← Criminally Obsessed
Criminally Obsessed
Alex Murdaugh Retrial Latest - Attorney General Says 'Everything Is On the Table'
00:50:15
Loading summary
Transcript185 lines
- [00:00]
A
Hey, everyone. I'm Ann Emerson, and this is Criminally Obsessed. At least one person will be missing from the prosecution team in Alec Murdoch's new trial. It's this man.
- [00:10]
B
What does the shooter do? The shooter's coming in the door. What does the shooter do? He shoots Paul in the back of the head after he passes him. Okay. And then shoots Paul in the back of the head like this. And where does the blood spatter go?
- [00:27]
A
Allen Wilson, South Carolina's Attorney General.
- [00:30]
B
It's more than a trial, it's a saga.
- [00:34]
A
So I had to sit down with him and get the scoop for the Trial of the century, part two. And you feel like that you got to the truth the first time?
- [00:42]
B
We do. I do.
- [00:44]
A
And are you gonna get the same verdict next time?
- [00:47]
B
Well, let me get my little crystal ball out.
- [00:49]
A
I'd like to see it.
- [00:50]
B
You wanna see my crystal ball? I mean, look, we're gonna. It's like asking me if we're gonna win the super bowl again.
- [00:57]
A
I didn't hold back. I asked about Becky Hill. Has he read Blanca's book, why Eddie Smith Hasn't Gone to Trial? And why does it seem there hasn't been any movement on the Stephen Smith homicide investigation? But there is one thing I've been wondering since my jaw hit the floor of the Colleton county courtroom back on February 1, 2023. I remember it was a Wednesday. The kennel video. What. What came out of your mouth? When. When you saw that kennel video. What was the first thing that. I'm sure you remember your reaction the first time you ever saw the kennel video.
- [01:31]
B
Oh, yeah.
- [01:32]
A
Would you do. Let's get into it. Attorney General, thank you so much for taking the time to talk to me today.
- [01:43]
B
Yeah, I'm glad to be with you.
- [01:45]
A
Yeah. I appreciate that. This has been kind of a tsunami, the double murder convictions getting overturned. I know you were listening to oral arguments. Were you expecting this?
- [01:57]
B
Well, look, we always knew it was a possibility. You never know what to expect. I've seen members of the Supreme Court lay into someone on their case in Chief, you know, when they're doing their oral arguments and then rule in favor of them.
- [02:09]
A
Right.
- [02:09]
B
And I've seen the opposite. So, you know, you never know what. But, you know, it was always a 50, 50 proposition. Obviously, we did not know about her alleged interactions with the jury until long after the trial was over. Obviously, when we learned about it, there was a post. There were motions made for. For retrial, and there was a post trial hearing in front of Justice Jean Toll, who was a former Supreme Court justice, and we listened to all of the testimony. We always asserted that the conduct, while inappropriate by Becky Hill. It was inappropriate, it was wrong. No one's defending it. It was harmless error. They basically put every single juror on the stand and the totality of the circumstances, we believe that it was a harmless error. They appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court disagreed, which the Supreme Court has a right to. And we respect the Supreme Court's decision because I also believe that everyone has a right to a fair and impartial trial. I believe Alec Mardol received that the first time. They do not believe that. So here we are, and our job is to react to their decision by going forward and getting into a second trial. And that's what we're going to do.
- [03:15]
A
How shocked were you that this was the reason it got overturned, though, with a clerk of court? Like, this is very unusual.
- [03:23]
B
This trial has been nothing but unusual since the very beginning. I mean, every single time you think that this saga is what I'm calling it now, I call it. It's more than a trial, it's a saga. But you obviously, this all goes back to the 2019 death of Mallory Beach. And then all of a sudden, that involved Paul Murdaugh, who was the defendant in that case. And then all of a sudden, you have the double homicide, and then you have the roadside shooting of Alec Murdaugh on the head, and then you have the financial crimes, and then, you know, and then all of a sudden we get into the trial, and the trial is just pivoting left and right, left or right, back and forth. And then all of a sudden we get into post trial, then you get into the Becky Hill allegations.
- [04:06]
A
What did you say when you heard that the first time? Like, I've never asked you that. Like, what did you. What did you say when. When you heard that press conference and the defense attorneys got up there and said, snap, we got a problem. We're hearing that jurors were.
