Moving the re-trial of Alex Murdaugh? | Hour 2

What's going on. Thank you so much for listening to this podcast. It is heard live every day from noon to three on WBT Radio in Charlotte. And if you want exclusive content like invitations to events, the weekly live stream, my daily show prep with all the links, become a patron, go to dpetecleanershow dot com. Make sure you hit the subscribe button. Get every episode for free, write to your smartphone or tablet, and again, thank you so much for your support. So do you remember that case. It's been a while, I know, and I think we covered it a little bit here at the time that lawyer from South Carolina, Alec Murdoch, Remember that guy got convicted for murdering his wife and son, and then then the conviction got overturned. That happened actually like a month or so ago. His murder convictions, his life sentence for the deaths of his wife and son were overturned by the South Carolina Supreme Court. Why glad you asked? The court clerk at his trial suggested, do the jurors that he was guilty? Like that's that is no bueno, as they say. So he's getting a brand new trial. And I want to welcome back to the program Matt Harris. He is the host of the podcast Impact of Influence. You can catch it on YouTube or on any of the podcasting platforms. Matt, how are you today? I am wonderful as well. Oh that's very cood. You should hear it every day, you know, you can listen. The actually ear to mouth thing is what I'm talking about. Okay, now I'm uncomfortable. All right, so the all right, so you so you're down where you in South Carolina? Were you in Lexington? Lexington? Yes? Yes, okay. So there was a key conference, a status conference, and so this was regarding the Murdoch trial, and it's my understanding that they were supposed to be I guess debating trying to move the trial. That's one of the many things that they were doing in this status conference was a change of venue. They talked about some DNA evidence and some other protective orders that were out. But what it came down to the important part was because usually these things are just scheduling and that sort of thing. So they did to dats August fourteenth, the next pre trial, and then April five, twenty twenty seven, it all begins again. The Alder Murdoch trial will begin, she judged. The new judge McCaslin says she wanted to get it past Easter because it's hard to find jurors, but officially begins April fifth. But do we know where that part. We do not know what they decided that she's going to take this on on one of these next one of these next pre trial hearings. But she told she kind of showed her hand a little bit, maybe because she asked the defense and the state to get together and think about if it's not in Hampton County, what would be some good places. So maybe you guys can agree on some places for a couple of places just in case. Well, and I mean that's kind of smart something. Yeah, it's kind of smart because this way, if they do get together and they do come up with some ideas for certain venues, it kind of takes that issue off the table for the particularly for the defense to argue in the public forum, right to the media and stuff, that he can't get a fair trial whatever. Yes, yes, And usually usually they go for the jury process and then decide, well, we don't have anybody, let's do change the venue. But everybody's pretty sure that they're gonna choose. I mean, not everybody. A lot of people are think of change the venue is going to happen before that even gets to that. And it kind of said when she's asking them to pick a place. So here's how this is from my journalism in days. So you can say, quote court observers say, there you go. Court observers say, it looks like she's going to do this or that or whatever. You know, that's the way around. The like, because that's so yeah, because I think it's a fair read on where her mind is that she's open to the idea. If she at the very least she's telling them, we'll get together and see if you guys can come up with some venues, and if they do, then it seems like she'd say, okay, let's move it there. Right right, like the gift cuts up the middleman kind of thing. They're just like, well, you guys thought it was okay, so let's do it right. We'll see. She said she'll handle that on one of these upcoming pre trial hearings. He also said she does not do continuances, So get your crap together, guys, April fifth of next year. So this is a new judge for this case versus the previous trial. And we knew that was going to be the case because that the judge that oversaw that trial he was retiring, So like everybody knew that they would get a new judge if there was ever some sort of a retrial or anything like that. And so Deborah mccaslyn is her name. Do we know anything about her at this stage? She was she was appointed by the Supreme Court or mainly Kiddridge and Lexington's her home base. I know that part. She worked for strom Thurman for years, for what that's worth, and she was all both. This is kind of interesting. A long time spent doing defense and a long time doing prosecution. So that's rare in judges. Most of the time judges are prosecutors, very few or very small percentage to defense work. And she has done defense work for quite a while. All right. So one of the other issues you mentioned the DNA, What is the DNA that they were debating. Okay, this DNA situation where