Dick Harpootlian: My Plan to Overturn Alex Murdaugh’s Conviction

Summary

Crime & Justice with Donna Rotunno

Episode: Dick Harpootlian: My Plan to Overturn Alex Murdaugh’s Conviction

Date: March 19, 2026
Host: Donna Rotunno
Guest: Dick Harpootlian (Defense Attorney for Alex Murdaugh)

---

Episode Overview

In this episode, renowned criminal defense attorney Donna Rotunno interviews Dick Harpootlian, the leading attorney for Alex Murdaugh. The discussion centers on Harpootlian’s strategy and perspective regarding Murdaugh’s conviction for the murder of his wife and son. They break down the appeal process, focusing especially on evidence involving court clerk misconduct and the controversial inclusion of Murdaugh’s financial crimes, which could potentially lead to a new trial. The episode reveals insider details on the legal issues underpinning one of America’s most watched legal sagas.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Dick Harpootlian’s Connection to the Murdaugh Family

[01:06 – 03:24]

• Harpootlian recounts his long-standing professional relationship with the Murdaugh family spanning decades.
• He had known the family since 1975 via prosecutorial and legal circles in South Carolina.
• His involvement started when Paul Murdaugh was charged in the infamous "boat case," leading to his later defense of Alex Murdaugh after the murder charges.

“I've known the family since 1975.” — Dick Harpootlian [03:19]

2. Personal Dynamics and Defending the Murdaughs

[03:24 – 05:25]

• Harpootlian clarifies he was not a close personal friend with Alex, Maggie, or Paul before representation, minimizing concerns about bias.
• Reflects on the close relationship he observed between Alex and his son Paul, casting doubt on prosecution theories.
• Stresses the emotional impact and unique pressures that come with defending high-profile clients with whom a lawyer has a deep knowledge of their backgrounds.

“The chemistry, especially between Alec and Paul, was more than father and son. They were almost like brothers or best friends.” — Dick Harpootlian [04:33]

3. Community Dynamics and Juror Selection

[07:03 – 09:05]

• The community was divided due to the Murdaughs’ wealth and power, with some resenting them—a factor Harpootlian’s team considered in jury selection.
• Harpootlian describes his broader reputation as a lawyer in both criminal and civil law, and the challenges any prominent defense attorney faces in such charged cases.
• Both Harpootlian and Rotunno reflect on public and personal backlash received for defending controversial clients.

“I got one morning I woke up and looked at my emails. It says, you are a worthless son of a bitch. I hope you die of ass cancer.” — Dick Harpootlian [09:13]

4. Broader Ethical and Constitutional Principles

[09:38 – 11:39]

• Both lawyers express pride in fulfilling the role of defense attorney, referencing historical examples like John Adams and Abraham Lincoln.
• Discuss the fundamental constitutional right to a fair trial and the necessity of zealous defense regardless of public opinion.

“None of it means anything if you don't enforce that right to a fair trial, the Sixth Amendment.” — Dick Harpootlian [11:20]

5. The Appeal: Central Arguments

[11:39 – 16:32]

• Two main issues on appeal:
  • The introduction of Murdaugh’s financial crimes: Harpootlian asserts these were used far beyond establishing motive, prejudicing the jury.
  • Misconduct by court clerk Becky Hill: She allegedly made prejudicial remarks to jurors and was motivated by book sales, undermining the fairness of the trial.

“She was also telling her co clerks that she was writing a book and a guilty verdict would sell more books and that a guilty verdict would sell more books, which would allow her to buy a lake house that she wanted.” — Dick Harpootlian [13:36]

• Argues that both these issues fundamentally compromised Alex Murdaugh’s right to a fair trial.

6. The Scope and Impact of Clerk Misconduct

[13:21 – 14:28; 20:12 – 24:53]

• Harpootlian’s team personally interviewed jurors, uncovering that the clerk not only communicated inappropriate messages but was financially motivated.
• Becky Hill’s statements are uncontradicted, aside from her own denials—which are undermined by her conviction for perjury.
• State and federal law typically presume prejudice when a court official improperly influences a jury.

“Once they learned all this and saw that Toll had made such a big, heinous error in her ruling… the right thing to do would have been to just say he ought to get a new trial. That’s what good prosecutors do.” — Dick Harpootlian [23:26]

7. Judicial Attitudes and Appeal Hearing Dynamics

[21:10 – 24:53]

• Rotunno queries how Harpootlian gauged the justices’ attitudes during appeal.
• Harpootlian describes the justices as focused on the legal standards of prejudice and fair trial, grilling the state for answers.
• He expresses confidence in the court’s willingness to critically address court official misconduct and protect the integrity of the justice system.

8. Predictions and Potential Outcomes

[27:08 – 28:57]

• Harpootlian anticipates a relatively quick appellate decision due to the strong factual and legal basis for a new trial.
• Explains “the Egg Lady” juror controversy—she was possibly removed unfairly due to clerk intervention, another point of concern picked up by the justices.