- [04:21]
B
You're talking about several years ago when you first. Obviously it was concerning to us because we didn't know. Right. We, obviously, my number one goal was to get to the truth of it. You know, if we had come to the conclusion that his right to a fair trial had been, you know, prejudiced, then we would have joined them. Obviously, after looking at the evidence, we said, okay, what she did was wrong, but it was harmless error in light of the totality of all the facts. And that's the position we took in the post Trial hearings. But, I mean, it was always concerning to me because the fact that we had worked so long, so hard on this case, and then to have it undone because an individual unknown to anyone just really did some stupid, stupid things, and she should never have done it. And she jeopardized the integrity of the case. And the Supreme Court ultimately concluded that she did. So, you know, it is what it is. We here. We are here now, and we're moving forward.
- [05:24]
A
Well, you are. And I do have to ask, though, as far as the charges that she could face, I mean, we have not. We have not settled that yet. I mean, she could still face attempted jury tampering charges. Are you willing to see that through before you leave the office?
- [05:42]
B
So she. All of that was already sent to an independent prosecutor who reviewed that. People forget that she was already investigated for jury tampering.
- [05:50]
A
Well, by Hubbard, that's correct. Yes, but he investigated, but not in light of what the justices said.
- [05:57]
B
Yeah, but you got to remember, what the justices were doing is two different standards. The justices weren't determining whether or not she engaged in jury tampering. Also, they're presuming that all. Everything that she said was true. The burden is always on the state. And Mr. Murdaugh received. Got to receive the presumption that his rights were violated. And so the justices are operating. There was no cross examination of the witnesses. There was no cross examination of the people who said that they, you know, gave, you know, statements. So in a criminal trial, you're going to. You're going to get to cross examine all those people, and the burden is going to be on the state to prove Becky Hill did that beyond a reasonable doubt. And the Supreme Court decision, the Supreme Court is presuming that the statements were said, basically, you're guilty until proven innocent.
- [06:45]
A
Right.
- [06:46]
B
So in that case, Becky Hill was guilty of the statements until we proved her innocent. You know, and in a criminal trial, the burden would be the opposite. And so the Supreme Court wasn't. Everyone. They're conflating these things. The Supreme Court did not say she engaged in jury tampering. You can make inappropriate comments to a juror and create a prejudicial effect that would deprive someone of a right to a fair trial without it being jury tampering.
- [07:13]
A
Right.
- [07:14]
B
Mr. Hubbard reviewed that, and I did not review it. It was not my decision to make. He reviewed that along with a bunch of other conduct that she engaged in unrelated to the Murdaugh trial. I think she was. She was indicted and pled guilty to the perjury took the stand and lied. She was also pled guilty to misconduct charges that related to her receiving benefits in her office and doing other things that were unlawful and criminal in her role as the clerk of court for Colleton county, unrelated to the trial. But all of that was reviewed by an independent prosecutor.
- [07:48]
A
There's always the court of public opinion that's also saying. But wait a minute. If they're saying it, then. Then maybe the AG will step forward and.
- [07:56]
B
But the Supreme Court's not saying it. Two different burdens, two different legal standards, same fact pattern, but two different perspectives, and people are conflating the two.
- [08:05]
A
So is that a no? Like, you're not looking to go back into this after Hubbard already did it?
- [08:10]
B
I gave that information to Mr. Hubbard, and he made a decision. We did not tell him what to do. We gave him complete control and discretion over what to do. I'm not. And here's the thing. I did not think it would be appropriate for me or this office to weigh in on the prosecution of her for that conduct at that time, because people would then accuse us if we came to the conclusion you didn't do something wrong. Well, you're just. You're not going to go after jury tampering because you're trying to protect your conviction. And so I gave it to a solicitor to review, and when I handed it to him, I took my hands off the wheel completely. I got out of the car.
- [08:47]
A
You're running for governor. Do you want to see this go to trial before you actually walk out of the AG's office for the last time?
- [08:55]
B
Of course. Is it going to be practical or possible? You know, it's doubtful that we can get it. We might be able to get a trial date set before the end of the year. We have to reevaluate this case completely from ground zero all over again. Yes. We have the benefit of hindsight. They've seen our trial strategy, we've seen theirs, and they claim they have new evidence. We have to evaluate whatever that evidence is, and we will do that. We're going to evaluate our trial strategy just like we did the first time.
- [09:20]
A
Well, and everybody's talking about you could be looking at the death penalty because nothing's off the table for Alec Murdoch.
- [09:27]
B
That's correct. If people forget we didn't have a death penalty. Well, we had it, but it wasn't in effect. I mean, we hadn't used it in 13 years. This year, in 2022, when we were going through the beginning stages of evaluating this case. But. But look, there's a lot of boxes you have to check for a capital case. We were asked by another news outlet the question late last week, you know, are you going to reevaluate capital punishment? And I actually went and I was accused of doing this to be political, vindictive prosecution.
