Alex Murdaugh is back in court this morning for a pretrial hearing ahead of his murder retrial, and his attorneys opened up with a claim that the judge said "raised my eyebrows."
The disbarred attorney appeared before Circuit Judge Debra McCaslin at 10 a.m. in Lexington County for a pretrial hearing ahead of his April 2027 retrial in the killings of his wife, Maggie, and son, Paul.
Murdaugh's defense raised a new potential ballistics issue, telling the judge it learned through FITSNews reporting that weapons from a recent Allendale County murder may have been connected to the Murdaugh murder case.
Prosecutor Creighton Waters told the court the claim was entirely new to him.
ALEX MURDAUGH LAWYERS ALLEGE ‘FABRICATED’ EVIDENCE WAS USED TO SECURE MURDER INDICTMENTS
"I have never heard the first thing about that," Waters said, adding that he communicates with SLED daily and had not been told of any such development.
"I will certainly look into that, but I would be flabbergasted to find out that actually had happened and no one had advised this office of that," Waters said.
McCaslin appeared struck by the allegation as well, telling Murdaugh attorney Jim Griffin, "As far as the murder in Allendale with the murder weapons, you certainly raised my eyebrows on that."
Griffin argued that if investigators determined shell casings from the Allendale case matched those tied to the Murdaugh murders, the defense wants the underlying testing and investigative records. He said such a finding could raise questions about the original ballistics analysis or whether a firearm associated with the Murdaugh case was later used in another killing.
Waters stressed that he had not read the FITSNews material and said he does not generally follow media coverage of the case.
"I don’t watch the podcast and I don’t read the blogs because I try to base what I’m doing on the evidence and not on speculation that’s out there in the media," Waters said. "It would blow my mind if something like that had happened in SLED and not call me."
Waters later said that SLED has now told him there is no known ballistics match linking a .300 Blackout used in an Allendale County shooting to another crime. Waters said the firearm evidence from the Allendale case was entered into a ballistics database but "there have been no leads or no matches on that."
"I’m going to find out more and double check and we’re going to run this down," Waters said, adding that SLED told him there were "no leads or hits" involving the .300 Blackout used in the Allendale shooting.
Harpootlian said the defense wants more than a verbal assurance from investigators and remains skeptical of SLED because of issues it has raised over the agency’s handling of evidence in the Murdaugh case.
"I have never questioned Mr. Waters’ integrity," Harpootlian said. "But as a result of this case, I cannot help but question the SLED lab integrity and the SLED agency."
WATCH: Murdaugh defense attorney Griffin demands Giglio material on Eddie Smith
The defense also raised the case of Michael Colucci, whose murder charge was dismissed without prejudice after his attorneys alleged the state withheld critical exculpatory evidence.
Griffin noted that former SLED agent David Owen, the lead case agent in Murdaugh’s murder investigation, was also involved in the Colucci case and asked whether Owen was disciplined or sanctioned as a result.
Waters said he was not aware of any finding that Owen had been dishonest, but said he would look into it further.
The discussion centered in part on prosecutors’ Giglio obligations, named for the 1972 U.S. Supreme Court decision Giglio v. United States. Under that ruling, prosecutors must disclose material evidence that could be used to challenge the credibility of a government witness, including evidence of promises, agreements or other information that could show bias or affect a witness’s credibility. The Supreme Court held that withholding material credibility evidence can violate a defendant’s due process rights.
WATCH: Court addresses defense phone extraction motion and corrupted August 2022 download in Murdaugh case
McCaslin also ruled on whether prosecutors could use Murdaugh’s testimony from his first murder trial at his retrial, although she said what portions can be introduced will depend on the evidence admitted in the new trial.
"I think it’s pretty clear, a criminal defendant’s testimony from a first trial is admissible at a retrial in the same case," McCaslin said.
The defense argued Murdaugh’s decision to testify at his first trial was influenced by the admission of extensive evidence about his financial crimes.
WATCH: Defense and prosecution debate DNA sample testing in court
McCaslin rejected that argument, but said prosecutors will not automatically be able to introduce all of his previous testimony.
"If it’s not relevant, it’s not in," McCaslin said. "I’m going to allow it in, subject to what is being testified to in the trial."
Harpootlian said the defense "respectfully" disagreed with the ruling.
WATCH: Judge bans polygraph from Alex Murdaugh retrial after tense courtroom clash
McCaslin also ruled on polygraph results, after Harpootlian argued the issue could become relevant if Curtis "Eddie" Smith testifies.
