number one, by advising it not to believe Murdoch's testimony and other defense evidence. Two, pressuring it to reach a quick guilty verdict. And three, misrepresenting information to the trial court in an attempt to have the court remove a juror she believed to favor the defense. He attached affidavit from several jurors to support this motion.

[00:07:35]Okay, now I'm going to scroll down here.

[00:07:37]So then, if I can find my little thing here. Where did it go? There it goes.

[00:07:41]Should we do Okay, so the posttrial court conducted the hearing of this motion on January 26 and 29 of 2024. During the hearing, the post-trial court asked each juror number one, if the guilty verdict was an accurate statement about their verdict at that time. Number two, whether their verdict was based entirely on testimony, evidence, and law presented in the case.

[00:08:03]three, whether they heard Hill make any comment about the case before the verdict. And four, whether their verdict was influenced in any way by Rebecca Hill. So, juror X, who testified on the first day of the hearing, acknowledged hearing Hill say before Murdoch's testimony, looks like the defendant is going to testify, this is an important day, or this is an epic day, and that it was rare for a defendant to testify.

[00:08:26]Juror X said these statements did not impact the verdict.

[00:08:30]I mean, this is the unfortunate thing.

[00:08:33]You know, I just sit here and I'm like, why on earth would you say something like that? And I can understand a juror being like, look, he was guilty guilty before she even said that. But unfortunately, it's like, yeah, I mean, I've always just been with the with the Rebecca Hill stuff. Like, this is like, uh-uh, nope. Um, okay. So then juror Z, who submitted one of the affidavit Murdoch attached to his motion for a new trial, was the first juror to testify in the second hearing date. When asked whether she heard Hill make any comments about the case, Jur responded that Hill said to watch his actions, referring to um what's his name? Alec, and to watch him closely. Jersey added that Hill said more, but she could not remember anything else.

[00:09:27]Jersey explained the Hill statements influenced her finding Murdoch guilty because quote, "To me it felt like she made it seem like he was already guilty." End quote. At the state's request, the post-trial court questioned Jersey about her affidavit, addressing each paragraph in turn, and Jersey's affidavit gave a more detailed recitation of Hill's comments. And then it goes into like a quote type thing here or whatever. Right toward the end of the trial after the president's day break, but before Mr. Murdoch testified, the clerk of court, Rebecca Hill, told the jury not to be fooled by the evidence presented by Mr. Murdo's attorneys, which I understood to mean that Mr. Murdoch would lie when he testifies. She also instructed the jury to watch him closely immediately before he testified, including to look at his actions and look at his movements, which I understood to mean he was guilty. I mean, again, why on earth would you say that? You know, you see what I'm saying?

[00:10:20]This is my thing with Beggy Hill. She just wanted to be seen. She just wanted to be seen. This was the most damn attention she had ever gotten in her life. And she was drunk with it. Right.

[00:10:31]She's just I can already see her shaking her little cup of eyes telling them, "Don't be fooled."

[00:10:36]I can see it right now. Okay. I can already tell you how that went down. Um, but I mean it's just like why I just think that she just wanted to be seen.

[00:10:47]She's doing this little book. She wanted to be seen when it's money. You know what I'm saying? Um, so this it just absolutely flies all over me. Hold on.

[00:11:01]Can't see a thing in here with the lights. The lights might look cool off.

[00:11:04]Can't see a thing. Blind is about here. They are right in front of me. Um, there we go.

[00:11:17]Okay. So, now I can see. Hey, Sandy.

[00:11:21]Hey, Crystal. Hey, Pam.

[00:11:26]Oh, I wonder. Yeah, Tori says, "I wonder if she was bribed by Alec to sabotage."

[00:11:31]I mean, literally, right? Could be.

[00:11:36]Okay, so here we go. Let's keep going.

[00:11:42]Jersey testified that when the jury began deliberations, Hill told the jury, "This shouldn't take as long." In addition to referencing Hill's statements, Jersey avered her in her affidavit. I had questions about Mr. Murdo's guilt, but voted guilty because I felt pressured by the other jurors.

[00:11:57]After reing reviewing the affidavit, the post-trial court question Jersey, and then it goes into what was said or whatever. I asked you previously, was your verdict on March 2nd, 2023 influenced in any way by communications from Becky Hill, the clerk of court, and you answered yes. In light of what you said in the affidavit, which is, I had questions about Mr. Murdot's guilt, but voted guilty because I felt pressured by other jurors. Is that your answer that I just that I just read a more accurate statement of how you felt? And Jersey answered affirmatively. The post-trial court then asked if she stood by the affidavit and she said yeah. Jersey subsequently submitted an affidavit to clarify her testimony in which she explained that she felt influenced to find him guilty by Hill's remarks before she even entered the jury room. And once deliberations began, she felt additional pressure from other jurors to reach a guilty verdict. Although the post-trial court did not admit this affidavit, it accepted it as a profer. Thus, the affidavit is part of the record before this court. I mean, again, here's the thing, and this is the unfortunate part.