- [09:58]
A
And that's what I think he was concern. And we're talking about the defense attorney, Dick Harpootlian.
- [10:02]
B
Yeah.
- [10:02]
A
Who said play in politics, not prosecutor.
- [10:05]
B
He's always going to inject politics into things. That's what he does. Dogs bark, fish swim, birds fly. You know, Dick makes comments like that. But what he said wasn't accurate. I actually, when we got the question, I went down and met with members of our legal team and said, look, I want to understand, can we evaluate this and should we evaluate it? And everyone's like, look, we have to put everything on the table again. So I said, all right, let's put a statement out. And that statement was run through our legal team here in the office.
- [10:32]
A
You're right. We haven't used the death penalty until, you know, this past year. Right. So all of a sudden, I mean, it's a whole different game when we're talking about. It's also really expensive and enormous time from your office. Are you getting the advice that this is a good idea right now?
- [10:50]
B
Look, I'm getting the advice that we have to evaluate everything as if this trial never happened.
- [10:55]
A
Okay.
- [10:56]
B
And I mean, look, we don't just evaluate the facts of the case leading up to the trial. We have to evaluate things since the trial as it relates to capital punishment. Look, all I've said, the only thing I've ever said is everything is on the table for consideration. Evaluating and considering every single legal option available to us, including options that may or may not be available to us based on what the law says. But me saying we're going to evaluate everything and that I'm getting criticized. We. When they're saying they're going to reevaluate everything, it is my intent to try to move this case as quickly as we possibly can. I'm going to evaluate every single option available to us and make decisions as if we never tried this case before. Now, we have tried this case before, and there's a lot of information available to us that we can use in that analysis or that might prevent us from moving forward on some course of action. We're going to reevaluate the venue they're talking about. They're going to try to make a change of venue. My Initial reaction was to default where we were several years ago. I don't know that there is a venue in South Carolina that's going to be any different, but we're going to evaluate it.
- [11:59]
A
And which are the first ones that you look at? Is it the ones that are within that circuit?
- [12:03]
B
We're going to evaluate it.
- [12:04]
A
It's so interesting to me because it feel like the positions have flipped for whatever reason, but, like, from the speedy trial and the venue, it's like the defense and the prosecution just went like this with their arguments for the retrial.
- [12:19]
B
They were fighting for a speedy trial, and we were happy to oblige the first time.
- [12:22]
A
Yeah.
- [12:23]
B
And they got what they asked for, good and hard, when we went hardcore and hard charged into there. And we did our best to present the case, and we obviously got the conviction the first time. And, you know, like I said, we will get this case teed up for trial as quickly as we practically can do it. Obviously, our team downstairs, the original prosecution team, they've got their own trial docket. They've got a lot on their plate. I mean, we have 8,000 cases going on right now in this office, civil and criminal and appellate, and everyone's just overwhelmed with work. And then they have to kind of hit the pause button and then go back and pull out all the boxes and all the files on the Murdoch case.
- [13:04]
A
Yeah.
- [13:05]
B
So we can restart. And so I'm trying to give people a few weeks to absorb the order that the Supreme Court put out. Trying to give everyone a few weeks to kind of, like, calm down. Let's just settle back into this. And I think by the time we start getting into the nuts and bolts of this trial, strategizing, I think everyone will be pretty good.
- [13:25]
A
I'm hearing from the defense they're not going to take a plea deal. That's what they've said so far, for whatever reason, of course. But do you feel like putting the death penalty back on the table, could push. Is that is. Is a plea deal even in. In the. In the offing for something like this?
- [13:41]
B
I mean, look, I take them at their word. I do not anticipate that there will ever be a plea deal for Mr. Murdaugh.
- [13:47]
A
Well, and Attorney General, you know, so much has come out since this. This case. Right. We've got books, we've got documentaries, we've got people talking. Do you feel like you're going to have new evidence as well, new witnesses, new people talking to you about this case, new information?
- [14:05]
B
I'm obviously not at liberty to say what we will do differently if we do anything differently, because that has to be developed. And obviously, even though the whole world has seen our hand from the first trial, there may be. We may respond differently to things that the defense does that we did differently in the trial. And so I don't want to. I don't want to tip my hat too much to what we're going to do, but obviously, you know, everything's on the table.
