|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
by JENN WOOD
***
It took less than 48 hours for one of the first legal skirmishes of Alex Murdaugh‘s retrial to flare up — and fizzle out.
Last week, Murdaugh’s attorneys asked newly appointed South Carolina circuit court judge Debra McCaslin to let the convicted financial fraudster and accused double murderer appear at his second murder trial and televised pretrial hearings in civilian clothing and without visible shackles, arguing there was no individualized security concern justifying restraints.
By Thursday afternoon (June 25, 2026), after a sharply worded response from the South Carolina attorney general’s office, the defense withdrew the motion altogether.
In between, prosecutors declared Murdaugh wasn’t “special,” defense attorneys accused the state of engaging in “histrionics,” and both sides managed to transform what is ordinarily a routine procedural issue into one of the first spirited exchanges ahead of the most anticipated retrial in South Carolina history.
The original defense motion largely mirrored one filed before Murdaugh’s first murder trial in 2023.
Attorneys Dick Harpootlian, Jim Griffin, Phil Barber and Maggie Fox argued the U.S. supreme court has long prohibited defendants from appearing before jurors in visible restraints absent a specific security need. They maintained Murdaugh has never attempted to escape, threatened courtroom personnel or engaged in disruptive conduct that would justify shackling him in front of prospective jurors or television cameras.
The motion also argued that because televised pretrial hearings are widely viewed — including by potential jurors — allowing Murdaugh to appear in prison garb and restraints could undermine the presumption of innocence before jury selection even begins.
***
‘HE IS NOT SPECIAL’
Chief prosecutor Creighton Waters wasn’t persuaded.
In a six-page response (.pdf) filed Wednesday, the lead prosecutor on the case reminded the court that Murdaugh is not merely a pretrial detainee awaiting trial. He is currently serving a 27-year state prison sentence for financial crimes alongside a concurrent 40-year federal sentence.
While acknowledging the legal analysis changes once a jury is seated, prosecutors argued no such concerns existed during a non-jury scheduling conference.
They also deferred to the S.C. Department of Corrections (SCDC), which maintains inmates should ordinarily remain in restraints and prison attire during court appearances, noting that becoming unrestrained and changing into civilian clothing are “the first two steps of any escape attempt.”
The filing further pointed to disciplinary issues while Murdaugh has been incarcerated, including a contraband incident involving a book during his first trial and subsequent prison disciplinary sanctions.
Then came the line likely to draw the most attention.
“This case is ultimately about the fact that (the) defendant thinks he is special,” prosecutors wrote. “He is not.”
***
RELATED | MURDAUGH HEADED BACK TO COURT
***
DEFENSE FIRES BACK…
The defense answered with a pointed reply (.pdf) of its own, calling the state’s filing “without merit.”
Murdaugh’s defense team further accused prosecutors of resorting to rhetoric instead of legal analysis – and argued the state had failed to identify any individualized security concern that would justify displaying Murdaugh in shackles before prospective jurors.
The attorneys also reminded the court that former circuit court judge Clifton Newman granted essentially the same request prior to Murdaugh’s first trial without any objection from the state.
Then came perhaps the sharpest jab of the filing. Responding to what they characterized as prosecutors’ “ad hominem rhetoric,” the defense compared prosecutors’ current arguments to their early dismissal of allegations against former Colleton County clerk of court Rebecca “Becky” Hill.
“The state’s ad hominem rhetoric recalls (its) initial response to former Clerk of Court Rebecca Hill’s misconduct at the first trial,” the filing stated. “Five justices of our Supreme Court apparently found it plausible.”
After defending the motion for three pages, however, Murdaugh’s attorneys abruptly changed course.
Rather than asking McCaslin to decide the issue during Monday’s scheduling conference, they withdrew the request altogether.
“Mr. Murdaugh will not waste the court’s time at the upcoming status conference arguing about the optics of the status conference,” the filing concluded.
Instead, the defense said it would rather focus on what it described as more substantive issues expected to arise before retrial, including recently filed motions seeking additional DNA testing, expanded access to case materials and a change of venue.
***
RELATED | FLURRY OF MURDAUGH MOTIONS FILED
***
THE FIRST OF MANY?
In the grand scheme of the retrial, the shackling dispute is likely to prove insignificant.
But the exchange offered an early preview of what is almost certain to define the months ahead.
The same lawyers who battled through six weeks of testimony in Walterboro three years ago are once again trading punches — this time against the backdrop of a South Carolina supreme court decision that sharply criticized the conduct of Murdaugh’s first trial and ordered the case back for a do-over.
If the opening round is any indication, neither side intends to ease into the rematch.
***
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.