[00:13:00]It's like, imagine this was your jury.

[00:13:03]You know what I'm saying? Like, and this is so broken. This is so broken.

[00:13:10]It's just, it blows my mind the amount of money and time that went into this and for someone to unravel it with by their idiotic actions. Anyways, juror P testified that on the day Murdoch was to take the stand, Hill made a comment to watch his body language. He denied Hill's comments influenced him in any way. The remaining jurors testified they didn't hear Hill make any comments about the case and they weren't influenced by any comments that she did make.

[00:13:35]Following the juror's testimony, the state called Hill as a witness. Although Hill denied making most of the comments the jury the jurors related, she admitted that on the day that he that Murdoch testified and with an earshot of some jurors, she spoke to the baiff about Murdoch's decision to testify. She also said stated that she gave the jurors a little talk, instructing them to pay attention and that the day was a big day. She denied attempting to influence the jury. And for I mean, but why are you going to say that? You see what I'm saying? Like she was marching around that damn place like she was the judge. Okay. Like this is my house.

[00:14:12]Today's a big day.

[00:14:15]Hold on.

[00:14:18]Look everybody. I just got to tell y'all something. Hold on. Let me shake my little cup of ice from the convenience store. It's a big day up in here. Oh yes. Don't y'all even let him fool you.

[00:14:32]Don't let these little tricks the fence is doing. This should take y'all like five minutes. I don't even know why we're still here talking. Rattle rattle shake shake. [laughter] >> You know what I'm saying? I can already see it. Okay. I can already see it.

[00:14:52][laughter] Honestly, I wonder the same thing, Amy.

[00:14:59]Like, how did she not catch charges for this? like or at least like major restitution to the state of South Carolina. I don't know if she can catch charges now, right? I don't know if she can. Okay.

[00:15:11]So, in discussing her book, the plagiarized one, that is Behind the Doors of Justice, The Murdoch Murders, Hill claimed literary license to explain some of the more dramatic passages. She denied wanting a guilty verdict because it would sell more books, claiming the outcome of the trial didn't matter to her, but she acknowledged a true as true a passage in Hold on.

[00:15:37]Now, I do want to say this. They did a little comma thing with a two right there or whatever. And it says this. As her book title suggests, it turns out Hill was quite busy behind the doors of justice, throttling the integrity of the justice system. She was sworn to protect and uphold. The book was pulled from publication because she plagiarized portions of it. [laughter] She cannot, right? She was like, "I was in a rush. I didn't know what to do."

[00:16:02]I'm like, "What?" I mean, literally, y'all, and she wrote this with somebody.

[00:16:05]Shaina knows all the stuff about this.

[00:16:07]Um, she's going to come on and do like a maybe a members chat or something like that about it. Um, because the lore with all this is just insane, right? Okay, here we go.

[00:16:19]Okay. Post-trial court also questioned Hill about the favor she granted the media. Hill denied allowing the press to view the exhibits, including the sealed exhibits. However, she subsequently plead guilty to perjury stemming from this denial. [laughter] D. You know what? I feel like I feel like she would have been a good like fourth wheel to Cory's defense team.

[00:16:40]Like she would have fit right she would have fit right in there. She would have fit right in.

[00:16:49]Okay, where are we at? Although post-trial court limited discussion of juror 785, whom the tri trial court dismissed on the day of deliberations began for allegedly discussing the case with third parties, it allowed Murdoch to question Hill about bringing to the trial court's attention social media posts that Hill mistakenly believed were from juror 785's ex-husband. Hill claimed that the juror was very talkative while Hill walked her to her trial court's chambers and volunteered that there were restraining orders on her ex-husband when they divorced. In response to the post-trial court's questioning, Hill continued to deny initiating or engaging the jur juror in discussion of these matters. I mean, she was all up in everybody's business.

[00:17:32]I mean, again, she thought it was her courtroom, but I mean, even the judge, I'm not trying to say that she I mean, it's it's beyond that, right? It's just Okay. In contrast to Hill's testimony, juror 785 appeared at the hearing before the trial court in an affidavit Murda attached to his motion for a new trial.

[00:17:51]The Hill interrogated her about the social media post and whether she had been in contact with her ex-husband. In the affidavit, the juror related that Hill, knowing the juror's fears about her ex-husband, informed her that law enforcement officers questioned the ex-husband about the post, offered to reinstate restraining orders. Juror 785 had against him and speculated that the Murdots probably got to the ex-husband when he called juror 785 on the morning of the verdict. Juror 785 asserted Hill asked her whether she and the other jurors were inclined to vote guilty or not and told her that everything Murdoch said has been lies. She also stated that before Murdoch testified, Hill told the jurors not to be fooled by the evidence Murdoch attorneys presented. I mean, come on, y'all. Like, literally, this is just you see why the you see why he got a new trial. I mean, literally. Okay.