- [14:30]
A
If they, if they take the financial crimes out. That was. We called it the trial within a trial. Right. We had two weeks of solid financial crimes information coming out. And obviously he pleaded guilty to that. He's got, you know, years, decades, decades in prison for this. But without that, if you keep on getting stymied by the court and can't really show that part of the motive. Does that concern your team?
- [15:01]
B
What we do know, what the Supreme Court has said, is that the evidence we put in on the financial crimes was permissible and it was probative. Its probative value outweighed its prejudice. Prejudice, prejudicial effect.
- [15:12]
A
Sure.
- [15:13]
B
And that's what they said in the opinion. And so we know that they were okay with that. Now, they obviously, they made some comments. One of the comments they made was we spent 12 hours, you know, and they thought that was too long. A lot of that testimony outside the presence of the jury so that we could determine if the judge would allow it in. Then we had to go ahead and do all the. I mean, you remember. So there were so many times where we would do two or three hours of testimony with an expert witness or a fact witness, and then they'd bring the jury in, and then we did the same test, and then the judge
- [15:42]
A
would allow it in the exact same.
- [15:43]
B
And then we do the exact same thing, because you want to make sure that you're not, you know, that it's. That the judge would allow it in. So, you know, that wouldn't. That was baked into that time based on our numbers. So, you know, I think that got held against us. But the court said that the evidence that was allowed in by the trial judge was permissible and that the state did a good job in doing it. And they gave us some guardrails on how far they would like to see us go or not go. And that's, you know, like I said, we're in unchartered waters here. So, you know, we were, We. We all believed at the time we were making case law when we were going through this trial.
- [16:24]
A
It was unprecedented.
- [16:25]
B
Yeah.
- [16:26]
A
Over and over again, that was the words that we used to be in season two is unbelievable. Yeah, you're gonna, you're gonna be missing it. If you're not actually at that prosecution table, you are.
- [16:37]
B
Of course. Of course I'm going to. I mean, I was there at the table with the team the first time because I knew that there would be a lot of slings and arrows thrown at them. And I said, look, I don't want to be there to hijack this thing. You know, I want the team to be able to get out there and do their jobs, but I want to be out there with them. You know, I always joke, I told Creighton, I said, creighton, you know, we both have to own this. But I said, I don't want to push you out on the branch alone. I said, view me kind of as fdr and you're Eisenhower. You know, I'm the one. I'm the commander in chief. But you're the commanding officer over, you know, the landing of Normandy. Right. And that's what it felt like to us. And I said, we have different roles. You know, he was into the day to day stuff. I was there to support him. I had to make a lot of the big decisions, but he was the one that had to execute the plan, and he did it superbly.
- [17:31]
A
Oh, he got huge kudos for the work that he did because that was. It was incredibly complicated, the whole case. I did want to ask you from a personal standpoint with the, with the victims in this case, Maggie's family, Buster, his brothers, you know, Alex brothers. Have you talked to them about what's going on right now?
- [17:53]
B
The office has been in touch with some members of the family. As we move forward in our evaluation process, obviously we will be talking with the broader family and who we consider as victims. You know, even though they're, you know, some are very supportive or at least attempting to be supportive for Buster's sake, which I understand it's a horrible place for members of this family to be, and I have a lot of empathy for them. I really do. You know. You know, I just remember there were some members of the family on Maggie's side who were very upset with Alex, and there were other members who believed Alex, and there were several members who probably didn't know what to believe, but they wanted to be supportive of Buster, who, I mean, at the end of the day, lost his brother, lost his mother, and effectively lost his father. Regardless of what happens in the murder trial, his dad's gone for several decades. And so I feel I have a lot of compassion for him and I have a lot of compassion for other members of the family. I don't enjoy this for them, and I don't enjoy having to be put in this position to having to make decisions that have an indirect impact on their lives. That's the reality of the world we live in. We have to make decisions.
- [19:01]
A
You know, one thing I kind of looked into a little bit was who was talking to Alec in prison before and after the appeals. I didn't see a lot with the family, to be honest, from the phone calls that I foiaed at the detention center. Having said that, is there an opportunity to go in and talk to Alec Murdoch before this? Is there an opportunity to get some more truth before we get there?
- [19:28]
B
That is up to his defense team. He is represented by capable counsel, and obviously they're going to make those decisions in consultation with him. So I can't speak to their trial strategy or the preparation for their trial strategy.
- [19:41]
A
Do you worry about the, the, the criticisms of SLED on this investigation? And I want to be specific, one of which is that so many people went into the house immediately afterwards. Do you feel like there are cracks you need to fill in that investigation from SLED that are now being questioned seriously?
