South Carolina circuit court Judge Heath Taylor issued an order on August 24 allowing the defamation action brought by Richard A. “Buster” Murdaugh Jr. to move forward. The case, originally filed in June 2024, targets Netflix, The Cinemart, Gannett and independent journalist Michael DeWitt for their role in the 2023 documentary Murdaugh Murders: A Southern Scandal.
Background of the lawsuit
Murdaugh alleges the documentary falsely linked him to the July 2015 death of 19‑year‑old Stephen Smith, a resident of Hampton County. While the case was briefly removed to federal court, U.S. District Judge Richard Gergel sent it back to state court for adjudication. The four defendants filed motions to dismiss in the spring of 2026, arguing that their coverage was protected by the fair‑reporting defense.
Judge’s findings
Judge Taylor rejected each dismissal argument. He concluded that Netflix and The Cinemart took “creative liberties” that went beyond straightforward reporting, selectively editing interviews with law‑enforcement officials, community members and media personnel to imply Murdaugh’s involvement. The judge noted that such “selective crafting” undermines a fair‑reporting defense.
Regarding Michael DeWitt, the judge found that his on‑screen appearance was intended to lend credibility to the documentary. DeWitt’s comments, the judge wrote, could be read by viewers as endorsing rumors that Murdaugh was responsible for Smith’s death, even though the rumors were never proven.
Public figure status and alleged malice
Taylor also addressed whether Murdaugh is a private or public figure for defamation purposes. While the determination remains pending, the judge observed that Murdaugh has “plausibly alleged malice and/or negligence” on the part of the defendants, satisfying a key element of a defamation claim.
Broader context
The lawsuit comes amid ongoing legal scrutiny of the Murdaugh family. Alex Murdaugh, Buster’s father, is currently on trial for the 2021 murders of his wife Maggie and younger son Paul. No charges have been filed in connection with Stephen Smith’s death.
The ruling underscores the tension between documentary filmmakers’ creative freedom and the rights of individuals to protect their reputations. It also highlights the importance of accurate, responsible reporting in a climate where rumors can quickly become perceived fact.
What’s next?
The case will now proceed to discovery, where both sides will gather evidence to support their positions. If the court ultimately finds that the documentary’s portrayal was defamatory, the defendants could face monetary damages and possibly an injunction against further distribution of the contested material.
South Carolina residents and observers of the high‑profile Murdaugh saga will be watching closely as the legal battle unfolds, a reminder that even widely viewed media productions must respect the constitutional right to a fair reputation.
Original reporting: FITSNews — read the source article.