9. If There’s a New Trial: Harpootlian’s Role and Strategy

[29:40 – 31:13]

• Harpootlian confirms he will try the case again if a new trial is granted, despite financial constraints.
• He remains tight-lipped on any new strategies for handling crucial evidence, such as the video on Paul’s phone.

10. Background on Court Clerk Becky Hill

[31:24 – 32:52]

• Harpootlian knew of Hill’s background but had no reason to suspect her impartiality—or her overt actions during the trial.
• Raises disturbing facts about her lobbying to have her own daughter seated on the jury.

“She was so nice and so accommodating... In the moment, it seems silly. But now that you know everything, you know, it seems sinister, a little more ominous than it did at the time.” — Donna Rotunno & Dick Harpootlian [32:49]

11. Alex Murdaugh’s Life in Prison and Hopes

[33:17 – 36:10]

• Murdaugh is adapting to life in prison, assisting fellow inmates due to his legal background, and is deeply involved in his own appellate process.
• Despite his murder conviction, Harpootlian is blunt that Murdaugh’s financial crimes mean he’ll likely spend most or all of his life in prison, regardless of the murder case’s outcome.

12. Challenges of Picking a Jury and Systemic Reflections

[36:27 – 39:29]

• Jury selection will be challenging in any retrial due to notoriety and public opinion.
• Harpootlian promotes his new book "Dig Me a Grave" and discusses prior experiences with infamous defendants and the complicated realities of assembling an impartial jury.

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• “I can't imagine any circumstance in which Alex Murdaugh would press a shotgun to the skull of Paul, pull the trigger, and literally blow his head off. This brain flew up, hit the ceiling, and came back down on the floor.” — Dick Harpootlian [04:02]
• “People forget… the second president of the United States, John Adams, represented the British soldiers at the Boston Massacre.” — Dick Harpootlian [10:03]
• “She was writing a book… a guilty verdict would sell more books… which would allow her to buy a lake house.” — Dick Harpootlian [13:36]
• “None of it means anything if you don't enforce that right to a fair trial, the Sixth Amendment.” — Dick Harpootlian [11:20]
• “I think you're right, 100% right… The job as a prosecutor is to seek justice. It is not to win at all costs.” — Donna Rotunno [17:38]
• “I've never again been doing this 50 years. I've never seen anything that would hint that a clerk of court was helping one side or the other.” — Dick Harpootlian [33:04]

---

Key Timestamps

• 00:30 – 01:06: Setup and how Harpootlian became involved in the case
• 03:24 – 05:25: The Murdaugh family dynamic and Harpootlian’s observations
• 07:27 – 09:05: Public backlash, community split, and juror selection
• 11:39 – 16:32: Major appellate issues — financial crimes & clerk misconduct
• 20:12 – 24:53: Appellate hearing and justices’ response to clerk issue
• 27:08 – 29:40: Timeline prediction for appellate decision
• 33:17 – 36:10: Murdaugh’s life in prison and future prospects
• 36:46 – 39:29: Jury selection for retrial; Harpootlian’s serial killer case

---

Episode Tone

• Engaged, candid, and direct.
• Harpootlian is matter-of-fact, passionate about constitutional rights, and shows flashes of dark humor (especially regarding internet hate mail).
• Rotunno remains incisive, supportive, and openly empathizes with legal and ethical burdens of high-profile criminal defense work.

---

Final Thoughts

This episode pulls back the curtain on both the Murdaugh case's legal complexities and the personal, ethical stakes for defense attorneys. Harpootlian’s detailed explanations, coupled with Rotunno’s pointed questions, provide listeners a rare view into how appeals and allegations of courtroom misconduct might overturn one of America’s most notorious recent convictions. The legal stakes, personal narratives, and broader implications for the justice system make this a must-listen for anyone interested in true crime, constitutional law, or the practice of defense.

Transcript

[Donna Ruttuno]

Your planet is now marked for death.

[Narrator/Announcer]

Marvel Studios the Fantastic Four First Steps is now streaming on Disney.

[Dick Harpootlian]

We will protect you as a family. Light em up.

[Narrator/Announcer]

Johnny Marvel's First Family is certified fresh on Rotten Tomatoes.

[Dick Harpootlian]

That is fantastic.

[Narrator/Announcer]

And critics say it's one of the best superhero movies of all time. Marvel Studios the Fantastic Four first steps now streaming on Disney. Rated PG 13.

[Dick Harpootlian]

What time is it, Ben? It's Clobber Dawe.

[Donna Ruttuno]

This is crime and justice. I'm Donna Ruttuno. The Alex Murdaugh case may not be over after all.

[Dick Harpootlian]

I can't imagine any circumstance in which Alex Murdaugh would press a shotgun to the skull of Paul, pull the trigger.

[Donna Ruttuno]

Listen as we talk to his lawyer, Dick Harpoutlian, to find out if a new trial may be coming. First, let me ask you this, Dick. How did you end up being hired by Alec Murdoch? How did you get involved in his case?

