|
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…
Subscriber-only document
This PDF is available to FITSNews subscribers. Get full access and be able to view documents like this one.
Subscribe for accessAlready a subscriber? Log in here
***
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.
7 comments
I was not aware the defense could DEMAND anything, oh wait is it because it is Harpootlian?
Pooty Poot and Jimbo be grasping for straws!
I wonder how much they’re paying the “influencer” Crime and Cask (what a stupid name) for his efforts.
I preface and emphasize that I looked her up after I observed a WebEx PCR hearing where Judge Debra McCaslin asked the PCR applicant’s lawyer a question I cannot remember precisely but it probably had to do with whether that lawyer had procedurally preserved his request, then Judge McCaslin interrupted herself and said, in her raspy yet sweet voice, “It doesn’t matter; you would want me to do the right thing anyway.”
It felt like seeing a rare gem in a museum. Among judges who look for the most expedient “thing” to get a case over with, here is a rare one who looks for “the right thing” to do.
I looked up her SC JMSC testimony from 18 November 2019, and the part that both shocked me and made me realize that I do not have a chance for justice in this world of insiders through-and-through is the part ALL media ignored when reporting on Judge McCaslin’s assignment as the SC circuit judge for Alex Murdaugh’s possible second trial.
I write “possible” because the “right thing” for Judge McCaslin to do is, on her motion, to call me as a court expert to explain to her and to the world that MEDICALLY the shootings of Paul and Maggie Murdaugh COULD NOT HAVE HAPPENED as early as the Prosecution claimed.
But that would be giving ME credibility when SC’s judicial system is “unified” at discrediting, humiliating, and even killing me, because I have come to know too much about the nepotism, self-dealing, gossip-mongering, and sycophancy in that system.
And the expedient “thing” for Murdaugh’s defense is to portray Becky Hill as an isolated case and to portray SLED’s bungling the investigation as a rare blunder of an otherwise competent and ethical organization.
The truth is THE OPPOSITE: most clerks are LIKE Becky Hill in sensing that a litigant is disfavored by the system then working against him/her.
And SLED has NEVER been ethical or competent as many cases prior to Alex Murdaugh’s prove.
But Dick, Jim, and most (if not all, including Alex Murdaugh’s own paternal line) SC prosecutors before and after Dick and Jim enjoyed SLED’s corruption and incompetence to win easy convictions whether the criminal defendant had been guilty or innocent.
Rather than letting this comment get too long, I shall, God willing and FITS permitting, paste the eye-opening parts of the 18 November 2019 transcript of the proceedings before SC’s Judicial Merit Selection Commission (“SC JMSC”).
not everything on Fits news relates to you
Why not? In crowded, small South Carolina, the six degrees of separation may be down to three.
A new morning brings new hope FITS would let this transcript through excerpt through. I do not know why he hid the first time anyway. Anyone and every one can see it on SC JMSC’ website, realizing that Judge McCaslin then went by Chapman:
[Page 128, line 1] MR. STROM: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[Lines 2-3] CHAIRMAN SMITH: All right. Representative Rutherford, we’ll hear about your Salty Nut.
[Lines 4-11] MS. CHAPMAN: Well, the bad thing is, is that when we would go, it wasn’t like it was some big party. We were with judges, you know. I mean, like federal judges. And I do think that kind of tends to lead to some kind of jealousy. [lines 9-11] But Pete, I have to say those are some really sweet words. Thank you. Thank you. And for sharing my whole life history with all these people.
[Lines 12-15] REPRESENTATIVE RUTHERFORD: Mr. Chairman, thank you. I was a young lawyer in the solicitor’s office, and for the most part most of the lawyers that we dealt with were men.
[Line 16] MS. CHAPMAN: Yes.
