DNA fight grows as civil suit advances in SC Murdaugh retrial

With a key August 14 hearing leading up to a retrial for the 2021 Murdaugh family murders looming, and a federal civil rights lawsuit over alleged jury tampering moving quickly ahead, attorneys for the State of South Carolina, accused murderer Richard “Alex” Murdaugh, and accused jury meddler Becky Hill are beginning to fire court documents back and forth in preparation for the next legal battles.

The S.C. Supreme Court overturned Murdaugh’s previous 2023 murder convictions in the killings of his wife, Maggie, and adult son, Paul, and on May 13 ordered a new trial, citing improper jury communication by former Colleton County Clerk of Court Becky Hill, among other legal issues, which has also led to the related federal civil rights lawsuit filed by Murdaugh.

Here are the latest developments in the broad-reaching Murdaugh crime and court saga, from the state level to the federal courts.

Murdaugh federal civil rights lawsuit moving forward

With all of his financial assets seized due to his multitude of financial crimes, and seeking to recover roughly $600,000 in legal expenses from the first murder trial, Murdaugh filed the civil rights lawsuit in federal court in Charleston on May 18. That case is now moving forward in a timeline that could put Murdaugh’s defense team in two courtrooms at almost the same time in the Spring of 2027.

Here are the latest developments in the federal case:

• This lawsuit was assigned to Judge Richard M. Gergel, the same judge who handled Murdaugh’s federal criminal cases. Both parties have since agreed to a jury trial, if needed.
• On June 18, attorneys for Hill filed an answer to Murdaugh’s complaint, denying almost all of the allegations. On the same date, Hill’s attorneys filed a 46-page motion to dismiss.
• On June 18, Judge Gergel published a scheduling order: If the case is not dismissed or resolved by mediation or settlement beforehand, it is scheduled for jury selection and trial on or after May 3, 2027. The Murdaugh murder retrial, which is expected to take several weeks, has been scheduled for April of 2027.
• On July 2, Murdaugh’s team filed a memo opposing the motion to dismiss. Judge Gergel has yet to rule on dismissal.
• On July 15, Murdaugh’s attorneys filed a list of potential witnesses they could call during a jury trial. That list included: Hill herself; Rhonda McElveen, the Barnwell County Clerk of Court who assisted in the first murder trial; current and former Colleton Courthouse bailiffs; current and former employees of the Colleton County Clerk of Court’s Office and Technology Department, and the S.C. Office of Court Administration; former jurors and alternates from Murdaugh’s murder trial; law enforcement personnel involved with the investigation of juror misconduct or jury tampering issues during or after the trial; and any “persons involved with the removal of Juror 785 (Myra Crosby) before jury deliberations in the State v. Murdaugh trial court.”
• On July 20, Hill’s legal team filed their list of potential witnesses. In addition to the parties Hill listed, this list includes: Murdaugh himself; Judge Clifton Newman, who presided over the murder trial; and representatives from the S.C. Attorney General’s Office and the 11th Circuit Solicitor’s Office, who investigated allegations against Hill but declined to press criminal charges for jury tampering.
• On July 20, Judge Gergel issued an order mandating that the parties conduct mediation no later than Jan. 15, 2027.

Murder retrial update: Murdaugh files second motion for independent DNA analysis, revealing little trust of the State

With the second murder trial date now set for the week of April 5, 2027, Murdaugh’s defense team filed a June motion to have their own private experts analyze DNA evidence from one of the murder victims, and on July 30 filed a memorandum in support of that motion.

The defense’s filings state that DNA was found under murder victim Maggie Murdaugh’s fingernails from an unknown male who was not related to Alex Murdaugh, and allege that state investigators never fully explored this evidence.

The defense argues that the new “forensic genetic genealogy” technology, which wasn’t available prior to the 2021 murder trial, may resolve the identity of this unknown DNA contributor and point to other suspects than Murdaugh.

The defense’s motion seeks to have Othram, Inc., a forensic genetic genealogy laboratory, to conduct “single nucleotide polymorphism” (SNP) testing on this DNA.

During a July 7 Webex video conference involving attorneys for both sides, SLED forensic scientists, and Othram CEO Dr. David Mittleman, SLED informed Murdaugh’s attorneys that they still had reserve samples of that DNA that remained unprocessed and indicated they wished to test those samples using “short tandem repeat” (STR) testing prior to releasing anything to Murdaugh’s forensic testers.