[Dick Harpootlian]

Let me give you a short version of a very long story. I was a deputy DA here for eight years here in Columbia, South Carolina, in this circuit. I left, went into private practice and then I got elected. I ran when my boss retired. I ran for DA and got elected when I was the assistant or the deputy da. Alex's grandfather, Buster Murdaugh, was the DA in that part of the state. And his father before him had been the DA down there. So I got to know Alex's grandfather and had a wonderful relationship with him. When he retired, his son Randolph became the da. And when I was the DA here, Randolph was the DA in that part again in that circuit. And he and I had a great relationship and would see each other at least once a month or so. And when Paul, that would be Alex's son, was arrested on the boat, what we call the boat case, the case in which young girl was killed while he was allegedly driving a boat, allegedly drunk, his father Alec called his father Randolph and said, we need to get the best. I mean, I'm saying this thinking I am the best.

[Donna Ruttuno]

But no, for sure, yes.

[Dick Harpootlian]

And Randolph said, hire Dick Harpoo in. So he did. And I got Jim Griffin, a guy I do a bunch of cases with over the years, Abdon. And we were representing Paul when for over a year, meeting. And by the way, Maggie and Paul and Alec were in my office once every two weeks at least. And we met with them. I've been went down to Moselle several times. Jim went fishing with Paul, for instance. So we got to know them pretty well. And then when Alec got charged with the murders, you know, Paul was no longer Our client, we undertook his representation at his request. So it's sort of a chain reaction. I've known the family since 1975.

[Donna Ruttuno]

Well, it's always different as lawyers when we have more knowledge of our clients, their lives and their backgrounds than we would for somebody that just walks in our office and wants to hire us or picks up the phone and says, you know, I've watched your work and I would like you to represent me. It's much different when you have such an intimate understanding of the family and the dynamic. And I think it helps, but I think it also puts more pressure on us as lawyers.

[Dick Harpootlian]

Well, that's why I typically don't represent friends or relatives, because, sure, I don't want. I don't want my judgment in any way affected by my relationship with the client. So now I say we were friends. I'd never met Alec or Paul or Maggie before I got hired. I did know Randolph really well, but I did not. I'd never met Alec. So while I had a good relationship with the family, I really didn't know Alec. And I didn't get to know Maggie and Paul until the boat case. And then, of course, I knew Alec, but we weren't best friends or anything. I used to see him in my office on the case. But one of the things that motivated me on the murder case is I'd seen multiple times Paul and Maggie and Alec together. And the chemistry, especially between Alec and Paul, was more than father and son. They were almost like brothers or best friends. I mean, it was. I can't imagine any circumstance in which Alec Murdaugh would press a shotgun to the skull of Paul, pull the trigger, and literally blow his head off. This brain flew up, hit the ceiling, and came back down on the floor. I just can't. You know, he might get angry at Paul and do something, but this was an assassination. This was an execution.

[Donna Ruttuno]

Yeah, it's really. The facts of this case were really something, and I know that just captivated the world. Everybody watched what was going on here. And I know you and I talked a little bit before we jumped on about the fact that this area of South Carolina is probably one of the reasons that so many people were captivated. I also think that the way the family history was ingrained into this area, I think made it very fascinating to watch.

[Dick Harpootlian]

Well, for one of you, one of the sort of not key moments, interesting moments in the trial was when the judge had to order the portrait of Alex grandfather, who was the DA in that county for 40 years, removed from the wall of the courtroom. I mean, it sort of spoke volumes about their family's relationship. And by the way, his grandfather's father was the DA there for like 30 years. So that family for over 100 years had been the prosecutors in that county or counties. So that's sort of different than most other places in the country. And it's a very insulated area culturally and socially. It's not a huge population, except for Beaufort county, where Hilton Head is. But Hilton Head's a recent phenomenon. I mean, that's 30 or 40 years old. But before places like Hilton Head, it was still, you know, tomato farms out on barrier islands. I mean, it was very, very, very agricultural and rural.

[Donna Ruttuno]

Dick, let me ask you, given the fact that this family was so well known and so much a part of this county and this community, how did the community respond to you? Was there a lot of division between the people who were supporting him versus those who weren't? But how did that translate to you as somebody who's obviously been known in that area as well?

[Dick Harpootlian]

Well, I think the community was divided because they were so rich and so powerful. There was a bunch of folks that resented them, and we tried to weed them out from the jury. I think we did a pretty good job of that. In terms of me, you know, not only have I been a defense attorney, I was a da. I actually have a new book out on death penalty case, a serial killer I prosecuted. So I've been known on both sides. And I do a lot of civil work too. So I wasn't this, you know, cause lawyer on murder cases there, you know, we have lawyers that just go around defend death penalty cases or lawyers who feel like the only thing they could ever do would be defend somebody. And I think it's important. But I'm a lawyer. You know, I defend people. I prosecuted people. I've done many, many civil cases. I don't think I've ever defended an insurance company or a child molester. But that's sort of where I draw the line.