He told the court Smith failed a polygraph when asked whether he killed Paul and Maggie Murdaugh and said Alex Murdaugh passed one "with flying colors."
McCaslin warned the defense that mentioning a polygraph without first approaching her could risk a mistrial. Harpootlian joked that she should threaten him with contempt instead.
"You don’t want me to hold you in contempt, Mr. Harpootlian," McCaslin responded, later warning him not to start "screaming polygraph" in front of the jury.
"I got it. I agree with you," Harpootlian said.
SIGN UP TO GET THE LATEST TRUE CRIME NEWS
McCaslin also said she would personally oversee the jury-selection process in the retrial. The first trial was thrown out after Colleton County Court of Court Rebecca "Becky" Hill was found to influence the jury for the guilty verdict.
Harpootlian asked the judge to directly supervise how prospective jurors are summoned and screened, repeatedly raising concerns stemming from the first trial.
"Wherever this trial is going to be, I will certainly make sure that it is on the up and up. I can promise you that," she said.
Waters pushed back on suggestions there had been problems with that portion of the first jury-selection process, saying there was "absolutely no evidence that there was any shenanigans with that part of the process."
LIKE WHAT YOU'RE READING? CLICK HERE FOR MORE
It was one of several issues being discussed in Friday's hearing. McCaslin opened the hearing by saying she plans to take up all but three of the pending motions today.
WATCH: Defense raises concerns over jury selection process in Murdaugh case
Next, the judge moved to having a third-party lab, Othram DNA, to independently test DNA found from under Maggie Murdaugh's fingernails.
Griffin said previous testing showed a mixture that was about 99% Maggie Murdaugh’s DNA and 1% from an unknown male.
He said the defense wants the private lab Othram to conduct more advanced testing, including SNP analysis, in hopes of learning more about the unidentified male DNA.
"We want to pay for it, and we want to get on with it," Griffin told the court, saying that the testing could take 60–90 days.
Waters said the state is willing to make evidence available to the defense, but wants SLED to first process and quantify the untouched reserve sample and then stop before additional testing.
"If we’re going to burn it, it needs to be burned in a fashion that is fair to both sides," Waters said.
WATCH: Alex Murdaugh case: Defense and prosecution debate DNA sample testing in court
Griffin objected, arguing SLED has had the evidence for years and only sought additional testing after the defense asked to examine it.
"They’ve had five years," Griffin said. "Now, because we asked to test it, they want to take control of our testing. I mean, that’s not fair."
"I don’t have any faith they won’t screw this up," Harpootlian said. "Why don’t we have an independent right to examine the untested DNA?"
McCaslin focused on preserving enough material for both sides.
"You know, it’s not like a piece of paper. I can make a copy of it," the judge said. "It’s just such a little amount."
Following a short morning break, Harpootlian began questioning his own defense team member, defense attorney Phil Barber, as a witness in their venue change request.
"Would you agree that parking is difficult in downtown Charleston?" Waters asked.
"I would agree that parking is difficult in downtown Charleston if you're not permitted to parking," Barber said.
Throughout his questioning, Barber repeatedly said that Charleston was no more expensive than other parts of the Palmetto State.
"You don't think the cost of living is higher in Charleston?" Waters said.
"McDonald's is the same price in Charleston as anywhere else," Barber replied.
As for how long today’s hearing could last, prosecutor Waters said he is prepared to go all day. Harpootlian says the timing will largely depend on the judge. Before the hearing, Waters was seen speaking with Harpootlian and Griffin on the defense side of the courtroom.
WATCH: Alex Murdaugh retrial fight heats up over murder indictments, testimony and financial crimes
Nathan S. Williams, a South Carolina federal criminal defense attorney and former assistant U.S. attorney who served as criminal chief for the District of South Carolina, told Fox News Digital that Murdaugh's request to dismiss the case is "a big ask" and "the explosive one, frankly, at this point," noting that it attacks the validity of the indictments based on alleged misconduct or false statements.
Murdaugh’s attorneys, led by Dick Harpootlian, have asked McCaslin to dismiss the murder and weapons indictments, alleging that false physical evidence was presented to the grand jury that indicted him.
The motion targets testimony from South Carolina Law Enforcement Division (SLED) investigator David Owen and raises questions about the evidence used to secure the original charges.