[00:18:46]Ronda McLean, the Barnwwell County Clerk of Court who assisted Hill with the trial, testified that Hill repeatedly told her that she wanted to write a book so she could buy a lake house and a guilty verdict would be the best way to sell [laughter] books.

[00:19:04]100%. If Becky Hill killed somebody, y'all, we're at this level right here.

[00:19:09]She would be the one who, and if you know which I'm talking about, drop it in the comments, okay? She would be the one that goes to a ABC store at 2 in the morning. Nobody's there. It's closed.

[00:19:21]Does a 50point turn, parks in front of the damn camera, then walks across the parking lot to dispose of [laughter] the evidence in the garbage can.

[00:19:35]She's giving some of these people run for their damn money. Okay. She's telling everybody her business. She's like again just sitting there shaking that cake or I mean shaking that ice.

[00:19:44]Yep. I've been eyeing that lakehouse.

[00:19:47]Oh, yes. All right, y'all. Now, look here, everybody. Let me tell y'all this.

[00:19:52]A guilty verdict will secure the lakehouse. Okay, I've been plagiarized.

[00:19:57]I meant riding a book for months. Okay, all y'all are invited. We can talk about this ass hat, Meridok, and all the lies he told. You just got to go in that jury room and give me a guilty verdict now.

[00:20:13][snorts] >> [laughter] >> You know what I'm saying? I mean, telling everybody her damn business and crime she's about to [laughter] commit.

[00:20:24]Oh my gosh. Okay, here we go. So, Rhonda Oh, wait. There it is. Wait, hold on.

[00:20:30]I'm all I'm all confused. Please all Please. Good lord. Things falling apart up in here.

[00:20:38]Okay. by the lakehouse. Mleven testified that after hearing Hill had given a juror ride home, Mleven counseledled her that it was inappropriate. And while Hill admitted she gave a juror ride a ride, she claimed the baiff was with them and that they didn't discuss the case. Uhhuh. I'm so sure. Although McCleven did not hear Hill say anything appropriate to inappropriate to the jurors, she stated that Hill made comments to her staff and media members strikingly similar to those juror Z reported, such as advising them not to be fooled by Murdoch's attorneys and to look at Murdoch's actions and movements while he testified. Finally, McLean testified that Hill seated a writer with court personnel. This writer wrote the forward [laughter] book. the courtroom. This was her little personal pocketbook. Okay, that is all this court. That's all this was. She literally made a mockery of this courtroom. This is such an embarrassment on this this court. I mean, y'all had the person who wrote the forward to her book sitting up with media giving jurors rides home and the whole thing about now pay attention to his body language like she's a damn body language expert.

[00:21:51]What's that channel out there called?

[00:21:53]What's that? the the YouTube channel that does the body language of those four guys on it. Like they're gonna have her up on the damn show to consult her about the thing, right? I know, right, Ken? It is like the the Poltergeist movies voice when I do it. And I so bad want to say everybody, I just want to let y'all know this room is clear.

[00:22:14]>> Doesn't it sound just like her?

[00:22:16][laughter] Okay, [clears throat] the behavior panel, right? She probably was like, "Oh, I'm going on there." Oh, they want to know. I was in there. I saw him. I know this. Okay. You can't trust his body language. Okay.

[00:22:32]Next, Murdoch called the alternate juror to testify. She described the incident in which Hill made comments before Murdoch put up his case, stating that while the jurors were assembled in one of the two jury rooms or were standing in the hall, Hill stood at the doorway and told them, >> "They're going to say things that will try to confuse you." Okay, don't let them confuse you or convince you or hell even throw you off.

[00:22:59]>> The alternate juror also testified that Hill told the jurors not to be nervous and >> don't be afraid to show your emotions because that's what they want to see.

[00:23:10]>> The alternate juror also related she heard a court staff member say deliberations would should not take long, but she couldn't remember who said it. In its order, the post-trial court declared the burden was on Murdoch to show both an external influence on the jury and prejudice from that influence.

[00:23:26]It then found Hill made improper comments to jurors on the day Murdoch testified.

[00:23:31]>> This is an important day or this is an epic day >> and that they should watch Murdoch's body language. The post-trial court determined Hill's denial of making these statements was not credible, finding Hill wanted to write a book, which she believed a guilty verdict would help sell. She was >> attracted by the siring call of celebrity >> and she allowed her desire for the public attention of the moment to overcome her duty to her oath of office and her oath as as a witness. Oh yeah.

