Michael Colucci Bombshell: Defense Moves For Dismissal Of Murder Charge

Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...

In a dramatic turn of events just days before his high-profile murder retrial was scheduled to begin, accused killer Michael Colucci has filed a motion asking a South Carolina judge to dismiss the indictment against him, citing a “grossly shocking and outrageous” constitutional violation by law enforcement.

According to a motion filed on Friday (June 13, 2025), Colucci’s attorneys claimed prosecutors only disclosed critical exculpatory evidence to the defense two days earlier (June 11, 2025). That’s less than a week before jury selection in this long-delayed retrial was set to commence. This evidence, attorneys claimed, included internal memorandums confirming that Sara Lynn Colucci — the defendant’s late wife — had discussed plans to end her own life by hanging in the days leading up to her death.

The defense insisted this information, which they argue is “Brady material” under established U.S. Supreme Court precedent, was known to S.C. Law Enforcement Division (SLED) agent David Owen as far back as 2016 — the year Colucci was charged in connection with the May 20, 2015 death of his wife.

***

RELATED | COLUCCI ATTORNEYS, S.C. PROSECUTORS SEEK TO FRAME THE DEBATE

***

Owen is the lead agent on the Colucci investigation. According to Colucci’s lawyers, he deliberately concealed this exculpatory evidence from defense counsel, the original trial judge, the grand jury in Berkeley County and even the magistrate who signed the arrest warrant for Colucci.

“It is hard to imagine a scenario more egregious of a criminal defendant’s constitutional rights,” defense attorneys wrote in the 30-page filing (.pdf).

The motion asked the court to dismiss the indictment with prejudice, arguing Colucci’s due process rights under both the U.S. and South Carolina Constitutions have been irreparably violated.

***

A DECADE OF SUPPRESSION?

Michael Colucci was charged with the murder of his wife, Sara, in May 2016 – a year after her body was discovered outside of one of the family’s jewelry stores located at 2206 N. Main Street in Summerville. Prosecutors have long maintained Michael Colucci staged the scene to look like a suicide, however no South Carolina forensic pathologist has ever officially ruled the death a homicide — an issue central to the defense’s theory of the case.

Colucci’s first prosecution in 2018 ended in a mistrial after jurors failed to reach a unanimous verdict. As FITSNews has previously reported, the second trial – slated for May 2024 – was derailed by scheduling problems.

The latest defense motion revealed that two state-generated memorandums — only turned over to the defense last week — directly corroborated the claim that Sara Colucci told her mother she intended to die by suicide. This evidence, the defense argued, could have not only changed the outcome of the original trial, but also prevented Colucci’s arrest in the first place.

According to the motion, SLED agent Owen failed to disclose this critical information to:

• The magistrate who signed Colucci’s arrest warrant in May 2016
• The judge who oversaw a preliminary hearing in October 2016
• The grand jury that issued an indictment in November 2016
• Defense counsel during pretrial discovery and throughout the 2018 trial

The suppression of such key evidence, defense attorneys argue, violates the landmark 1963 Brady v. Maryland decision, which requires prosecutors to disclose any evidence favorable to the accused that is material to guilt or punishment.

“Our judicial system relies upon the integrity of its participants,” the motion stated, citing precedent from Riddle v. Ozmint and Kyles v. Whitley.

***

***

SANCTIONS SOUGHT FOR GOVERNMENT MISCONDUCT

The defense is urging the court to exercise its supervisory powers and sanction the state by dismissing the indictment entirely. The motion outlines several grounds for such a ruling, citing U.S. Supreme Court decisions allowing dismissal when misconduct undermines the integrity of the judicial process.

Citing United States v. Bundy and Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., the motion argues that lesser remedies — such as continuances or jury instructions — would be inadequate in the face of what it calls “a ten-year Brady violation the government has acknowledged.”

Colucci’s legal team, which includes veteran Charleston attorney Andy Savage and criminal defense lawyer Scott Bischoff, also highlighted the personal cost to their client: nearly a decade of legal limbo, court-mandated monitoring, and more than $25,000 in ankle bracelet fees.

“This case is different,” the attorneys wrote. “Proof that SLED Agent David Owen knew Sara Colucci told her mother she was going to commit suicide by hanging—and did everything within his power to intentionally keep that information from the defense—is exactly the type of conduct so grossly shocking and outrageous as to violate the universal sense of justice.”

***

RELATED | COLUCCI RETRIAL: HOW THE MURDAUGH SAGA COULD PLAY A PROMINENT ROLE

***

THE LARGER CONTEXT AND WHAT’S NEXT…

It’s no secret Owen — now at the center of the defense’s motion — is the same agent who testified in the high-profile Alex Murdaugh trial, and his performance there could cast a long shadow over the Colucci case. In the Murdaugh proceedings, Owen faced intense cross-examination over:

• Delayed investigative steps (SLED didn’t search a key Murdaugh family property until three months after the murders, despite having permission).
• Overstated blood-spatter evidence that never made it into court but severely damaged Murdaugh’s case in the court of public opinion.

The rifts in Owen’s Murdaugh testimony gave Colucci’s team potent ammunition to argue that SLED’s investigative missteps are a pattern, not an aberration.

The defense had already filed a motion (.pdf) to formally admonish Owen in the Colucci case — pointing to his failure to correct allegedly false trial testimony in 2018 as a direct constitutional violation by the agent. That move signaled what the defense believes is a repeat of the same questionable conduct — all while Owen remained a seemingly untouchable state witness.

As before, the stakes couldn’t be higher. Just as SLED’s errors reshaped the narrative — and the outcome — in the Murdaugh saga, Owen’s testimony, credibility and investigative decisions are now at the heart of the framing in the Colucci retrial.

S.C. circuit court judge Roger M. Young, who is scheduled to preside over the retrial, will have to determine whether the newly disclosed evidence meets the legal threshold for dismissal — and whether the damage to Colucci’s constitutional rights can be remedied absent such an extraordinary sanction.

Regardless of the outcome, the filing marks a significant turning point in one of South Carolina’s most controversial murder cases—and raises serious questions about how state investigators handled evidence from the outset.

FITSNews will continue to provide updates as this developing legal drama unfolds.

***

THE MOTION TO DISMISS…

(S.C. Ninth Judicial Circuit)

***

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.