[Donna Ruttuno]

Well, and. But that's the point, right? That's what we do. And we know that as lawyers, we know that you have to represent people because that is part of the job. And sometimes you believe in their innocence and sometimes you don't, and it doesn't matter. You do the work. But I'm a former prosecutor, I'm a defense attorney, and I got death threats galore when I represented Harvey Weinstein because were so many people who couldn't believe that a woman would represent Harvey. And so, you know, Here, I think in a small community where you do have this polarization in the way people felt about the family, I'm glad that you didn't receive the vitriol like I had experienced.

[Dick Harpootlian]

Well, you know, Harvey Weinstein is a category of his own. Bravo for you. But during the trial, and we never anticipated in a million years the kind of coverage this got and the attention it got, but, you know, we were getting emails every day from people that nobody, I think, ever said bravo. I got. I remember one I got one morning I woke up and looked at my emails. It says, you are a worthless son of a bitch. I hope you die of ass cancer.

[Donna Ruttuno]

There you go.

[Dick Harpootlian]

I was going, whoa.

[Donna Ruttuno]

Yeah, well, there you go.

[Dick Harpootlian]

What have I done to this guy that he wishes. Not just cancer. Ass cancer. I mean, that's. I just. But. But you. I mean, I'm sure you were subjected to the same sort of derision. Of course, these anonymous emails and. And whatever. But, you know, it's. People forget. I'm gonna say this wherever I give lots of talks. I've been out on a book tour where I get asked this question, how can you represent somebody like Alec Murdoch or Harvey Weinstein? And I remind them that the second president of the United States, John Adams, represented the British soldiers at the Boston Massacre, where demonstrating colonial activists were actually massacred by six British soldiers who were all indicted. He was their defense lawyer. Four were acquitted, two got reduced sentences, and then he was elected President of the United States. People understood that he is a lawyer. He has taken an oath to represent people. There's a great book Dan Abrams has called the Last Trial of Abraham Lincoln, and it's about Lincoln's defending a murder case. He defended 22 murder cases. And within a year of finishing that murder case, his last one, he was elected President of the United States.

[Donna Ruttuno]

He.

[Dick Harpootlian]

There was a better understanding of the. I think back then of the Constitution and the responsibilities that go with that Constitution. You know, you got a First Amendment right, a Second Amendment right. None of it means anything if you don't enforce that right to a fair trial, the Sixth Amendment. So it's just, you know, it's basic high school civics, but there's a bunch of folks out there that are. That either are too juvenile to understand or. Or don't get the fact there's a responsibility that goes with that constitutional right they have.

[Donna Ruttuno]

Absolutely. And you bringing that up is really the main reason I wanted to talk about this on this podcast is because this case, obviously, everyone knows Alec was found guilty of murdering his wife and his son. But now the case is up on appeal. And the main issues here on appeal are really twofold. One has to do with the financial issues, and I'll let you explain that to everybody. In terms of the fact that it's one thing to bring up financial issues as. As a motive to kill, but it's another thing to turn those financial issues into a trial in and of themselves. And I think that that's what happened here. I also think that the issue regarding the clerk in this case, Becky Hill, this, to me, is one of the most egregious things that I have seen happen from court staff in a case that. That I can remember. And just so everybody who's listening and watching understands, the court clerk in the room sat next to the judge every day. And before Alex testified, she talked to the jurors in the back, said, pay close attention to him. Don't believe him. Gave these jurors all of this information to think about, I guess you can say. And as really an officer of the court, because that's really what she is as she's sitting there and as somebody with authority in that courtroom, for. For her to have any communication with the jury about the case is just absolutely ridiculous and wrong. But I think it really did affect his right to get a fair trial. And to me, he should get a new trial. And so talk to me a little bit about this appeal process, why you think he should get a new trial, and I'm gonna ask you some questions about that.

[Dick Harpootlian]

Well, I'm sort of. You know, I'm proud of the job we did in the trial under extraordinarily adverse circumstances. But I'm prouder of the fact that once we heard that the clerk of court had been talking to the jury, we got Jim Griffin and I and Phil Barber and Holly Miller, my administrative assistant, all got in the car, and we rode around every one of those jurors houses in rural Carleton County, South Carolina, down dirt roads into the swamps, and interviewed them. And what came out of those interviews was that Becky Hill had said things to the jurors, especially on the day that Alec testified, in so many words, telling them not to believe him, not to believe his lawyers. And she was also telling her co clerks that she was writing a book and a guilty verdict would sell more books and that a guilty verdict would sell more books, which would allow her to buy a lake house that she wanted. I mean, it was very specific. She was motivated by money.

[Donna Ruttuno]

Unbelievable.

[Dick Harpootlian]

And she clearly was saying things that are prohibited by law. And once we found that out, we filed the motion for a new trial. We had a hearing in which the jurors testified to everything we had said they were going to say. Now, that judge ruled that not only did we have to show she said those inappropriate things, but we had to show that it affected their verdict, which, and I won't bore you with the technical 606 arguments, but you can't ask a juror how you, why you came to a verdict. It's prohibited by the rules, it's presumed, it has an impact and it's up to the state to show somehow it didn't. But then she further went on to rule that then we had to show by beyond a reasonable doubt it had an effect, which is wrong. And I think under federal law and state law. So I'm not confident, I would never say I'm confident in the outcome of appeal if you've done as many as I have, of course, and you have, you understand, you're probably black catting yourself by saying you even feel optimistic, but I feel pretty good about it. And then the second issue is the financial crimes. The state argued that he knew he was about to be discovered for stealing all this money, which, by the way, he pled guilty to and was always willing to plead guilty to. And so he went home and killed his wife and child to distract from that. It's the most ridiculous argument I have ever heard. But the judge allowed them not only to get in that he stole X million, $3 million from so and so, but that the victim was mentally disabled or the victim was physically disabled or was widowed or, you know, and, and, and painted all that. So by the time they got done with the financial crimes, he was the most heinous criminal in the world. Any lack of evidence.

