|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
by JENN WOOD
***
Attorneys for accused killer Alex Murdaugh are demanding that South Carolina prosecutors conduct a fresh search for potentially exculpatory evidence — and any information that could undermine the credibility of the state’s witnesses — ahead of his second murder trial.
In a supplemental motion (.pdf) filed on Wednesday (August 5, 2026), Murdaugh’s defense team asked the court to order prosecutors to update their discovery review – and disclose any new material generated or discovered since prosecutors substantially completed their original production prior to his 2023 trial.
“A substantial period of time has elapsed since the state’s original discovery production,” Murdaugh’s attorneys wrote. “During that interval, the personnel, witnesses, law enforcement agencies, forensic laboratories, and prosecuting authorities involved in this matter have continued to generate, receive, and become aware of information bearing on the credibility of witnesses, the reliability of evidence, and matters favorable to the defendant.”
The motion was filed on Murdaugh’s behalf by defense attorneys Dick Harpootlian, Jim Griffin, Phillip Barber, Maggie Fox and Andrew Hand.
Murdaugh, 57, was convicted in March 2023 of murdering his wife, 52-year-old Maggie Murdaugh, and their 22-year-old son, Paul Murdaugh, at the family’s Colleton County hunting property on June 7, 2021.
Those convictions — and the two consecutive life sentences imposed afterward — were overturned earlier this year by the South Carolina Supreme Court. A new trial is scheduled to begin in April 2027 with S.C. circuit court judge Debra McCaslin presiding.
***
A CONTINUING OBLIGATION…
The defense motion is grounded in Brady v. Maryland and Giglio v. United States, two landmark U.S. Supreme Court decisions governing what prosecutors must disclose to criminal defendants.
Under Brady, prosecutors must disclose evidence favorable to the accused when it is material to guilt or punishment. Giglio extends that obligation to information that could be used to challenge the credibility of a prosecution witness — including promises, benefits, cooperation agreements or evidence of misconduct.
Murdaugh’s attorneys also cited Rule 5 of the South Carolina Rules of Criminal Procedure, which imposes a continuing duty to disclose newly discovered material covered by an earlier discovery request or court order.
That obligation, the defense argued, did not end when Murdaugh’s first trial concluded.
“Brady and its progeny likewise impose an ongoing obligation on the prosecution to disclose material evidence that is favorable to the defendant—an obligation that does not expire with the completion of a prior trial and reattaches with full force upon retrial,” the attorneys wrote.
The defense contends that information not known—or not yet in existence—when discovery was originally produced must now be identified and disclosed.
That could include new witness statements, internal investigations, disciplinary findings, credibility concerns, changes in witness cooperation agreements or post-trial developments affecting the integrity of the State’s investigation.
***
RELATED | Murdaugh Retrial: Evidence Battle Escalates
***
WHAT THE DEFENSE WANTS
The filing renews and incorporates Murdaugh’s original July 2022 discovery motion while adding ten categories of information the defense wants prosecutors ordered to search for and produce.
Among them is any new Brady material connected to the murder case — as well as potentially favorable information generated in two related S.C. State Law Enforcement Division (SLED) investigations.
Those investigations include the September 2021 roadside shooting involving Murdaugh and Curtis “Eddie” Smith, along with SLED’s investigation into Murdaugh’s alleged narcotics activity.
Defense attorneys are also seeking all new Giglio material concerning witnesses the state intends to call at the retrial. That request encompasses “impeachment, credibility, disciplinary, or misconduct information” involving law enforcement officers, forensic analysts, expert witnesses and civilian witnesses.
The requested disclosures include:
- New or modified promises, rewards, plea agreements, cooperation agreements or grants of immunity offered to witnesses.
- Newly obtained witness statements or inconsistencies involving witnesses previously identified by the State.
- Updated personnel files, disciplinary records and internal affairs materials involving investigators or forensic analysts connected to the case.
- New information concerning forensic or DNA testing, scientific methodologies, proficiency testing or software used during the investigation.
- Additional search warrants or supporting affidavits obtained since the original discovery production.
- Post-trial, appellate or post-conviction materials concerning the integrity of the verdict, the conduct of trial participants or the circumstances leading to the retrial.
The defense also wants written confirmation that prosecutors conducted a “diligent and current search” of all relevant files, agencies and personnel — and that no additional favorable or impeachment material exists beyond what has been produced.
Notably, the motion does not identify a particular witness whose credibility has recently come into question or reveal a specific piece of newly discovered exculpatory evidence.
Instead, it seeks to force the State to repeat and update the discovery process based on everything that has occurred since the first trial.
***
SLED CREDIBILITY QUESTIONS
The request for updated disciplinary and credibility information is particularly significant given the scrutiny surrounding two former SLED agents involved in cases connected to Murdaugh.
As FITSNews has previously reported, former SLED special agent David Owen — the lead investigator in the Moselle murder case — faced an aggressive cross-examination during Murdaugh’s first trial over investigative shortcomings, statements made to the grand jury and the handling of the now-disputed blood-spatter evidence.