ALEX MURDAUGH MURDER SAGA LANDS RIGHT BACK WHERE IT STARTED BEFORE NEXT LOWCOUNTRY COURTROOM BATTLE
It is not yet clear whether McCaslin will rule on the dismissal motion Friday.
"They're alleging misconduct or false statements by one of the main case agents," he said. Williams added that he would be "a little surprised if that gets taken up on Friday," saying the issue will likely require evidence, testimony and additional briefing.
The disputes range from a defense effort to dismiss the murder indictments outright to battles over whether prosecutors can again introduce evidence of Murdaugh’s financial crimes, use testimony he gave during his first trial and present other evidence to a new jury.
WATCH: Murdaugh retrial raises new concerns and evidence
Williams said that a second trial changes the strategic landscape for Murdaugh.
"There is no surprising the government or the state at trial," Williams said. "He's given his testimony, they can prepare infinitely now to cross-examine him."
"That tends to be frankly more helpful for the state. I think they usually have a better chance on retrial," he added, while noting that limits on some of the state's evidence could cut the other way.
ALEX MURDAUGH'S DOUBLE MURDER CONVICTION UNANIMOUSLY OVERTURNED BY SOUTH CAROLINA SUPREME COURT
Murdaugh, 58, was convicted in 2023 of murdering Maggie, 52, and Paul, 22, at the family’s Moselle estate in Colleton County in June 2021. The South Carolina Supreme Court later overturned the convictions after finding that former Colleton County Clerk of Court Becky Hill improperly influenced jurors.
The high court ordered a new trial, but the retrial may look significantly different from the first.
At Murdaugh’s first trial, prosecutors argued that years of theft and financial fraud were closing in on him and that the killings were an effort to distract from mounting scrutiny.
MURDAUGH DEFENSE PLANS ALTERNATE SUSPECT PUSH AS DNA QUESTIONS LOOM OVER RETRIAL
The South Carolina Supreme Court did not rule that all evidence of Murdaugh’s financial wrongdoing was inadmissible, but it said prosecutors had been allowed to go too far into the details during the first trial.
McCaslin will now be tasked with determining how much of that evidence can be presented to jurors the second time around.
Williams said he expects the amount of financial evidence to shrink from the first trial. He said, "there will definitely be less," adding, "How much less I think will be a good question."
Prosecutors are also vying to use Murdaugh’s sworn testimony from his first trial during the retrial.
Murdaugh took the stand in his own defense in 2023 and admitted lying to investigators about his whereabouts shortly before Maggie and Paul were killed. He denied murdering them.
ALEX MURDAUGH DEMANDS NEW EVIDENCE SEARCH IN HUNT FOR CRACKS IN CASE
Whether jurors in the new trial will be able to hear portions of that prior testimony could become especially important if Murdaugh chooses not to testify again.
FOLLOW THE FOX TRUE CRIME TEAM ON X
The defense has separately mounted a wider challenge to the charges themselves.
Another major fight involves forensic evidence.
Murdaugh’s attorneys have sought additional DNA testing using newer techniques, including testing tied to evidence found underneath Maggie's fingernails.
Prosecutors have not opposed additional testing outright but have sought safeguards surrounding the handling of evidence, testing procedures and access to results.
"Independent testing might be tough," Williams said. "It wouldn't shock me if she lets them have a separate new test by the defense. To me, that strikes me as being fair, assuming they have the evidence available to be retested."
WATCH: Alex Murdaugh returns to court ahead of retrial
LISTEN TO THE NEW 'CRIME & JUSTICE WITH DONNA ROTUNNO' PODCAST
The defense has also sought to move the retrial out of Colleton County, where the killings occurred and where the first trial became a media spectacle.
Murdaugh’s attorneys have argued that extensive publicity surrounding the case, along with the fallout from Hill’s conduct, makes it impossible for him to receive a fair trial there. They have proposed moving the case to nearby Charleston County.
Williams said venue may be one of the more straightforward disputes for McCaslin to address Friday, though the location could be the real fight.
"The battle, frankly, does seem to be not the venue change, but where," he said. "Personally, I'd be a little surprised if she doesn't change the venue."
Other pending disputes involve access to phone data, third-party guilt evidence, discovery rules, polygraph evidence, juror questionnaires and protective orders governing sensitive material.
Fox News Digital has reached out to the attorney general's office and Murdaugh's defense team for comment.
The post Alex Murdaugh makes 'explosive' bid to blow up murder case hinging on DNA, dirty money and lies: expert appeared first on FOX News