[00:24:00]You know she marched around that place like she was Julia Dam Roberts, right?

[00:24:06]All but given autographs, all the things. You know what I mean?

[00:24:11]You know she you couldn't talk to her for weeks during this. you. And you know, she got home, honey. She was glued to that phone. I'm talking glued to that cigarette hanging out of one side of the mouth, stirring that dinner, phone propped up like this, even though it's a damn cell phone. I mean, couldn't it get the jaws of life to get that phone away from her, right? Just I mean, I'd be the same way. You wouldn't please I'd have so much talking to do I wouldn't even I wouldn't even know what to do. Okay.

[00:24:44]Next, the post-trial court found these comments did not affect any juror's verdict. It explained that juror Z's assertions that Hill's comments affected her verdict were ambivalent, self-contradictory, and not credible, emphasizing juror Z had acknowledged her statement and her affidavit that she had voted guilty due to pressure from other jurors was the more accurate statement.

[00:25:03]The post-trial court further found that Hill's comments were limited in subject and not overt as to opinion were only heard by at most three jurors and were made in a case with overwhelming and compelling evidence and that the trial court's extensive instructions cured any effect from these comments.

[00:25:21]I mean, yeah, it's just she literally tore this place to shreds. Okay. Law and analysis. Now, this is kind of good.

[00:25:36]Okay, sorry. Murdoch argues he was denied his constitutional right to a fair trial by an impartial jury.

[00:25:43]Um, free from outside influences. He inserts that following Remmer versus United States, prejudice should be presumed from Hill's comments to the jury and that the presumption is irreutable. In the alternative, he contends the state failed to rebute the presumption of prejudice. Let's just kind of go through here. They say, "We agree with Murdoch. The prejudice is presumed from Hill's comments. And while this presumption is rebutal, the state failed to overcome this presumption."

[00:26:10]Okay, hold on. I got to go take the boys downstairs. Hold on one second.

[00:27:18]Sorry about that. These youngans, they just keep me running up and down the stairs. Okay, just keep going.

[00:27:25]>> Okay, hold on here.

[00:27:29]Okay, hold on.

[00:27:42]Okay, there's that. We agree. Yep.

[00:27:47]Okay, let's see.

[00:27:51]I can hear him. I knew they were going to do that. Just start barking. Just start barking.

[00:28:00]Okay, this is like a bunch of like kind of boring law stuff, right? So, we're going to kind of just like it's a lot of like cases and stuff like that.

[00:28:12]Emily D. Baker is good for that part right there. Okay, I really can't explain it. I just know kind of the dramatics and whatnot. Okay, let's just stay in her lane. Let's just stay in her lane. [laughter] >> Y'all, that button's going to get worn out. Okay, y'all. I'm sorry. Yes, she totally does. Jessa says, "Becky gives peaked in high school." 100%. This was like high school part two, honey. She had that apple rave. She was doing it all up, right? She was doing all up.

[00:28:44]A rav whatever that hairspray was. It smelled like apples. Do y'all remember that if you're my age? The apple scented stuff back then that was like took I mean y'all that's what it was.

[00:29:01]Green. Okay. Yep. Yep. Yep. Uhhuh.

[00:29:04]Supreme Court. Yep. Yep. Mhm.

[00:29:06]I mean, come I mean, good lord.

[00:29:16]Okay, hold on. Here's one. I want to read this. We also hold the post-trial court aired in finding a lack of prejudice because Hill's comments were limited in subject and not overt as to opinion, were only heard by at most three jurors, and were made in a case with overwhelming and compelling evidence. We reiterate the burden is on the state to review the presumption of prejudice. First, the post-trial court aired in finding Hill's comments were limited in subject and not overt as to opinion. Hill clearly advised the jurors to find Murdoch and the evidence he presented not credible and essentially urged them to render a guilty verdict.

[00:29:53]Hill's position as the Colatin County Clerk of Court, an officer of the court who managed the trial and was the primary caretaker of the jury amplified the impact Hill's court comments had on the jury.

[00:30:09]Hill was elected by the very people who make up the uh the Yep. the county jury poll. Okay.

[00:30:16]And then it says next that in the limited the limited number of jurors who acknowledged hearing Hill's improper comments did not reduce their prejuditial effect. And then it's it goes into stuff right here. The state certainly produced considerable evidence here and arguably reasonable minds may debate whether the evidence had here was overwhelming. In the situation before us notwithstanding the strength of the prosecution's case, the state is unable to overcome the presumption of prejudice. The state's case rests largely on the circumstantial evidence, and Murdoch's credibility was a key component of his defense. Hill's repeated comments challenging Murdoch's credibility directly undermine that defense. I mean, again, it's just I you I mean, I agree. It's like you have somebody in the court, you know, chumming it up with the jurors, you know what I mean, and being like, "Yeah, I don't believe him, boys.