[Donna Ruttuno]

Yeah, which, which really shouldn't be, it shouldn't be relevant. It shouldn't be relevant in a murder case where they're not having to determine. Yeah. Those issues.

[Dick Harpootlian]

Right. I mean, not only was it not relevant, it was done in such a way that the jurors, even if they wanted to be fair, were so prejudiced by, you know, the mentally disabled kid testifying that, you know, he hadn't been able to buy groceries because he didn't have money. I mean, it was way over the top. And the chief justice, during the arguments raised the issues, and one other justice did too, that why did you need to put that in if it was only about motive? Why didn't you just, you took, you know, nine days to do it. Why couldn't you do it in two hours. He stole this money. He stole this money. He stole this money. He stole this money. Who, who he stole it from. And the impact on their lives is not relevant to proving motive. And that's the only argument they had to get to make it relevant. And I agree with you. I don't think it was relevant to begin with. Join FOX in supporting our troops from daily needs to global emergencies. Help us be there for those who serve. Visit go.ffox red Cross to donate to service to the armed forces today.

[Donna Ruttuno]

Yeah, you know, it's interesting and I find this to be true in cases that have more notoriety, more eyes watching. It seems to me that the prosecutors don't think about what justice really looks like. They think about this win at all costs. And I think when you have this win at all cost mentality, you end up putting in evidence that is either more prejudice prejudicial than probative evidence that isn't relevant. And you roll the dice. And if you have a judge that's friendly to you letting all this information in, you're not thinking about what that looks like on the back end. And really your job as a prosecutor is to, is to seek justice. It is not to win at all costs. And I find that in these cases where the media's eyes are watching, it really becomes these win at all cost prosecutions. And then look what happens. Potentially this is to be overturned. It happened in Weinstein too. It's like they wanted to put too many proof of other crimes victims up there to talk about all the horrible things he did. And it was just, it was overkill.

[Dick Harpootlian]

Well, I think you're right, 100% right. And you were a prosecutor. I was a prosecutor when I was the da. You know, I sit down with an assistant and say they come up with some argument about four, what we call 404, which is similar crimes. And of course there's 403 which says, you know, the prejudice can't outweigh the probative. And so I want them to do that as an honest assessment and if it's close, don't use it. I mean, I can't think of a. I only had one case in my four years as DA that got reversed because, you know, we went to pains to make sure we had solid evidence. And by the way, these were days just, we had just gotten DNA and there was no automatic fingerprint analysis. It was the stone age. So you had to really develop a case based on documents, witnesses, old fashioned stuff. And you don't coach the cops, you don't lose evidence, you don't hold stuff back. I mean, I get so angry when I see it now on the defense side, where a prosecutor comes up with something in a post conviction relief or habeas that the defendant didn't have at the trial, oh, we just found it. I mean, those guys need to be disbarred. Yeah, there's nothing worse.

[Donna Ruttuno]

Yeah, I agree with you. And that's what bothers me most about what happened here with this Becky Hill. To me, it's bigger than Alex Murdaugh. This is about our system of justice. And the system of justice has to be something that people can rely on and that people are not, you know, questioning and that you can say, look, the system's not perfect, but a fair trial should happen. And so to me, this is, this says something bigger. It says something to any, any criminal defendant dealing with a case or on trial. So when you sat in the room and you were questioned and you listened to the questions asked to the government and the questions asked to the defense side of the justices that are going to determine what happens here in this next phase of Alex case, how did you feel it was going based on the types of questions they were asking you? What were they most concerned about?

[Dick Harpootlian]

Well, let me say this. We, as you know, you've done appeals this level. A couple million people are going to watch it on TV and everyone's going to critique your appellate argument. We moot courted it twice. We had appellate lawyers come in and bombard us with questions, many of which were so far outside the box that, you know, it got in my head a little bit. They're going to ask me about some stuff that I'd never really thought about. The questions they asked were focused clearly on the. The Becky Hill, you know, the court that heard they had the hearing on Becky Hill made certain factual findings that she made those statements, she said, but we had to show that it had impact. But so uncontradicted she made those statements. Except the only person said she didn't was Becky Hill. And she had just recently pled guilty to perjury on other statements she'd made in that same hearing, which I reminded the justices of and we added to two weeks before the arguments, we supplemented the record with her guilty pleas, so it became fair game to talk about. They seemed focused on the legal standard of, you know, what do you have to prove if she said this? And I said, you know, based on several cases, one out of Oregon and one in South Carolina, we don't have to prove anything because prejudice is presumed. When the state got up, they had a much more aggressive tone towards Creighton Waters and asked him basically, if she said this, shouldn't they get a new trial? And he hemmed and hawed and stuttered and, I mean, they just relentless in pursuing that. And he never gave him a straight answer, which I think the way they.