Murdaugh’s memo argues that STR testing, is limited in scope and “performs poorly on degraded, low-quality, or mixed samples” of DNA, while SNP is broader in scope, can extract more usable information, and can not only identify a direct match but also distant biological relatives of the DNA contributor.

The memo also contends that SLED’s testing would render the same “inconclusive” results, adding that SLED has “no scientific basis for repeating testing it has already performed.”

The defense further argues that if SLED tests these reserve samples first it would degrade the samples for Othram’s testing and is asking the court to not only grant them this independent analysis, but to allow Othram to test the samples prior to SLED.

The defense adds that Othram can complete testing on these samples in 60-90 days and “the interest of justice favors prompt, non-destructive testing.”

“Permitting SLED to retest the reserve samples risks destroying evidence that may be critical to the defense, and undue consumption of biological evidence without justification would violate defendants’ due process rights,” claims Murdaugh’s memo.

In the latest memo, Murdaugh’s team also accuses state investigators of misrepresenting blood spatter evidence and “hiding exculpatory evidence” during the first trial process and adds: “SLED’s conduct regarding biological evidence in this case gives further cause to doubt it acts in good faith.”

Why does the State oppose the independent DNA analysis?

According to its June 29 opposition brief, the Attorney General’s Office writes: “The State is concerned that non-traditional DNA testing for the sake of non-traditional DNA testing in this retrial is an unnecessary boondoggle that is more made for public consumption than to uncover viable evidence.”

Prosecutors are opposed to Murdaugh’s motion, as written, and until more information or communication is available, for the following stated reasons:

• The unknown DNA sample is a “very partial and incomplete profile,” the filing states, which “limits its evidentiary value.”
• Maggie Murdaugh had her “nails done” the day of the murders, according to “anecdotal evidence.”
• Touch DNA is very sensitive to picking up DNA samples from others and the environment
• There was no evidence of a physical struggle between Maggie and her shooter, no defensive wounds, and no indications on her hands or fingernails that she scratched her attacker
• State police have already conducted a thorough DNA analysis, and the defense has failed to state what “more thorough analysis” would be conducted.

“If the defense lab expert wishes to reach out to SLED to discuss what exactly is proposed, why it is likely to be effective, and why it cannot be done by SLED, the State would certainly consider such discussions,” writes the AG’s Office. “There would also need to be discussions about protocols to facilitate review and preserve appropriate chains and sample integrity. At this point, we have nothing of specifics and substance.”

Judge to rule on DNA testing

During a Monday, June 29 status conference, Judge Debra R. McCaslin, who will be handling every aspect of this second murder trial process, said she would likely issue a ruling on Murdaugh’s motion for independent DNA testing at the next pretrial hearing because she needed to know how long the process would take. That hearing is scheduled for Aug. 14 at the Lexington County Courthouse.

In the meantime, the judge instructed both parties to have their experts confer to determine whether there is still a viable DNA sample, how long it would take to conduct an independent analysis, and other details. That conference has now been held.

Where will the Alex Murdaugh murder retrial be held?

While dates have been set in the double-murder retrial process, the venue of the second round of what many have called South Carolina‘s trial of the century remains unknown but could be decided by the August hearing as well.

The April 5, 2027, trial date would give the defense time to get its new expert witnesses up to speed and to allow the incoming Attorney General to familiarize himself with the case, said the judge. The current Attorney General Alan Wilson won the Republican Primary for South Carolina governor. However, the court could revisit that court date and extend it out a couple of weeks, if it takes longer to prepare an independent DNA analysis.

Judge McCaslin also addressed a pending defense motion for a change of venue, stating that she would allow the State time to respond to the motion and that, if the motion was unopposed, both parties would be allowed to suggest alternate trial locations. If they could not agree, she would decide for them, she added.

After polling the attorneys, Judge McCaslin decided that future pretrial hearings would likely be held at the same location in the Lexington County Courthouse.

This article originally appeared on Greenville News: DNA fight grows as civil suit advances in Alex Murdaugh retrial

Reporting by Michael M. DeWitt, Jr., Greenville News / Greenville News

USA TODAY Network via Reuters Connect