there's there was DNA under Maggie Murdoch's fingernail and it was did as a non related mail by sled Well according to the defense. Now there's this new technology that popped up where they can do a much better job. And they can also find out through people who have sent in their DNA for genealogy testing. The example they gave was the Idaho murders. The company that did that technology that found out who it was based on somebody one of his family members doing the genealogy test. So they say they can do that, and it wasn't available at twenty twenty three or twenty twenty one when the murder happened, so they want that into to be done. Initially, the prosecution said, no, you know, we tested it. It's good. There's not enough remnants or whatever to work. But it looks like they're going to be allowed to have it tested. She's gonna look at it some more. But if they're only who are having it tested, and see what happens with that. But Creyton Waters, the prosecutor, stood, said this is a red herring, judge, it doesn't mean anything. And then I mean he's something said it's not. Yeah, I mean he's got to say that. I understand, but like it, that does matter if she's got if she's got some dudes DNA under her fingernail, after she was murdered. I kind of feel like that might be important. It might be I mean, there's no sign of a struggle technically other than being shot, so they they want that to be tested. And that was that's what kind of delayed it too, because Herpoutlian took Carpollion the for the defense that he wanted six months to get the DNA done. Oh. He also said he's adding eight expert witnesses from last time, so that is that is also going to you know, take some time and back to a little bit. But so there's could be a lot more a lot more technical stuff in this new trial because they also talked about the on Star report that came in during the trial, which showed where Maggie's stone, where Elick was walking, and all this stuff that caven during the trial. So he says, now we want to we are an expert that we didn't have time to get an expert last time, so we get an expert this time on that. So and there's been a lot of other reporting, There have been books written. I know you've interviewed several authors on your show. Impact of Influence on the podcast, and like do we expect there to be new stuff. I know some of the old stuff isn't going to be part of this trial, Like a lot of the financial crime details and stuff are not going to be allowed in this second trial. But he's obviously in prison right now for all of the financial crimes he pled guilty to them, And so like, what is there an anticipation of like new stuff, Like I know you did an interview recently with a journalist who got ahold of the cousin Eddie guy who was part of the alleged staged hit on the side of the road where Alec was Supposedly, you know, somebody tried to kill him on the side of the road and know his cousin Eddie or something, but he never got called to the stand. But now they're like people He since has given some interviews. Other people have come out with information too, since the since the trials. So do we think there may be new information that comes in? Oh well, Harpootlian has said and Griffin have said they've got some new information and some new witnesses. They should their head a little bit today that I think they're going to be doing a lot of sled didn't investigate this guy sled didn't investigate that. They didn't do this, they didn't do that. They didn't, you know, do all the possibilities. They they went right after Elc Murdock. I think that's gonna be one of their big pitches. And I think they're really gonna They didn't do the time frame and the steps and the phone. Even during the time, I was like, what are they doing. They're not breaking this down. If you break it down, the windows small for Elec Murdock. They didn't really do that. I think they're going to really really focus in on that, and as you said, I think they're going to talk about other possibilities more. Well, yeah, they yeah, and they kind of. I mean they have to. I mean, as a defense attorney, this is what you have to do. You've got to throw as much stuff out there to get, you know, any one of the jurors to consider this as a as a potential possibility. That would then lower that, you know, beyond a reasonable doubt standard. So you want to throw as many different theories. If you can have one theory that's got a lot of evidence, that's awesome for a defense attorney. But if you don't have that, then you just want to poke as many holes and throw as many things out there, challenge all of the police work and the you know, chain of custody on the evidence and. All of that stuff. So that's right, Yeah, that makes sense. And it's always nice to be able to after you lose anything, gain life. It's nice to go to go have a do over. Yeah, you're like, Okay, I should have done this, should have done that. You know, even if it's the same evidence, you could attack it through different ways. Right, and you'll know what not to ask that opens the door that got you in trouble the first time. Like this time, I doubt they'll put Alec Murdoch on the stand. I doubt they'll make that mistake. No, no, no, no, yes, they probably will not make that mistake, although he did testify, so they might. You know, they will be able to use some of that stuff if they need. To, right, well, and