[Donna Ruttuno]

It's hard to answer that question because I think everybody that believes in the system feels that way.

[Dick Harpootlian]

Well, and that's why I say this. I respect Creighton. It wasn't his call. It was the Attorney General's call. But once they learned all this and saw that Toll had made such a big, heinous error in her ruling on what the burden was, the right thing to do would have been to just say he ought to get a new trial. That's, that's what good prosecutors do. They, they.

[Donna Ruttuno]

I agree.

[Dick Harpootlian]

They. They do the right thing. And, and, and I think our Supreme Court. I couldn't. I couldn't have been prouder of that process. Win or lose, they examined every issue in detail and ask the real questions, the real, the real issues that they had to make a decision on. And I felt good walking out. I felt good about the system walking out. You know, I've been doing this a long time, and I've never had a. Never. I always assumed the clerk was the, you know, the neutral that's going to help both sides get what they want, do what they want. So I was shocked. I've been practicing many states. I've never, ever entered my mind that the clerk might be doing something that would be detrimental to either side. So that was a shock. But to see them address it, you know, you would think maybe the court might be protective of a court official or protective of a judge. They were not. Clearly, they wanted to get to the truth and get to the right answer.

[Donna Ruttuno]

Well, that's important, and I'm happy to hear that because that makes me feel better, because again, my whole thing about this is it. It adds cracks to the foundation of the system, and we need to have integrity in our system. So it makes me happy that they asked the good questions. And I know as a trial lawyer, it made you happy that they picked up on the exact issues you wanted them to pick up on, because that's always really important, too, in terms of getting to the crux of the issue. So the fact that they were able to do that, the fact that they were asking the right questions, that makes me feel good, too. Just As a citizen of the country, to know that there's justices out there that are trying to be true jurists and not activists, that, that is my, my new thing these days, especially living in big cities. I find that so many jurors, so many judges now want to be activists rather than jurists. And that's just not, it's not good for any of us.

[Dick Harpootlian]

They're there to call balls and strikes. They decide, yes, you know, what the, what the right legal ruling is not the legal ruling to get to some preconceived end. And you're right, there are more and more judges who, and maybe it's the politics of it, they decide. I mean, obviously Harvey Weinstein's trial judge wasn't calling balls and strikes or it wouldn't have gotten reversed.

[Donna Ruttuno]

And he's, and he's no longer, and he's no longer a judge anymore. He didn't even get to stay on the bench after that.

[Dick Harpootlian]

Well, our judge.

[Donna Ruttuno]

That was quite an interesting situation. Yeah, there you go.

[Dick Harpootlian]

And where were they?

[Donna Ruttuno]

Let me ask you this.

[Dick Harpootlian]

Was that trial in New York or la?

[Donna Ruttuno]

It was, it was in New York Superior Court in New York. And that was the, the New York case. And the judge was not asked to come back to the bench. And he was, he was voted out 14 to nothing in the way that they do things in Manhattan. So, yeah, it was something we've, you know, what in the world today, is there ever a vote that's 14 to nothing? Right. So it was just very unbelievable. And he is no longer a judge.

[Dick Harpootlian]

So congratulations.

[Donna Ruttuno]

That tells you a lot about how that case went, I guess. Yeah, it was definitely not a very fun place to practice that. I will tell you, that courtroom was definitely not fun to be in. Let me ask you this. How long do you think it's going to take your appellate court to come back with a decision on this?

[Dick Harpootlian]

I don't think that long. I think, again, based on the questions they presupposed. I mean, first of all, again, the facts were the factual findings by Justice Toll, who had the hearing that was appealed from. We win. They also, interestingly, there was a juror we all called the egg lady because she brought eggs to the court, to the jury from time to time. And she was removed from the jury the day they began deliberations because Becky Hill again had information that led all of us to believe that she was out talking about the case. Gotta question that now. But that wasn't an issue. But she gave an affidavit about how Becky Hill had Pulled her into. She clearly, I mean, when she came into the courtroom, she'd always look over at us and not the prosecution clearly seem to be leaning our way. But you can read these things wrong. But she.

[Donna Ruttuno]

Yeah, but you're right, though, because what if Becky, If Becky Hill thought that right. If Becky Hill thought that, she probably thought it pro defense. Yeah, right.

[Dick Harpootlian]

But she called her, she gave an affidavit where she said Becky Hill took her to her office and grilled her about her opinion on the case. And that affidavit, unbelievable, was in the record. We wanted to call her and Judge Toll would not let us call her. So one of the justices said, you know, why wasn't the egg lady allowed to testify? I said, well, you know, we asked and we were told no. Well, with her affidavit, which is in the record, should we consider that? Hell, yeah,

[Donna Ruttuno]

sure, Absolutely.