[00:31:09]Yeah, go on now. Watch his movements.

[00:31:11]He's going to try and trick you." I mean, it doesn't even make sense at all.

[00:31:17]It's very infuriating.

[00:31:22]Okay. Okay. Here's the other part I wanted to get to. Evidence of Murdoch's financial crimes because again, like at the trial or not the trial, the hearing or whatever, these were the two key components they like really spent a lot of their time on. Clearly, it was Rebecca Hill and then the financial crimes. Okay. Now, here's my thing. I completely agree with the state where they're like the financial crimes are part of the motivation in the story, right? And basically the state's like I forget what exactly he said but he was like look it's there's so many layers to it because when they were really going in on him about how much time and how much that was brought in. He was like, "But there's so many layers." And another thing they were talking about was like him going on like they would said like a sympathy card for one of the victims because I think I can't remember he was like Willbound or something like that. You know, they're basically like what does that have to do with the current like with this trial right here, right? It's like skewing the jury and he's like it's, you know, showing what kind of person you know the depths he'll go to. I mean, I get it. So this part, but this this was like a huge thing for them at the hearing was um was this right here, the financial stuff. So here we go. Because we ordered a new trial on the basis of Hills and proper influence on the jury on appeal from the order denying Murdoch's motion for new trial, it's not necessary that we address the evidentiary issues Murdoch raises on appeal from his convictions and sentences. We elect, however, to offer the trial court a remand the following guidance regarding the admissibility of evidence of Murdoch's financial crimes.

[00:32:59]Okay, now here's my thing right here.

[00:33:00]You already know I'm not a lawyer or anything like that, but it's like this to me is what they're saying.

[00:33:07]They're like, okay, look, we've given you the new trial just on her alone, okay? With her little salmon libby and her little cup of eyes, right? Like she alone did this. However, they're like, "This is also an issue, and we're going to give you a little heads up over here for the next trial."

[00:33:27]You know what I'm saying? Like, don't be doing all this up in here, or else you might find yourself here again. Right now, I don't know how it works how many times you can peel stuff and this, that, that, and the other or whatever. Um, but pardon me, but that's the vibe I'm getting from this is they're kind of like, "Hey, look, you know, here it is."

[00:33:46]So, let me put my glasses back on.

[00:33:56]Okay, please hold. Here we go. Thank you.

[00:34:02]Okay, so where we go? Let Okay. At the time of the trial, Murdoch had been accused of and indicted for numerous financial crimes. During his testimony before the jury, Murdoch admitted he committed the financial crimes, although he hadn't at the time been convicted of anything. After trial, he plead guilty to financial crimes in both state and federal court. He was sentenced to a concurrent 27 years in state prison and 40 years in federal prison.

[00:34:30]The state sought to admit evidence of these financial crimes during Murdoch's murder trial for the purpose of showing his motive for committing the murders.

[00:34:37]The state filed a pre-trial motion in which it argued the evidence demonstrated Murdoch acred substantial debts over a period of years and to cover those debts began engaging in illicit financial crimes involving the theft and misappropriation of money from his clients in his own firm. The state emphasized that several series of events unfolding in the weeks and days leading up to the murders threatened to expose Murdoch's financial crimes. The state wrote in its motion, "All of those, let me get my arm over here. All of those series of events unfolding in the weeks, wait, all of these factors start to converge on June 7th, 2021, the day of the murders." The state explained it motive theory. The murder served as Murdoch's means to shift the focus away from himself and buy himself some additional time to try and prevent his financial crimes from being uncovered.

[00:35:31]The state also stressed Murdoch's attempts to cover his financial misdeeds after the murders to support its theory of motive.

[00:35:41]During the various breaks in the course of the trial, the state presented the testimony of eight witnesses regarding Murdoch's financial crimes outside the presence of the jury. After hearing this testimony and the arguments of both sides, the trial court found all evidence of financial crimes that may likely have led to a motive or lend itself to motive for the crime committed was admissible. The trial court stated that the jury was entitled to consider whether the apparent desperation of Mr. Murdoch because of his dire financial situation. Threat of being exposed for committing the crimes for which he was later charged with resulted in the commission of the alleged crimes. The trial court also found and they're going to go in this little thing right here.

[00:36:24]Um the this evidence of other crimes is admissible and and it's non propensity as it does not suggest to the jury that the defendant has a tendency to commit murder. I specifically find that these crimes will not lure the jury into declaring guilt on a different ground than the specific charge. The trial court found the evidence had sufficient prob probative value that was not substantially outweighed by any danger of unfair prejudice. The trial court issued a written order setting forth its ruling. The state then presented testimony to the jury from the eight witnesses who testified earlier along with two additional ones. Through these witnesses, the state hold on. Oh, thanks for being a member for 12 months. I appreciate that, gorilla girl. That's really sweet of you.