he had to testify, yes, yes, yeah, during the first trial because there was no explanation for that video that came out, like I think it came out during the trial of him at the dog kennel's like a couple like an hour or something whatever it was before the murders well. He said he wasn't there. It came out like just before the trial started. Yeah, but yeah, it was. But yeah, that was the thing that was the key for the prosecution. So the defense had to do something to show why he didn't tell everybody that he was at the kennel right at that time, he was there and then left and took a nap or whatever. But apparently he was there a lot later than he said not. Apparently he was right see it. However, that video also showed what appears to be a very loving family and you know, going around and hanging out all day with his son and all that. So there's all that side of it too. Yeah, all right, last question I had for you was about you being a former I don't know what they call it, a participant or a contestant on What Not to Wear? The old TV show. Matt Harris actually appeared on that program. I did, and so so, well, we don't hold that against him. He dresses much better now, sure so Murdoch What Not to Wear? This was also I saw some news reports people there was a debate about whether or not he would be what he would be wearing when he's in the courtroom. Right well, today he was in his orange jumpsuit, very thin, and also in his shackles, and so that came up. But Dick Harpooley, his attorney, withdrew the request a couple of days ago or last week to have elkin street clothes and not be shackled. And so the judge says, oh, you dropped that. He says, well, judge, a kind of my mind. He says, look at this man like they're treating him like an animal. He's not Ted Bundy. He doesn't need to be in shackles. He doesn't. She goes, are you withdrawing? You're withdrawing, so she said she will, she will consider it about whether or not he will be shackled and in the jumpsuit. So apparently Dick is flipflopping on that decres So that's interesting. The defense initially said they want him to be able to appear, you know, wearing a blazer and a tie or whatever and not shackled, and now they withdrew the motion. But the judge is going to consider because it could prejudice the jury. You know, that's why people ask for you know, not to be dressed in the inmate uniform, because people then assume, well, you did something because you're in jail, you know, uh, so you're guilty just by I mean just look at you. You're wearing shackles and all of this. So if the judge is going to make that determination on her own, I wonder does he pull the request because he knows she's going to do it already. Right through it. That was weird that he was rude. Everybody was kind of like, what why do you withdraw that? And then today throws like this thing like listen, judge, I nor I said that, but look at this man. That's he's not a serial killer and he doesn't need to be shackled for safety. That's weird. That's weird. It was weird. I don't know. I wonder if somebody just filed it by mistake or di Carpulian lost his mind for a seconds. Why why why take that back? Like unless he well, yeah maybe yeah, unless he's like thinking, if we lose again, that could be grounds for appeal. I don't know, Yeah, yeah, all right, we'll leave it there. Unless there's anything else that came out of this hearing today that that I haven't asked you about. I think that you nailed it, you nail. He came one little thing he got. I like, kid. They wanted to have a computer. Yes, in the jale and he wants a laptop. We want a laptop. Yep, you can't have it. They said, no, oh no to the laptop. He's going to have to go through the banker's boxes of stuff. Yeah, well no, he but they get out a lap up. He just can't keep it. They like, somebody has to drive it from mart Putlian's office, and she said it can it doesn't have to be an attorney has to drive it from Hartputlian's office. Go to the prison and they will withdraw like he usually it's a ticket two or three hour two and a half hours are allowed to be in there. But they said they will make it eight or something. But she said all at the word, and you know that works for him. Yeah, uh okay, yeah, there you go. Yeah, I probably can't trust him with a laptop in jail ever know what he might go surfing for? Okay, all right, let me leave it there. Matt Harris, host of Impact of Influence If you are interested in this case, as well as a bunch of other crime stories and such from you and you focus predominantly on the Southeast. Yeah, so yeah, yeah, yeah, I'll do a lot of things in South and North Carolina for sure. There you go. All right, Matt, thanks buddy, I appreciate it. Matt. Thanks Pete. All right, seem that's Matt Harris. Impact of Influence is the podcast. All right. For over a year now you've heard me talking about Create a Video. Great local company in mint Hill that has helped more than two million families preserve their memories by turning old photos, VHS tapes, film reels, and slides into lasting keepsakes. Now creative videos helping families and groups create brand new memories while they're traveling. Introducing group travel videos perfect for family reunions, church mission trips, group vacations, destination weddings, student trips, senior adult groups, sports teams, I mean, really any gathering of people that you care