South Carolina Circuit Court Judge Debra McCaslin on Friday, Nov. 13, placed Alex Murdaugh’s request to dismiss his murder indictments under advisement. She said a written ruling is expected by Nov. 20 and asked whether prosecutors could reconvene a grand jury while still meeting the April 5, 2027 retrial deadline.
Defense and prosecution arguments
Defense attorney Jim Griffin noted the Colleton County grand jury is slated to meet Dec. 10. The defense seeks dismissal without prejudice, which would permit prosecutors to seek new indictments. The original indictments remain in force, and jury selection is still set for April 5 in Sumter County.
Griffin argued that former S.C. Law Enforcement Division (SLED) agent David Owen presented two false forensic links to the grand jurors in July 2022: alleged blood spatter from Murdaugh’s son on his shirt and the claim that shotguns recovered at Moselle were loaded the same way as the shotgun used in the killing.
Prosecutor response
Lead prosecutor Creighton Waters defended the spatter analysis, acknowledged some imprecision in the ammunition testimony, and maintained that the challenged statements did not substantially influence the decision to indict.
Background on the case
Murdaugh was convicted in early 2023 of the June 7, 2021 murders of his wife, 52‑year‑old Maggie Murdaugh, and his 22‑year‑old son, Paul Murdaugh. The South Carolina Supreme Court later reversed those convictions, citing numerous trial‑conduct issues, including alleged jury tampering.
Judge McCaslin previously moved the retrial to Sumter County after concluding Murdaugh could no longer receive a fair trial in Colleton County.
Forensic evidence under scrutiny
In August 2021, SLED conducted a confirmatory test on 12 cuttings from the white T‑shirt Murdaugh wore when he reported finding the bodies. The lab’s Nov. 10, 2021 report recorded “No human blood identified,” although earlier screening had suggested possible blood.
SLED hired Oklahoma blood‑stain‑pattern analyst Tom Bevel, who initially said the stains were consistent with transfers from a bloodied surface. After reviewing additional photographs, Bevel’s March 29, 2022 report identified more than 100 stains he considered spatter, a conclusion reached before the November lab report.
Waters said Owen first saw Bevel’s report on Nov. 30, 2022, months after the indictments. Griffin called the delay “reckless.” Waters noted that Bevel stood by his opinion after testing showed the chemical used to screen the shirt could produce false negatives.
Regarding DNA, Waters pointed to Paul’s DNA found elsewhere on the shirt and said testing was inconclusive on whether Paul contributed DNA to two upper‑shirt samples. Griffin argued the inconclusive results gave Owen no basis to tell grand jurors that Paul’s DNA was identified in the alleged spatter.
Shotgun ammunition dispute
Griffin highlighted that the only witness listed on the indictments was Owen, and without a grand‑jury transcript the defense relied on Owen’s written narrative. He claimed none of the recovered shotguns contained the combination of buckshot and steel birdshot used to kill Paul.
Waters countered that the Benelli shotgun Murdaugh carried contained buckshot and a different type of birdshot, and that ammunition of the same types was found elsewhere at Moselle, supporting the broader point of mixed loads at the property.
Legal standard and next steps
Both sides cited the South Carolina Supreme Court’s 1994 State v. Thrift decision, asking whether any misconduct substantially influenced the indictment decision or left grave doubt about its independence. McCaslin reminded the defense that the burden is high.
Waters also referenced video from Paul’s phone capturing Murdaugh’s voice at the kennels minutes before the murders, as well as cellphone and vehicle data, missing firearms, and .300 Blackout casings linking the crime scenes.
Griffin argued the video placed Murdaugh at the kennels before the shootings, making the spatter claim especially likely to influence the grand jury.
Judge McCaslin scheduled the next pre‑trial hearing for Jan. 20, 2027, and instructed the parties to prepare a prospective juror questionnaire for distribution ahead of the April jury selection.
Original reporting: FITSNews — read the source article.
