Murdaugh Saga: Federal Appeals Court Hears Another Jury-Related Appeal

Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...

In what appears to be a theme surrounding convicted killer Alex Murdaugh‘s web of crime and corruption, jury-related matters could wind up invalidating some of the most consequential verdicts secured in the prosecution of the erstwhile influential good ol’ boy network.

The latest example? A three-judge panel with the U.S. fourth circuit court of appeals is currently debating whether convicted fraudster Russell Laffitte – the disgraced banker who played a key role in Murdaugh’s admitted fleecings of former clients – should receive a new trial. Among the arguments put forward by Laffitte’s attorney are questions regarding the controversial dismissal of two jurors during deliberations.

Sounds familiar, right?

At the state level, Murdaugh – the mastermind of the theft – is currently pushing to have his two murder convictions vacated due to jury tampering allegations against a former clerk of court, a disgraced official whom many believe was part of an alleged conspiracy to rig his double homicide trial last winter.

Murdaugh was convicted in that trial of savagely slaying his wife and younger son on June 7, 2021, killings he committed purportedly to distract attention from the financial crimes he was committing with Laffitte’s assistance.

As for Laffitte, he was found guilty in November of 2022 of bank fraud, wire fraud, conspiracy and misapplying bank funds related to his role in Murdaugh’s scams. He is currently serving a seven-year sentence in federal prison.

***

RELATED | RUSSELL LAFFITTE GUILTY ON ALL COUNTS

***

The battle to toss Laffitte’s verdicts began shortly after they were handed down amid a questionable eleventh hour jury reshuffling initiated by U.S. district court judge Richard Gergel.

This news outlet addressed the jury drama extensively in our recap of the Laffitte verdicts. Days after the trial, the court issued a transcript (.pdf) from the chaotic proceedings. That transcript detailed how Gergel and prosecutors in the office of U.S. attorney Adair Ford Boroughs replaced two jurors based on, among other reasons, a strong desire to conclude the panel’s deliberations prior to the pending Thanksgiving holiday.

The jury at Laffitte’s trial deliberated for nine hours before judge Gergel received notes from two jurors. One juror indicated she needed an antibiotic and later claimed she was “feeling pressured to change my vote.” Another juror wrote she was “experiencing anxiety and unable to clearly make a decision.”

Gergel refused to allow jurors to take a break or to return to deliberate the following day. He also refused to make arrangements for the juror in need of medication. Those decisions are now a key point in Laffitte’s motion (.pdf) for a new trial.

***

***

Laffitte’s trial attorneys asked Gergel to adjourn for the evening and resume the next morning. This request was denied. Shortly thereafter, the parties agreed the judge should privately interview the two jurors.

As he left the courtroom, Gergel said, “I’m going to take action. Fair enough? Everybody happy with that?”

When Gergel returned, he announced both jurors had been dismissed and replaced by two alternate jurors. Guilty verdicts against Laffitte came back less than an hour later.

The fourth circuit panel considering Laffitte’s appeal heard oral arguments yesterday (September 25, 2024) in Richmond, Virginia. Laffitte was represented by attorneys Billy Wilkins and John Neiman Jr. from Maynard Nexsen in Greenville, South Carolina.

While Laffitte’s attorneys conceded it was appropriate to dismiss the juror who needed medication, they argued the dismissal of the anxious juror was improper.

During the hearing, judge Toby Heytens questioned Gergel’s decision not to consult with Laffitte’s attorneys before dismissing the jurors which did not give them an opportunity to object to the dismissals. Calling Gergel’s statement he was going to “take action” prior to interviewing the jurors “at minimum, fatally ambiguous.”

***

Judge Steven Agee appeared to agree with this conclusion, stating that Lafitte’s counsel was present for the discussion about the judge interviewing the juror, but “it’s highly debatable that they were present when the decision was made to dismiss the jury.”

The three member panel — which also included judge Stephanie Thacker — also heard arguments related to a separate appellate issue tied to Laffitte’s restitution.

During sentencing, Gergel ordered Laffitte to pay $3.5 million in restitution to the fraud victims, but waived interest payments without finding that Laffitte did not have the means to pay the added costs. A pre-sentence report showed that Laffitte had $10 million in assets and $5 million in liabilities – and prosecutors argued this was an indication he has financial means to pay interest.

While lead federal prosecutor Emily Limehouse conceded the government failed to object to that decision, she argued, “our failure to object should not be held against the victims whose losses would not be made whole.”

The panel did not indicate how or when it would rule, although appellate courts typically issues opinions within 90 days of oral argument.

Stay tuned to FITSNews for coverage of the pending legal matters surrounding Murdaugh’s appeal as well as any subsequent rulings by the court in Russell Laffitte’s bid for a new trial.

***

ABOUT THE AUTHOR …

Jenn Wood is FITSNews’ incomparable research director. She’s also the producer of the FITSFiles and Cheer Incorporated podcasts and leading expert on all things Murdaugh/ South Carolina justice. A former private investigator with a criminal justice degree, evildoers beware, Jenn Wood is far from your average journalist! A deep dive researcher with a passion for truth and a heart for victims, this mom of two is pretty much a superhero in FITSNews country. Did we mention she’s married to a rocket scientist? (Lucky guy!) Got a story idea or a tip for Jenn? Email her at jenn@fitsnews.com.

***

WANNA SOUND OFF?

Got something you’d like to say in response to one of our articles? Or an issue you’d like to address proactively? We have an open microphone policy! Submit your letter to the editor (or guest column) via email HERE. Got a tip for a story? CLICK HERE. Got a technical question or a glitch to report? CLICK HERE.