Attorneys for former attorney Alex Murdaugh filed a motion on September 18, 2026 asking Sumter County Circuit Court Judge Debra McCaslin to order the South Carolina Law Enforcement Division (SLED) to turn over additional forensic evidence. The request comes as the state prepares for Murdaugh’s murder retrial, now scheduled for April 2027.
DNA evidence under scrutiny
The defense wants access to raw DNA data and additional samples from the fingernail clippings of Murdaugh’s wife, Maggie, and from her cellphone. Othram, an independent laboratory, measured four samples from Maggie’s fingernails and reported only “extremely low” levels of male DNA in the extracts, with none detectable in reserve samples. SLED’s original reports showed a small amount of Y‑chromosome material in both hands, but the agency attributed the right‑hand profile to Maggie and listed an unidentified contributor for the left hand.
Murdaugh’s lawyers argue that SLED’s dilution of the samples before analysis may explain the discrepancy and that further testing could clarify the source of the male DNA. They also seek records documenting SLED’s decision‑making process for the tests it performed.
Ballistics evidence and .300 Blackout ammunition
The motion also targets the .300 Blackout cartridge cases recovered near Maggie Murdaugh’s body. At the original trial, prosecutors suggested a missing family rifle was the murder weapon, citing the cartridge cases as evidence. The defense points to testimony from SLED agent Jeff Croft, who said .300 Blackout weapons were “just not that common” at the time.
Senior Assistant Deputy Attorney General Creighton Waters countered that SLED’s database had logged 720 .300 Blackout cases since January 2021, indicating the ammunition is more prevalent than the defense suggests. The defense wants the agency’s records to assess whether Croft’s statement was accurate and to compare the Moselle cases with cartridge cases from the April 2026 killing of Frank Alexander Brown III and two other Allendale shootings.
Prosecutors oppose releasing those additional cartridge cases, noting no ballistic link has been found and raising concerns about chain‑of‑custody issues.
Request for raw 3‑D scan files
Finally, the defense seeks the native files from SLED’s three‑dimensional FARO scan of the Islandton crime scene. While the attorneys received a viewable export, they say the underlying data is necessary for independent reconstruction of the scene, especially since the area near the dog kennels where the murders occurred has been demolished.
The motion asks the court to order production of the raw scan files within ten days or to require the state to explain in writing if the files have been lost or destroyed.
State’s response
In a September 17 letter attached to the motion, Waters emphasized the limited amount of DNA present in the samples and described further testing as “high risk” with little chance of yielding usable results. He also questioned the defense’s proposed testing methods, including the potential combination of samples and the impact on remaining material for SLED.
Waters noted that approximately one‑quarter of each phone swab and about 10 microliters of extract remain, and that SLED’s electropherograms can be shared with the defense.
Next steps
The court’s decision on the motion will determine whether the defense can pursue additional forensic analysis before the retrial begins. Both sides agree that the evidence could be exhausted quickly, making the timing of any further testing critical.
Original reporting: FITSNews — read the source article.