[00:37:13]proved Murdoch committed wide-ranging financial crimes over numerous years in several categories, including the following. He stole money from his clients uh by billing personal expenses to them under the guise of those expenses being caused associated with their cases.

[00:37:29]Murdoch stole money from his law firm by instructing law firm employees to make checks payable to help Palmetto State Bank whose then chief executive off officer Russell Laf Lafayette or Lafite I can't say that Lafayette enabled Murdoch to convert the funds for his personal use. Murdoch stole money from his clients and his law firm by instructing law firm employees to make those checks payable to Forge, a fake account Murdoch created to imitate the legitimate Forge Consulting LLC firm that Murdoch then deposited and used for personal expenses. And four, Murdoch stole money from Tony Satderfeld by filing an insurance claim in relation to his mother, Gloria Satderfield's death and collecting the insurance proceeds for his personal use instead of providing the proceeds to Tony and Gloria's other sons. I mean, come on, right? This is just yikes. Okay. The state also presented evidence to the jury that Murdoch years of stealing money in these ways was about to be exposed. For example, the law firm employees testified they asked Murdoch on at least two occasions in the weeks leading up to the murders about discrepancies in his financial dispersement documents in individual cases.

[00:38:38]I have reason to believe that you this is some like a quote believe that you received attorney's fees in a certain case directly to you and you need to prove to me that you did not. Other evidence indicated that second fi uh secure was referring to almost $800,000 in missing attorney fees. the firm was supposed to receive from Murdoch's co-consel Chris Wilson. The state also presented evidence that Mark Tinsley, the attorney representing the family of the young woman who died in the boat wreck, has scheduled a motion hearing for 3 days after the murders in which Tinsley sought to compel Murdoch to disclose his detailed financial records.

[00:39:14]I mean, here's the thing. I get it because all that was coming down the pipeline. And I mean, it was his world was getting very claustrophobic very quickly. Hold on one second.

[00:39:27]I mean, I thought I had I mean, come on now. I thought I had another thing or whatever. Oh, thank you, Past Pam.

[00:39:33]Perfect for being a member for seven months. And >> I'm glad you like the little button.

[00:39:39]>> I do too. Sometimes it's Transformers.

[00:39:42]>> Sometimes it's Lydia from Poltergeist.

[00:39:45]We just don't know. [laughter] >> Okay.

[00:39:55]The state also presented evidence to the jury that Murdoch years of stealing was about to be exposed. Oh, wait. We already did that. Okay.

[00:40:04]Please hold. Oh, currently important.

[00:40:10]Murdoch challenges the admissibility of evidence of his financial crimes under rules and it lists them all. And then uh yeah, maybe as to Murdoch's relevance objection, the state argues that because Murdoch was charged with murdering his wife and son, seemingly inexplicable conduct when standing alone, it was important that it offer evidence to explain why he did it. The state also argues that Murdoch himself placed the issue of motive front and center through his own actions by suggesting to officers who arrived at Mosel on June 7th that the killer's motive stem from the boat wreck. We agree that we agree with the state that the evidence of Murdoch's financial crimes made the state's theory of motive more probable.

[00:41:00]I'm trying to get all the fine lines.

[00:41:02]Okay, here. Thus, we find the trial court acted within discretion in finding the financial crimes evidence was revalent under these rules and admissible under these rules. The more difficult question is whether the trial court should have excluded all or some of the financial crimes evidence pursuant to rules and it lists them. We address this question as two distinct categories of issues. The first of these categories, whether the trial court should have excluded all the financial crimes evidence, is a point on which not all members of the court would have ruled the same way had we been the trial court. We each agree, however, that this was a decision within the discretion of the trial court under the facts and circumstances that existed in Murdoch's murder trial.

[00:41:46]As to the secondary category, we will address whether the trial court should have restricted the extent to which the state was allowed to present this evidence. that is whether the trial court should have excluded some of the evidence. We unanimously hold the trial court allowed the state to go too far, too long, and far too deep into aspects of Murdoch's financial crimes that were not probative of the state's theory of motive, which gave rise to considerable danger of unfair prejudice and therefore should have been excluded. So that's interesting. So see how let me take this off. You see how they're saying, look, like some of us feel this way. Like we can all agree on this, but we all agreed it was too much, right? And I mean, again, if you watch the trial was I mean, it was I mean, they went deep. I understand why they're saying that, but it's like, you know, I don't know. Um, and I think that they're doing the them a favor by telling them this for the next trial.

[00:42:48]Oh, thank you. Hold on.

[00:42:51]Mora, thank you very much for being a member for 17 months and for liking the sofa and its comfort. I do appreciate you.

[00:43:04]Okay, hold on. Scroll down.

