SC AG Wilson questions Murdaugh attorneys allegations of jury tampering
The S.C. attorney General’s Office has filed a response to Alex Murdaugh’s jury tampering allegations and cast some aspersions of its own: that if the allegations are true, Murdaugh’s attorney‘s knew about them during the trial and did nothing — which would legally prevent the convicted murder from seeking a new trial.
On Sept. 5, Murdaugh’s attorneys Richard Harpootlian and Jim Griffin filed a motion to halt the appeal of his murder conviction and two life sentences in the higher courts, and requesting a hearing to seek a new trial based on “after-discovered evidence” — namely allegations that Colleton County Clerk of Court Rebecca Hill had improper conduct with the jury. Hill has since denied those allegations.
S.C. attorney General Alan Wilson said he immediately called on the S.C. Law Enforcement Division (SLED) to conduct an objective investigation into these allegations, over the protests of Murdaugh’s counsel, who demanded the FBI probe the case.
On Friday, Wilson’s office fired back with a five-page response that questions both the truth of the allegations and the time in which Murdaugh’s defense potentially heard about them, and moves to dismiss Murdaugh’s motion.
attorney General Alan Wilson talks to the media after the conviction of Alex Murdaugh outside the Colleton County Courthouse on Thursday, March 2, 2023, in Walterboro, S.C. The 54-year-old attorney was standing trial on two counts of murder in the shootings of his wife and son at their Colleton County home and hunting lodge on June 7, 2021.”/>
What are the key points in the State’s argument against Murdaugh?
After a six-week trial in Walterboro, Murdaugh was convicted March 2 for the June 2021 shooting deaths of his wife, Maggie, and son, Paul.
According to the response filed today, the AG’s Office contends that in order for Murdaugh to have this case remanded back to the circuit court to proceed on a motion for a new trial based on after-discovered evidence, his attorneys must show the following:
- the evidence in question is such as will probably change the results if a new trial is granted;
- the evidence has been discovered since the trial;
- the evidence could not have been discovered prior to trial by the exercise of due diligence;
- the evidence is material to the issue of guilt or innocence; and
- the evidence is not merely cumulative or impeaching.
Number 2 is the linchpin in the State’s rebuttal: they contend there is evidence that Murdaugh’s attorneys may have heard about possible improper matters during the trial and did nothing, which would legally kill their quest for a new murder trial.
The state also argues that Murdaugh “must show that he did not know of the existence of such evidence at the time of the trial and that he used due diligence to discover such evidence…”
Today’s filing states that Murdaugh’s attorneys made “multiple statements to various media outlets indicating they were potentially aware of an issue with the jury at and about the time of trial.” They cite several examples:
- The filing adds that during a Sept. 5 press conference, Harpootlian, in responding to a question as to whether they saw the alleged conduct during the jury view or found out about it after the fact, replies “I think. . . we observed it. . . I was there, I watched it.”
- Later at that same press conference, when a reporter asked if they approached the jurors or vice-versa, Griffin replied that “immediately in the aftermath of the verdict, we had received information that we needed to look into what happened in the jury room.”
- In a Sept. 6 interview with Good Morning America Griffin stated that “soon after the trial… actually, as soon as the verdict was rendered, we had gotten some indication from folks in the courtroom that there was something untoward that had happened in the jury room…”
The AG’s Office moved to dismiss Murdaugh’s motion, calling it defective, and asking the court to give Murdaugh’s counsel 10 days to correct the “procedural defect and establish precisely when and how it is he first learned of these allegations.”
If Murdaugh files this information within ten days, the filing adds, a “remand may be necessary for the trial judge, Clifton Newman, to consider the credibility of the claims in light of the significant factual disputes which undermine the credibility of the claims.”
Wilson adds that if credible evidence can be found to support the claims brought by Murdaugh, the State will be prepared to argue against the motion before Judge Newman.Meanwhile, says Wilson’s office, an “objective investigation” by SLED is ongoing, but “the inquiry has already revealed significant factual disputes as to claims” made by Harpootlian and Griffin.
Hampton County Guardian Editor Michael DeWitt, the Greenville News and USA TODAY Network will continue to follow the ongoing criminal and civil cases surrounding the Murdaugh crime saga. Follow DeWitt on Twitter at @mmdewittjr and support his local and national journalism with a digital subscription.
Source link
Attorneys and law firms can elevate their online presence with professionally written content from SEO Content Writing Services monthly plan. Our team of experienced writers specializes in crafting blog posts, articles, and written content that accurately reflect the expertise and knowledge of our clients in the legal field. With a keen eye for detail and a thorough understanding of legal terminology, we provide high-quality writing that helps our clients stand out from their competition and engage with their target audience. Trust SEO Content Writing Services for one time article writing or monthly written content to handle all of your written content needs and showcase your law firm's expertise.
If you need written content, blog posts, or articles professionally written for your website, we can help. Go HERE to find out more.
or email us here: myseowritingservices@gmail.com
To find out more about our article writing or blog post services, fill out the form, thank you.