[17 to page 130, line 1] REPRESENTATIVE RUTHERFORD: [lines 17-24] And to a great degree that’s still true. But back then Debbie was a standout. And I was one that went to Salty Nut, and it was to get acquainted on a very personal level with other people in the solicitor’s office, other defense attorneys, other judges, other people that were invited to be social and not just simply stand in front of one another and be adversaries. [line 25 to page 129, line 7] And I can tell you that being one of those people that was there, I learned a great deal. You were also one of the first lawyers that I had just met in the solicitor’s office, that I was invited to your house for several barbecues. And Judge Eppes used to come in town and we’d all go to your house, and it would be nothing but a chance for us to network and socialize and get to know and see other lawyers. [lines 8-13] And so standing at a podium, hearing the word Salty Nut can be daunting, but I assure you at the time I got a great deal out of it. And I’m forever grateful for what you did. And to a great degree try to emulate how you practiced law back then, with being social and getting to know people. [lines 14-19] I remember one of our clients, Della Mae Simmons. And Della Mae lived right around the corner from where I live now, and Della Mae was selling crack out of her house. And Debbie came to me on ten different occasions, trying to make sure that Della Mae could get the best sentence possible. [lines 20-25] So when I heard the “not being diligent” about your clients, I’m like you’ve never been on the other end of Debbie trying to get something for one of her clients. And, you know, I listened to you talk about the three lawyers, and the first two you were on a good track, and then you got to the third and then went off the rails. [page 130, line1] And please tell him I said that.
[Lines 2-3] MS. CHAPMAN: Well, I think this is public record.
[Lines 4-21] REPRESENTATIVE RUTHERFORD: [lines 4-15] But I mean, yeah, it just — you helped me get started when I went into private practice. A lot of people that — when I read some of the negative comments, I can see those people being in state court and seeing you operate, and not know how you are in Federal Court, and for lack of a better term, what a beast you are in Federal Court, that you’ve written all those appeals, that you’ve argued in front of the 4th Circuit, that you’ve done things that people that may work in the solicitor’s office have no idea the detail that it takes to be in Federal Court. Because there are not that many lawyers that practice in Federal Court. [lines 16-21] So I just want to commend you and say thank you for all that you’ve done, not just for me but for a bunch of lawyers starting off, teaching us how to do things, how to do them the right way, and showing us that there’s more to practicing law than just standing in front a judge and arguing. So thank you for that.
[Lines 22-23] MS. CHAPMAN: Thank you, Todd. Golly, y’all going to make me cry.
[Line 24] CHAIRMAN SMITH: Senator Rankin.
[Line 25] EXAMINATION BY SENATOR RANKIN:
[Page 131, lines 1-6] Q. Ms. Chapman, I don’t want to make you cry. But I’ll tell you what, you could not have a better — a better story told of you in terms of how you got to the law. And that by Pete Strom, that’s a beautiful story. And unexpected day at the grocery store becomes a law career, perhaps,
[Line 7] A. Absolutely. And I was 17 years old.
[Lines 8-12] Q. I’ve tried to find something other than all these accolades to talk about, and there’s nothing negative to talk about here. I’m curious, did you encourage your husband to retire from the DOT? Or did he do that of his own good —
[Lines 13-23] A. [lines 13-18] No, you can rest assured that he wanted to retire. And, you know, I’ve noticed waiting in the waiting room, everybody else’s husband was here. I really do have a husband. He just happens to be in Illinois, deer hunting. He goes every year for the big one.· And that’s where he is. [lines 19-23] And, you know, he did offer to fly back. I told him, no, I didn’t want him to do that. If I got through all of this, and I was lucky enough to be honored to be a judge, he certainly wouldn’t be sitting with me. So that’s where he is.
[Line 24] Q. What did he do at DOT?
[Line 25 to page 132, line 4] A. He’s a mechanical engineer. And he was there for 32 years. His name is Mike McCaslin. And he’s – you know, I got to tell you, now, he’s from Chapin. He’s my high school sweetheart and my first kiss. And that’s who I married. Pete was at my wedding.
[Line 5] Q. And you’re from Florida, originally?
[Lines 6-10] A. I was born in Florida. My father — my father’s Spanish, and he’s deceased now, that’s where he was born. When he married my mom, he came up here for school. She ·– they married and she moved to Florida with him. And there’s six of us.
[Line 11] Q. Where are you in that pecking order?
[Lines 12-13] A. I am the oldest daughter, born on my daddy’s birthday.