Owen acknowledged SLED waited approximately three months to search the Murdaugh family’s Almeda property — even though investigators later theorized Murdaugh may have taken the murder weapons or other evidence there after the killings.
“That was an opportunity missed?” Griffin asked Owen during the trial.
“Probably, yes,” Owen replied.
Owen’s credibility faced renewed scrutiny last year in connection with the Michael Colucci murder case. Last spring, a circuit court judge quashed Colucci’s indictment after concluding potentially exculpatory evidence had not been properly disclosed — a development with obvious relevance to the defense’s latest demand for a comprehensive review of Brady material. Owen retired from active law enforcement in June 2024 after 28 years of service.
***
***
Questions have also emerged concerning former SLED senior special agent Ryan Kelly, who led the agency’s investigation into Murdaugh’s September 2021 roadside shooting.
Kelly testified during the 2023 murder trial about that investigation, including the evidence connecting Curtis “Eddie” Smith to the roadside incident. He also told jurors investigators had found “none whatsoever” connecting Smith to the murders of Maggie and Paul.
Kelly left SLED in 2025 and became the Charleston County Sheriff’s Office’s (CCSO) chief inspector of internal affairs. He was fired from that position on June 8, 2026, following an administrative investigation into allegations of harassment, conduct unbecoming, improper procedures and unsatisfactory performance.
Publicly available records did not describe the underlying conduct. Kelly’s termination has not been linked to anything he did while employed by SLED — and there is no indication the allegations involved any Murdaugh-related investigation. Whether those records contain admissible impeachment material remains a legal question for the court.
Still, Kelly’s termination illustrates exactly the type of post-trial development the defense’s supplemental motion appears designed to capture. The filing specifically seeks updated personnel files, internal-affairs records and pending or sustained misconduct findings involving any officer who participated in Murdaugh’s investigation, arrest or prosecution.
The motion does not name Owen or Kelly. Its language, however, is broad enough to encompass potentially favorable or impeachment information involving both former agents—assuming prosecutors intend to call them or information within their records bears materially on the State’s case.
***
RELATED | ATTORNEY CHALLENGES ‘OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE’
***
FORENSIC FIGHT INTENSIFIES
The filing is the latest indication that Murdaugh’s attorneys are working aggressively ahead of the second trial to rebut prosecutors’ characterization of the evidence against their client as “overwhelming.”
It follows a defense motion seeking independent scientific testing of potentially exculpatory DNA evidence collected from underneath Maggie Murdaugh’s fingernails.
According to Murdaugh’s attorneys, SLED determined that DNA recovered from beneath the fingernails of Maggie’s left hand belonged to an “unknown, unrelated male” — but conducted no further analysis capable of identifying that individual.
The defense wants the evidence sent to Othram, a national forensic laboratory capable of conducting single nucleotide polymorphism — or SNP — testing and forensic genetic genealogy analysis.
Murdaugh’s attorneys contend SLED’s preferred testing method could consume, degrade or exhaust the limited sample before Othram has an opportunity to analyze it.
“The state has articulated no scientific justification for its preferred testing sequence,” the defense argued in that filing.
Murdaugh’s lawyers also cited SLED’s handling of alleged blood spatter on the white T-shirt Murdaugh wore when law enforcement arrived at the murder scene.
Early in the investigation, sources familiar with the case believed high-velocity impact spatter on that shirt directly tied Murdaugh to the killings. By late 2022, however, the forensic foundation supporting that theory had fallen apart.
Testing conducted by SLED returned negative results for the presence of human blood on the stained areas of the shirt. Meanwhile, the shirt was rendered unavailable for additional testing following the application of Leuco Crystal Violet, a chemical agent used to enhance potential bloodstains.
In the DNA motion, Murdaugh’s attorneys accused SLED of suppressing exculpatory testing results and argued the agency’s handling of that evidence provided reason to question whether it was acting “in good faith” regarding the fingernail DNA.
The latest filing expands that scrutiny beyond a single DNA sample. It seeks updated information concerning virtually every part of the State’s case — from the credibility of its investigators and witnesses to the reliability of its forensic evidence.
***
NEXT STEPS
Murdaugh’s attorneys are asking McCaslin to order the state to complete its updated review and disclose the requested material within thirty (30) days.
The office of S.C. attorney general Alan Wilson — whose statewide grand jury division prosecuted the original case and is overseeing the retrial—has not yet filed a response to the motion.
Even with his murder convictions overturned, Murdaugh remains incarcerated after pleading guilty to dozens of state and federal financial crimes.
The next hearing in the murder case is scheduled for Friday, August 14, 2026, at the Lexington County courthouse.
***
THE MOTION…
***
ABOUT THE AUTHOR …
As a private investigator turned journalist, Jenn Wood brings a unique skill set to FITSNews as its research director. Known for her meticulous sourcing and victim-centered approach, she helps shape the newsroom’s most complex investigative stories while producing the FITSFiles and Cheer Incorporated podcasts. Jenn lives in South Carolina with her family, where her work continues to spotlight truth, accountability, and justice.
***
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.