about that's traveling together. Group Travel Videos gives your traveling pack a private app where everyone can share photos during the trip, send messages, share schedules and important documents, even a traveler safety locator feature that works only during the trip, and family members and friends back home can follow along and enjoy the experience in real time. No social media, no ads, it's totally private. No emails, phone numbers, account setups or hassles. With group travel videos, you'll capture today's moments on your special trip while they're happening. Then after the trip for gathering, they'll professionally turn your shared moments into a beautiful storytelling video that your whole group can stream and download and treasure for years. Check out group travel videos dot com. That's group travel Videos dot com. Or call seven oh four eight four six seventy eight seventy extension two O six. And when you do that, ask for Katie. But Pete, can I just email? Well, yes you can. You can email Katie Katie at group travel videos dot com. Group travel videos from old memories to new adventures, preserving life's moments for a lifetime. Gabby on the text line says, who's paying for all of these trial expenses? It's not like he's going to be innocent and free to go back to his southern estate and live out his retirement with some southern comfort. That's a good question. Not sure, because he did plead guilty to all of the financial crimes, and they were like, if I remember correctly, there were a bunch of financial penalties and stuff that he has to pay back for that. So I don't know where all of the money is coming from for all of the experts. Maybe he's got to go fund me or something. I don't know, you know, And maybe they're giving him a reduced rate because of all of the publicity that the lawyers are getting. I don't know, but yeah, I mean, the conviction that the double murder conviction was overturned, so it's as if he was never convicted for those things. So I don't know what that does to free up any assets. So that's a fair question. Gebby. We had a couple of Supreme Court cases that came down today. Full disclosure, I have not read them. There were three of them as far as I can tell, So I'm just going to give you sort of the headlines from people that have read them and do know what the cases are about. But I have not read through them, and if I'm being completely honest, I'm probably. Not going to read through all of them. It's just like I'm just trying to be honest here, I'm probably not going to read through all of these. So the first one here This was a six to three ruling, and I believe this is the conservative majority all in lockstep against the lefty minority. And what they found. What they ruled is that a president can fire members of quote unquote independent agencies. And the president can fire these members of the agencies without cause. So don't need a reason. He can just come in and fire everybody, you know, much like Governor Jim Hunt did during the so called Christmas massacre when he fired I think it was like fourteen people. Yeah, well it's like the was it the Valentine's Day massacre in Chicago like a century ago? Is you know al Capone's gang. I think it was. They murdered a bunch of people, and like you would think, like a massacre there would be like, you know, dozens of victims and stuff, but there weren't. It's like a pretty low number. But anyway, presidents can fire members of independent agencies without cause. That green lights President Donald Trump's efforts to reshape the federal government. The liberals dissented. That's a tweet from Katie Buehler. Buehler Buehler, the Supreme Court reporter at law three sixty. Okay, so that's one of the rulings. That was a case called Oh that was the Slaughter. No pun intended there, but this was a slaughter ruling, Trump v. Slaughter. Next one is about I guess not an independent agency or something. No, I'm kidding. This is the one that's getting a lot of blowback is this was a five to four vote. The Supreme Court refused to let President Trump fire Federal Reserve Board Governor Lisa Cook. Okay, So on the one hand, they're like, yes, you can fire members without cause from independent agencies, but you cannot remove Lisa Cook. But here's the reason why, and this kind of makes sense. But again I have not read through the ruling, but my understanding is that it's because there is litigation ongoing. This is the Federal Reserve Board member who is accused of mortgage fraud, right her alleged mortgage fraud, and they're saying that while this is proceeding, you got litigation about whether he can do it and the actual investigation of her and all of that, and they're saying that the Federal Reserves this According to Scotus Wire, the Supreme Court held five to four and Roberts and Amy Coney, Barrett joined with the lefty judges, saying that the federal reserves long standing independence from presidential control is rooted in the nation's history and tradition, and they go back to the first National Bank, second National Bank, and whatever, and so people are like, these two rulings are contradictory. But I feel like what they're saying essentially is that you can't fire her for now, in that if the you know, investigation continues, and maybe Trump gives this woman a hearing on the alleged mortgage fraud and then he can fire her. Maybe I don't know, but