[Lines 14-15] SENATOR RANKIN: All right. That’s all I have. Thanks.
[Lines 16-17] CHAIRMAN SMITH: All right. Any further questions?
[Line 18] SENATOR YOUNG: Mr. Chairmain.
[Line 19] CHAIRMAN SMITH: Senator Young.
[Line 20] MS. CHAPMAN: Oh, no. Not Tom.
[Line 21 to page 133, line 13] SENATOR YOUNG: [lines 21-25] I’ve got a couple questions. But I first will need to put on the record, too, that I was working in the office with Ms. Chapman and Mr. Strom when I was a law clerk my third year of law school. And Mr. Harpootlian was in that office too. [page 133, lines 1-10] And I was a law clerk for all three of them. Primarily for Mr. Strom, but also for the other two doing different things, and learned a lot in that – I participated in a trial that Ms. Chapman and Senator Harpootlian tried with the state grand jury in McCormick, and learned a bunch in that trial, and learned a lot from all three of them in that office as a law clerk. And it had a big impact on me in my private — in my legal career. And I eventually went — got out of law school and ended up practicing with Pete for several years. [lines 11-13] But anyway, I wanted to put that on the record, that I had worked with Ms. Chapman when I was in law school.
[14-15] CHAIRMAN SMITH: Thank you. Any further questions?
[Line 16] (Hearing none.)
[Line 17 to page 134, line 16] CHAIRMAN SMITH: [lines 17-25] All right. Ms. Chapman, this will conclude this portion of our screening process. I want to take this opportunity to remind you, that pursuant to the Commission’s evaluative criteria, the Commission expects candidates to follow the spirit as well as the letter of the ethics law.· And we will view violations or the appearance of impropriety as serious and potentially deserving of heavy weight in screening deliberations. [page 134, lines 1-6] As you know, the record will remain open until the formal release of the report of qualifications, and you may be called back at such time if the need arises. I thank you for offering for this position and for your service to the State of South Carolina. And enjoy your five o’clock traffic back to Chapin —
[Line 7] MS. CHAPMAN: Absolutely.
[Line 8] CHAIRMAN SMITH: — through Malfunction Junction.
[Lines 10-11] MS. CHAPMAN: That is like an hour and a half, you understand. Chapin has grown so much.
[Lines 12-17] CHAIRMAN SMITH: Well, your former boss, Senator Harpootlian, is going to fix Malfunction Junction. And I do want to make an observation as I know that, that comment about you holding court at Salty Nut is no longer applicable, because Senator Harpootlian has shut down Five Points.
[Line 18] MS. CHAPMAN: Absolutely.
[Line 19] CHAIRMAN SMITH: That is not on the record.
[Lines 20-22] MS. CHAPMAN: Vice Chairman, can I just walk over there and just give Pete a hug? I hadn’t seen him in years.
[Line 23] (Candidate excused.)
The truth is finally, God willing, coming out in bits and pieces; but my moral authority is needed to improve the system.
Here is what I just wrote of FITS’ today’s WIR:
At minutes 32:23 to 33:35, you, Will and Jenn are, thank God, ALMOST coming around to what I have been saying and writing for years: Richard Alexandre Murdaugh (“RAM”) could NOT POSSIBLY have been THE or A shooter of Paul or Maggie Murdaugh.
But think of what you said next: RAM’s “actions precipitated what happened.”
Whatever RAM did, whether it was not paying his druggies or keeping the insurance fraud loot all to himself and not sharing it with his willing collaborators in the scheme, does it justify whoever shot Paul and Maggie to have taken their lives?
Justice for Paul and Maggie means finding the real shooter(s) and “cleaner(s).”
But PLEASE be careful with that “third gun” story. It raised my hopes up but worried me that your leaking it would give the anti-RAM forces time to spin it away before it gets validated.
PLEASE release all you know about that third gun. And do not worry about validating me because I have been writing for years that Maggie was shot with ONE OF Paul’s two previously stolen guns.
The truth should not be hidden for fear of validating the long-suffering and now-almost-dying Dr. Marie Faltas.