[Dick Harpootlian]

They asked me if they should consider something that we weren't allowed to put in. And we weren't going to make a big deal out of that because we thought we were in great shape with what the facts we already had. They made a big deal out of it. So, I mean, I feel that they've read the record. They've read the. And by the way, it's 9,000 page record. Two days after it was submitted, they set a date for the oral argument. Unheard of. Wow. Unheard of. 60 days later. So they were ready to hear it and I think they're ready to decide it quickly, too.

[Donna Ruttuno]

I'm gonna make a prediction. I'm not gonna ask you to do that because I know that's bad luck. But I'm gonna predict that he is going to get a new trial. And let me ask you, if that happens, what's your role gonna be? Are you gonna try it again?

[Dick Harpootlian]

Oh, absolutely. I mean, I love it. If now, you know, we've got some financial issues he's broken because, you know, he spent significant money with us on. We actually made no money on the first trial. He spent $600,000 on cost experts, all those sorts of things. So we're gonna have to find a way. We've got some theories about how we can get some money to pay for costs. I don't know that we'll ever make a dollar out of representing them. But look, you're a trial lawyer, I'm a trial lawyer. What's more fun than trying a case?

[Donna Ruttuno]

Nothing. It's the best thing ever. And you know what? If you get a new trial, I'm going to fly down There and watch some of it myself, because I want to see you in action in person. Tell me this. How do you deal with the video on Paul's phone in the second trial? Do you deal with it any differently than you did in the first? If you get another trial, I would

[Dick Harpootlian]

love to tell you what we've decided to do, but that would be, if I tell you, telling the prosecution. So I think we just hold that. We'll hold that if we get it.

[Donna Ruttuno]

We could talk about that. We could talk about that next time.

[Dick Harpootlian]

We have. We have. Did you have a way to deal with it? We talked about it at length.

[Donna Ruttuno]

Okay, good. Okay. Okay, good. I'll be. I'll be happy to hear that. When. When I can find out. Tell me this. Did you know anything about Becky Hill prior to this trial? Did you.

[Dick Harpootlian]

I knew she'd been a court reporter.

[Donna Ruttuno]

Contact with her. Did you know.

[Dick Harpootlian]

Knew she'd been a court reporter? I have a good friend. I was in the state senate at the time. I have a good friend who was the state senator from down there who said, you know, she was a Republican, but she got elected in a Democratic county. And. And, you know, she felt that. That there was wide support for her. I will tell you that. We talked to some other people who said she's not to be trusted, but, you know, that's local, small county, local politics. She beat somebody everybody likes. I don't know. But she was so nice and so accommodating. My daughter, who lives in New York, flew down to see the trial for a couple of days, and she made sure she had a place to sit and didn't have to wait in line. And, you know, that's. That meant a lot to me. I will tell you this is sort of an interesting story that hasn't been told. Her daughter shows up on the jury of an eye and again, naive. Us. Well, you know, she got drawn randomly. I'm sure we don't have any evidence to the contrary. But then she came and talked to me and Creighton, the prosecutor, you know, if she comes up, she'd be a great juror. Was lobbying us to put her daughter on the jury.

[Donna Ruttuno]

Wow.

[Dick Harpootlian]

We thought it was silly, you know, based on the fact that she had

[Donna Ruttuno]

worked in the moment, it seems silly. But now that you know everything, you

[Dick Harpootlian]

know, it seems sinister, a little more ominous than it. Than it did at the time. So again, you're assuming she's the clerk of court. She hasn't got an agenda. There's no reason for her to help me or the prosecution. I've never again been doing this 50 years. I've never seen anything that would hint that a Kirk of court was helping one side or the other.

[Donna Ruttuno]

So Alec lived a big life as a citizen, and now he's been in custody. And how is he spending his time? How is he navigating that? Is he hopeful?

[Dick Harpootlian]

I think a couple things. One, since he is a lawyer, disbarred, a lot of inmates come to him for advice. He was a criminal prosecutor and he did some defense work. He is also very involved in the appellate process. I mean, unlike any other client. I don't think I had a lawyer as a client. But they have opinions based on their experience and they ultimately make the call. I mean, they're the client. So we spent a lot of time on the phone going over our appellate positions, like whether or not to raise the egg lady issue. I mean, it was, should we throw it in there or not? We thought it would distract. We were wrong because the Supreme Court brought it up on its own. But all that, we talk to him at least once a week still. He'll call again this week, either Thursday or Friday afternoon, and we'll talk to him and he'll have questions. The one this week will be, when do you think the decisions come down as. And he knows?

[Donna Ruttuno]

Yeah, I'm not sure.

[Dick Harpootlian]

Yeah, he just.

[Donna Ruttuno]

Every hour seems long when you're waiting.

[Dick Harpootlian]

That's right. And he's got. And he's. I mean, he's got some menial job in the prison. I mean, he's. He's got a great attitude. I swear, I've never, never hurt him down. Never heard him. He talks to Buster a good bit. Buster just had a baby, so he's a grandpa.