maybe then the Supreme Court finds some other excuse to keep her around. I don't know. According to the majority opinion says, quote, at minimum, Cook was entitled to some explanation of the evidence at issue, some avenue for a response, and a deadline by which a response would be due. Only after Cook has had the opportunity to respond to the charges made against her, may a final decision be made, And only then can the courts assess the validity and sufficiency of such charges. Okay, so it seems like you can't. Like, so, while you can fire people from the executive branch, agencies and you don't need any cause whatsoever. When it comes to the Federal Reserve, you need to have some form of due process, the ability to respond to accusations or whatever. So you can't fire somebody without cause. But with regard to the first ruling in the Slaughter case, Donald Trump put out a truth social post and he called this a big win, confirming presidential power to remove executive branch officers and agency appointees or representatives under Article two. This decision was long sought by US presidents, dating all the way back to the nineteen thirties. It is such an honor to be the sitting president who won this historic and unprecedented ruling, one of the most important ever given with respect to presidential powers. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Is this is what's called the was it the unitary presidency? Right? Like, they have control over the executive branch, And so now presidents will be able to staff a lot more of these positions in their own administration. All right. And the final ruling that came down from the Supreme Court says that mail in ballots as opposed to the female in ballots, can be accepted after election day. They can be accepted. Not that they must, but they can be. Why because federal law apparently does not explicitly say you can't. This is from Independent Journalism Review IJR dot com. The Supreme Court narrowly ruled mail in ballots can be accepted by states after election day. The Court made the ruling Monday in a five to four vote, thereby turning down the Republican National Committees moved to defeat the practice. There are more than a dozen states that except North Carolina is no longer one of these states. Our General Assembly, Republican controlled. They did away with accepting ballots after election day. Ballot's got to be at the election offices when the polls close, which to me is fair. That's fair, okay, a dozen states except more than a dozen states except mail in ballots as long as they are postmarked by election day in some Democrat states, though postmarks are not required. Just as Amy Cony Barrett said, it doesn't go against federal law, which states the Tuesday next after the first Monday in November as the day for the election. Quote. The election day statutes say nothing about ballot receipt and we cannot add to the words Congress chose. She joined John Roberts and the Court's three lefty judges in that decision. So I know people are going to be mad at this. I'm kind of a little mad at it. Also. I think you could have figured out a way by reading the statutes to be like, oh, it's election day, that's election day, and so yeah, the ballots need to be in by election day. But no, no, because the law doesn't explicitly say that states can use the postmark, and then they can I mean theoretically. I mean some states. Was at California, they keep taking ballots for like two weeks now. The Post Office there's been some discussion about this. The Post Office could opt not to allow their service to be used in states for this. That's possible. I'm sure it would be litigated, but that is one way to go on offense is to say, you know what, if you're going to use the US Postal Service for this practice, then we're going to forbid the US Postal Service from delivering that mail in your state. Chief Justice John Roberts, the three liberals, they all voted for it. The decision poses a new layer as the party's fight for control of Congress. The GOP wants to maintain its majority. S all right, blah blah blah. This was a case that came out of Mississippi. They allow five days five business days after the election. Mississippi is one of fourteen states with similar laws, many of which are Democrat controlled like California, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Virginia, and Washington. There are four states controlled by Republicans that allow this. That would be Alaska, Nevada, Texas, and West Virginia. Mississippi's defense received outside support from groups like the NAACP, the League of Women Voters, and the Democratic National Committee. So all the Democrats lining up to allow for this grace period to extend after election day, Republicans and Conservatives were opposed. So the left wins this one. So now Republicans, I would advise you guys need to step up your efforts to harvest as many of these ballots like the Democrats do, and this is where we are. All right, that'll do it for this episode. Thank you so much for listening. I could not do the show without your support and the support of the businesses that advertise on the podcast, so if you'd like, please support them too. And tell them you heard it here. You can also become a patron at my Patreon page. Go to dpetecalnarshow dot com. Again, thank you so much for listening, and don't break anything while I'm gone.