[00:43:15]Okay, I'm just going through here. We're almost at the end of it.

[00:43:22]It's just going into more stuff about the motive and blah blah blah blah blah.

[00:43:30]Okay. Yep. Mhm. Okay.

[00:43:35]Okay. This is we emphasize however the trial court should have limited the state's presentation of this evidence.

[00:43:40]We illustrate this point with an example from the direct examination of Tony Satderfield. Okay. of state. Why? Why were you the personal represent representative and not your brother?

[00:43:52]Sadderfield. Because my brother is a vulnerable adult and he has a disability. Court, can you repeat those words for me? Satderfeld. That my brother, he's a vulnerable adult and he's not able to function as a normal human being to deal with that stuff.

[00:44:06]State he is a vulnerable adult.

[00:44:07]Satderfeld. Yes. This particular testimony had zero probative value as to Murdoch's motive for the murders and obviously a high potential for unfair prejudice as it portrays Murdoch as a man who prays on vulnerable victims. I mean, you know, >> is somebody going to tell them? I mean, you know, >> I get what they're saying. Like, I I can understand it, but it's all I see both sides of this because I'm like, well, yeah, he I mean, this is what he was doing. Here's the thing. not all these victims in this CA case. Like if you go down the rabbit hole of the victims over the years that he was stealing money from, he was definitely going to like vulnerable populations that I mean they were already vulnerable to begin with because oftent times they had been hurt or whatever. Um, but I mean it's like there's only certain victims that have been kind of made popular. The sadder feels and I'm not trying to diminish anyone in this or whatever, but it's just the crimes go so far and deep that he was doing and stealing from people.

[00:45:10]Um, and they were oftentimes marginalized communities, marginalized people, like you name it. Like you know, people with disabilities, all this kind of stuff, right? So I completely get where the states like, "Yeah, we want to put that in there." Right? like it. I mean, this is it's another layer to him, but I understand the court being like, look, you know, that doesn't have anything to do with this right over here. So, this was tricky. So, I I this was tricky. I can see where this was a little bit like um Okay, let's keep going.

[00:45:46]Okay. Yep.

[00:45:50]Okay. The state's theory of motion centers on the point that his financial crimes were about to be exposed and he needed time. The fact that he committed some of those crimes against a vulnerable adult adds nothing to the theory. So, see, this is what they're saying. Um, and yes, I agree more. His character matters. 100% agree with that.

[00:46:08]Um to the extent many similar details have had minimal probative value, that value is substantially outweighed by the unfairly prejuditial sympathy the jury was likely to feel towards the victim. By our calculation, the state spent a total of 12.5 hours of actual testimony before the jury over 10 days of trial to introduce evidence related to his financial crimes. We are convinced the state could have effectively presented evidence to support its motive. theory in a fraction of that time. And that's what that one dude said in the hearing. I mean, he was like pretty salty with the state. That's what I'm telling you. Like they they literally gave equal saltiness to both the defense and the state. And I almost kind of felt like they see I shouldn't say that because I I was going to say they they kind of leaned more towards the defense because nobody acted like they wanted to give this new trial. I mean, they were like, "This was expensive. this is a historical trial and nobody wants to retry this but kind of a thing. Um, and I can't remember the name of the judge or the justice, whatever they're called, who was kind of like reading the state being like, I could have done that in two hours. You were up there for 12 hours over 10 days.

[00:47:20]Like really? And it I mean, if you remember it, it kind of it was like a lefthand field. But again, I just felt like it, like Mora just said, you know, it shows character. It shows what he was willing to do and whatnot. Um, hold on.

[00:47:39]Okay.

[00:47:48]Oh, thank you, Karen. That's so sweet of you. You have York, too. I love that.

[00:47:53]And thank you, Togg Style. Yeah, I'm going to totally try and go to the trial and the hearings for sure if it happens.

[00:47:59]Um because it's about three hours from me. So you know totally totally dude by holding the trial court in this case by holding the trial trial court in this case acted within its discretion and admitting some evidence of Murdoch's financial crimes. We certainly do not intend to require that evidence be admitted on retrial. As is often the case, the facts and circumstances on retrial may be material materially different from those presented in the initial trial. Thus, the trial court on remand must do as a trial court did here. Carefully and thoughtfully apply correct principles of law to the facts and circumstances before it. We do intend to require, however, that if the trial court decides to admit evidence of Murdoch's financial crimes and retrial, the state must complete its introduction of that evidence effectively without the lengthy presentation of inflammatory details with little to no probative value that was permitted in the first trial.

[00:49:04]There you go. And then it just goes into they're like, "Yep, he gets, you know, we are accordingly constrained to reverse this post-trial court's denial of Murdoch's motion and remand for a new trial consistent with this opinion."