[Donna Ruttuno]

I heard that. Yeah. That's fantastic.

[Dick Harpootlian]

So, no, he's doing fine. But remember now, and I've told him this, what you did in stealing money from clients cannot be forgiven $12 million from people that needed the money. And I know you're on drugs. I know you're addicted to drugs. I know you felt like you needed the money for drugs or whatever else. But, you know, and by the way, if we got the murder conviction reversed permanently or got it dismissed or won a jury trial, he's still going to be in jail for most of the rest of his life, if not all of it. So it's not like he's going to get out tomorrow. That may be something. I mean, if they raise these prior convictions, we get to say how long he's going to be in jail. So maybe a jury hearing that he's never going to get out might be convinced that the murder case, there's no threat from him.

[Donna Ruttuno]

Right? Yeah, I think that's true. And I think people lose sight of that when there's multiple charges and there's other things going on. And I've always said, and my guess is as a lawyer who's been trying cases as long as you have, I think you'll agree with me, if jurors knew penalties, we would have many less convictions.

[Dick Harpootlian]

Absolutely, absolutely. And in this case, they will, they will know. I mean, they're probably going to walk into the courtroom knowing. So it's going to be tough to get a jury. I told you I'd recently written a book about a serial killer I got the death penalty for.

[Donna Ruttuno]

Yeah, I wanted, I want to ask you about that too. And I want to get the title and it's Dig Me a Grave, the inside story of the serial killer that seduced the South. So tell us about that a little bit.

[Dick Harpootlian]

He had 13 prior murder convictions when I prosecuted him for assassinating a guy on death row. I mean, he was the head trustee for the cell block. Smuggled in a quarter of a pound of C4 plastic, military grade explosive, a blasting cap and blew the guy's head off. We went to, of course we went to pick a jury. He had 13 prior murder convictions from 10 years earlier. He drowned a pregnant woman, beat a two year old to death with a hammer. He, I mean, just horrible, horrible guy. So picking the jury was in his death penalty case. The first question is, have you ever heard of Donald Pee Wee Gaskins? Yes. What do you know about him? Largest mass murder in the history of the state. Well, could you put that aside and base your verdict and then if you got through that, would you just this case.

[Donna Ruttuno]

Yeah.

[Dick Harpootlian]

Could you consider giving him life or would you automatically give him the death penalty? And so we went through 400 jurors before we could get 12 jurors and two alternates. It took four weeks. I don't think picking a jury for Alec will be as tough. But we don't have attorney conducted voir dire in a regular murder case, only in death penalty. So that voir dire process. Did you have individual voir deer in New York on Weinstein? Were you able to ask?

[Donna Ruttuno]

Not individual, but we were able to, we were able to ask questions but in, in groups. And the only time we were able to bring people on the back is if they wanted to talk to us privately. Well, we asked, we definitely asked for Individual, we don't get to ask.

[Dick Harpootlian]

So we're gonna have to really construct matrix of questions for the judge to ask and of course, when they ask them in mass and then maybe some individual follow up. But it's going to be. That's going to be difficult to get. I mean, 14 people who can honestly say they haven't made up their mind one way or the other. We do find that a number of people, just based on feedback we're getting after the appeal, a number of people have emailed and said, I thought he was guilty. Now that I've watched the appeal and heard what the clerk did and you know, some of the other stuff, I'm not sure I'm open or I think he's innocent. So maybe the narrative has changed. But if you really want to read a good book, you'll buy a copy of Dig Me a Grave, the story of the serial killer.

[Donna Ruttuno]

Absolutely. Everybody that's everyone that's listening or watching, go buy Dick's book. Dick, I want to have you back. I want to talk about what happens in this as it continues to progress. I also want to talk to you about those depositions in the Camp Swamp murder case, because that is fascinating to me. But you have been great. I appreciate it. I will be watching. And if Alex ever wants to talk to anybody, I will fly there to talk to him myself because it would be really fair.

[Dick Harpootlian]

Department of Corrections won't let him talk to anybody. It's. We may have to have a lawsuit over.

[Donna Ruttuno]

Really?

[Dick Harpootlian]

Yeah.

[Donna Ruttuno]

I mean, oh, my goodness.

[Dick Harpootlian]

So it's. He.

[Donna Ruttuno]

We did a. Oh, that's fascinating.

[Dick Harpootlian]

We had him interviewed by a documentary producer for a Fox documentary and he got all his privileges suspended for six months. No phone, no. No tablet. So we may have to challenge that.

[Donna Ruttuno]

Absolutely. Well, we'll try to get the Fox people on it. Let's see what we can do.

[Dick Harpootlian]

And you come. If we retry, I'll make sure you have a preferential seat.

[Donna Ruttuno]

Well, you are so sweet. Thank you. Dick, thank you so much for being here with me. It was an honor. And you just are fascinating to talk to and I appreciate it. Thank you.

[Dick Harpootlian]

Thank you for having me.

[Donna Ruttuno]

Thank you for joining me on another episode of Crime and Justice. Don't forget to send us your thoughts and questions. And please make sure you subscribe wherever you find your favorite podcast.