Is anyone else following this trial? It's another riveting case and trial being aired in its entirety on Court TV.
Alex Murdaugh was a wealthy lawyer from a very prominent legal family in the Lowcountry of South Carolina. Apparently, he had an decades long opioid addiction that led to him stealing millions from his law firm, partners and clients. His financial schemes started to unravel after his son Paul was involved in a boating accident that injured several and resulted in one fatality. The boat belonged to Alex and when he was sued by the estate of the decedent, they started investigating his finances and it all started to fall apart. Eventually, there was a botched attempt on his life that turned out to be something he planned and then not long after that, his son Paul and wife Maggie were brutally murdered at one of their sprawling hunting estate properties. His son was shot twice with a shotgun, nearly blowing his head off and his wife appears to have been murdered with an AR-style assault weapon of some kind. Needless to say, he's been charged with the murder and some of the testimony of witnesses is breathtaking. If you're into real life legal drama, you can't get much more fascinating than this.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murdaugh_family (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murdaugh_family)
I've been keeping-up. Interesting trial.
Looks like the Prosecution will wrap-up it's case today. Not really sure if they've landed any knock-out blows.
It's a tough case to prosecute. Very little physical evidence associated with Alex. Much of the damaging testimony pertains to his financial crimes. It was a big ruling today when the judge rejected the State's request to introduce testimony of the falsified roadside murder attempt.
motive for murdering his son and daughter-in-law? havent followed this case so no clue what he has to gain from murdering them. trying to make it look like his family has been targeted? they knew of his financial crimes?
Supposedly it was to distract prosecution of him for his alleged financial crimes. I would think the kind of Defense Attorney he can afford wouldn't have too hard a time shooting holes all through the case against him. Maybe I'm wrong.
Found guilty
Jury deliberated for about 6 hours. I am surprised I thought the Defense Put up some good arguments.
Quote from: Con on March 02, 2023, 07:16:14 PMFound guilty
Jury deliberated for about 6 hours. I am surprised I thought the Defense Put up some good arguments.
They deliberated for 2 hours and 53 minutes. Six week trial and guilty verdict in less than 3 hours. Amazing.
My take is that he did it, although I can't really see the motive. However, it is much less clear to me whether the State actually met its burden to establish guilt.
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on March 02, 2023, 07:22:59 PMQuote from: Con on March 02, 2023, 07:16:14 PMFound guilty
Jury deliberated for about 6 hours. I am surprised I thought the Defense Put up some good arguments.
They deliberated for 2 hours and 53 minutes. Six week trial and guilty verdict in less than 3 hours. Amazing.
My take is that he did it, although I can't really see the motive. However, it is much less clear to me whether the State actually met its burden to establish guilt.
I meant to say 3
I thought the defense had put plausible motive with him being involved with sketchy people and drugs but the vigilante motive seemed weak.
Quote from: Con on March 02, 2023, 07:37:00 PMQuote from: Jarhead0331 on March 02, 2023, 07:22:59 PMQuote from: Con on March 02, 2023, 07:16:14 PMFound guilty
Jury deliberated for about 6 hours. I am surprised I thought the Defense Put up some good arguments.
They deliberated for 2 hours and 53 minutes. Six week trial and guilty verdict in less than 3 hours. Amazing.
My take is that he did it, although I can't really see the motive. However, it is much less clear to me whether the State actually met its burden to establish guilt.
I meant to say 3
I thought the defense had put plausible motive with him being involved with sketchy people and drugs but the vigilante motive seemed weak.
No. You're mixing it up.
Motive means Alex's reason for committing the murders. It is the burden of the prosecution to establish motive. Alex's defense was that the State did not establish beyond a reasonable doubt that he committed the murders and one prong of this was that they did not prove motive. The defense team argued, without any evidence, that it could have been people angry at Paul for the boat wreck (ie. vigilantes) or people involved in the drug trade that Paul attempted to confront after he discovered his father's addiction. Both very weak defenses, but no weaker really than the prosecution's theory on Alex's motive.
When is sentencing?
My take on it was that Murdaugh sunk himself by testifying. He might have been able to get a hung jury based only on the state's case, but when he testified his lying (at least I thought he was lying) gave any wavering jury members something to hang a guilty verdict on.
I agree. When he had to admit he lied about being in the video shot just before the murders were committed, it sunk his case with the jury. I'd like to know who's idea it was for him to go on the stand, him or his lawyer's? Still, I thought he might get one lone juror to support his case and hang the jury. The verdict comes as a surprise to me.
This is an exceptional judge. I've been impressed throughout the trial.
Don't do drugs kids... they really mess you up.
This is true. The giant green and gold 10 legged spider I do shrooms with tells me this a lot. He's right. He had only 9 legs back when we started. :shocked:
As a Psych Nurse I saw a lot of people who had turned themselves into The Walking Dead by using drugs, legal and illegal including alcohol. Just say, 'F--k No'.
Fortunately my favorites are legal.
Just when you thought this case couldn't get any crazier. This guy is almost certainly going to get a new trial. it's been alleged that the Judge's law clerk improperly influenced the verdict by communicating with the jurors and making statements that swayed their decision making. The clerk then wrote a book about the whole trial, which is extremely unusual.
I'm watching an evidentiary hearing being conducted now and so far the first juror questioned has testified that the Clerk's communications swayed her decision. Amazing.
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on January 29, 2024, 10:23:22 AMJust when you thought this case couldn't get any crazier. This guy is almost certainly going to get a new trial. it's been alleged that the Judge's law clerk improperly influenced the verdict by communicating with the jurors and making statements that swayed their decision making. The clerk then wrote a book about the whole trial, which is extremely unusual.
I'm watching an evidentiary hearing being conducted now and so far the first juror questioned has testified that the Clerk's communications swayed her decision. Amazing.
That is unbelievable. As a former trial attorney, rarely am I speechless, but this is one of times. Incredible....
What a total $hitshow. The bailiff didn't confiscate the cell phones of the jurors who proceeded to tune into the questioning live of the first juror and watched the whole proceeding! So, they saw and heard the whole line of questioning, the objections and arguments, etc. You can't make this stuff up...
I'm going off memory here, but the most persuasive evidence against the defendant, from my limited observations and memory of the trial, was his own testimony. If that is true, a retrial could end up with an acquittal if Murdaugh doesn't testify.
Would certainly be interesting if a different strategy was adopted on a second trial. I think all the evidence of his financial crimes and drug use were very damaging, and that may have been why they made the decision to have him testify.
So what's your take now that he has been denied a new trial?
Quote from: Con on January 29, 2024, 06:23:06 PMSo what's your take now that he has been denied a new trial?
That he has a strong basis for an appeal. Two jurors and an alternate testified that the clerk engaged in improper communications and jury tampering.