[00:49:16]So, I mean, there you go. So, Becky was the basis alone. They were like, "Just give him a new trial, right?" And they're like, "But on top of that, this over here was probably working towards it anyways." Um, again, he's not going to get out of prison. He's already serving like he's gonna he's gonna rot for the financial crimes that he did, right? Um hold on, let me take this up.

[00:49:42]We'll see what happens with this. I don't know how this would even offer like if they would go to him and offer him something and be like look do you want to do this or if they would go to him and you know be like we're going to take it to trial again. I mean, I would like to say that to not put the witnesses, her family members, people like this that were truly affected, you know, by the actions or whatever through another trial if they offered him some kind of a deal so they don't have to go to trial, right?

[00:50:17]Um, but also, I mean, he's in prison board, right? Like, what else does he have to do? He wants to try and clear his name.

[00:50:26]So now it's like, "Oh yeah, that wasn't fair." See what I'm saying? Imagine if Corey Richens had this moment in her trial where she'd be like, "See, I told you.

[00:50:34]>> I told AA I stood up there for 30 minutes and told you the courtroom is corrupt. This county is corrupt.

[00:50:43]Basically, everybody up in here except for me is corrupt. And now I've been proven right."

[00:50:50]>> I mean, this would be terrible, right?

[00:50:53]So, you know, but that's Cory Origins.

[00:50:55]whatever. Um, where are they going to have it? Like, you would almost think it has to go to a different town now, right? I mean, everybody knows about this.

[00:51:06]So, we'll see. We'll see. Now, this is what we're going to do. We're going to wrap it up. So, let me uh kind of tell everybody one more that we one more time that we started off with at the beginning. So, tomorrow, well, tonight at midnight on Netflix, Mackenzie Sharilla docu series comes out. Also, cheesy movie on Sherry Pini Story comes out. Those are both on Netflix. Uh, comes out at midnight or on Friday, but they always release it at midnight or whatever. Okay, so there's that. Number two, um, then hold on. Talk says, "Well, first of all, thank you, Toxy. Has anyone thought that Alec paid Beck by Kate to do what she did?" I mean, I would wonder, literally, I would wonder.

[00:51:44]Wouldn't it surprise me she might have that little lake house now, right?

[00:51:47]Getting her little lawyer fees paid for by somebody in the Murdoch family. You never know. Uh but midnight those things come out on Netflix. Tomorrow on the main channel is my video of uh my you know video for the uh Corey Rich and Sentencing and uh it's kind of shoo.

[00:52:09]So we'll do a live chat probably Sunday evening um and then maybe a members chat over the weekend. Maybe Sunday morning. I don't know. I got to kind of get my schedule put together tomorrow. um and then we'll figure it out and go from there. Also, Larry Millettee trial has been in uh jury selection opening statements are Monday. Also, the Switzerland case. He was sentenced to life. Uh I'll do a little quick video for this channel on that. Um when I go when I read up on all the stuff or whatever. So, lots going on. And then obviously we'll be following this right here. So, this Leticia, you know, all the other trials that are going to be stacked at the end of the year. It's going to be a very busy end of the year. Get all your summer stuff in now, okay? Because it's going to get crazy. Okay. Anyways, I hope y'all are doing well. Mods, thank you for being here and holding the sofa down. I do love you. I do appreciate you. And sofa squad, thank you for being here and hanging out, holding the sofa down, and laughing along with us and having a good time and getting through all this crazy ass stuff. Okay, we will close out with Slow Morrison's Ode to the Sofa and I will see y'all tomorrow. [music] The pillows are fluff thanks to Miss Emily.

[00:53:26]The couch [music] is wide enough.

[00:53:29]Joining the [singing] family.

[00:53:32]It's all love while we laugh at first criminalities. [music] Hey, hey, hey. Welcome to the sofa squad. Sipping it from the [music] cupet. [singing] Hey, hey, hey. Come live with the sofa squad. Can't roll my damn eyes hard enough. Oh, please.

[00:53:49][music] The puppies need me.

[00:53:54]Oh, please. My body is rejecting.

[00:53:57][music] None of that fancy credential stuff. I'm just here [music] for the cringe [ __ ] Hey, [singing] hey, hey. Welcome to the sofa squad. Sipping it from the cup.

[00:54:10][music] Hey, hey, hey. Come laugh with the sofa squad. Can't roll my damn eyes hard enough.

[00:54:19][music] Oh, [music] please. My puppies need me.

[00:54:31][singing] Oh, please. My body is rejecting. None of that [singing] fancy credentialed stuff. I'm just here for [music] the cringe bench. Hey, hey, hey. Welcome to the sofa squad. [music] Sipping [singing] it from the cup. Hey, hey, hey. Come laugh with the sofa squad. Can't [music] roll my damn eyes hard enough.

[00:54:58][music]