- [20:03]
B
So I don't want to, I don't want to comment on that because that is a part of our trial strategy. Obviously, we've seen what they have said.
- [20:11]
A
Cards are on the table.
- [20:12]
B
Yeah, yeah, the cards are on the table. But obviously I don't want my words to be thrown back in the face of this office or the people who are going to be trying this case whenever it's retried. We're in the construction business, constructing a case, making it clear as possible to understand and so that people can get over that beyond a reasonable doubt hurdle. The defense's job is to make things not clear, is to create as much muddy water as possible so that people can't get over that, that legal burden that is on the state. And so they're in the demolition business. We're constructing something. We're constructing a case. They're trying to demolish the case. And that is the role of the defense attorney. That is not me saying something negative about him. That's just the reality of it. And so they are going to do everything they can to create enough doubt that jurors, when they hear their case in chief, will not be able to get over that burden. We're going to do everything we can to give the jurors the ability to get over that burden beyond a reasonable doubt.
- [21:13]
A
Boy, is that going to be interesting how you're going to pull these jurors. Because, dang, if people are still making up their mind about this case, what kind of impartial jury are you looking at? Is it not just people by nature going to be a jury that could be perceived as defense friendly if they're still trying to make up their mind about the evidence, the kennel video, the, the, the, the.
- [21:37]
B
So one thing that I will tell you, when we go through the jury selection process again, both sides are going to have the opportunity to evaluate every single member of the jury pool. We're going to have the opportunity to kind of cross examine the information about each juror, and we're all going to have the ability to exercise our peremptory strikes to remove those jurors who we think might be prejudiced against the case or for the case, depending on your perspective, and then seat that juror. And I believe in the system. And then, look, one thing I've learned, there are so many people. I mean, I was speaking to a group the other day, and this is before the Murdoch case came back with the reversal. This is like three weeks ago. And somebody asked me a question about the Murdoch trial, you know, when we expect a decision. Of course, I didn't know. And I said, by the way, how many people here. There was a room of about 60 or 70 people. I said, how many people here have heard of the Murdaugh case? And then I stopped myself. How many of you haven't heard of the Murdaugh case? Four or five hands went up in
- [22:36]
A
a room of about 60 people in South Carolina.
- [22:39]
B
It was right up. Yep. Well, it was right across the border in Georgia. Literally, there were people from South Carolina, Georgia. I was speaking right across the border over in Columbia county, near Fort Gordon. But there were about five or six hands in a room of 60. And everybody went nearly. And I said, so y' all are the one living under the rock, you know, and they. Everyone laughed. But there are people like, look, all
- [23:02]
A
right, that's very interesting. I like that kind of polling.
- [23:06]
B
Well, I mean. And that was finger in the air.
- [23:09]
A
I know, I know.
- [23:10]
B
Anecdotal, anecdotal.
- [23:11]
A
But got to take your word for it.
- [23:12]
B
There are people, though. There are going to be some people who live in a very small world. They don't watch tv, they don't read magazines, they don't watch movies. They have a. Between the house, the work, and whatever their outside hobby. Is maybe it's hunting or fishing or hanging out with their kids. They don't think about the world. And that shocks us because we live in such a big world. But some people don't live in a world that big. They just live in the world with their family and their immediate community. And then there are people out there who've heard of it and they see it advertised, but they're not interested in real crime drama. So I think yes. Is this a highly publicized case and it's going to be a lot of people with a lot of strong opinions? Absolutely. But you know, I've also been in politics long enough to know you think you're the center of the universe. And then you realize, no, most people don't know who you are.
- [24:08]
A
You're just part of the universe.
- [24:09]
B
You're just part of the universe. You're not in the center of it. In this case feels like the center of the universe. But in light of, in light of everything that's going on in the world, people just don't have time. And people forget too. You know, people pay attention to something and then they forget about it. They move on to other things because there's so much going on in the world. And by the time this case comes up again, it will, I mean, obviously this coming January will be four years since we tried the case.
- [24:35]
A
Yeah, true. It's been a minute.
- [24:37]
B
It's been a minute.
- [24:38]
A
Alec Murdock, is he a narcissist in your opinion?
- [24:41]
B
Because we're back at the pre trial phase again, I'm going to reserve my comments on anything personal about him to what we put what this office puts
- [24:52]
A
out at the court. Okay. I want to talk for a minute about Curtis Eddie Smith, Cousin Eddie, he is still on house arrest. This is three years later. He was not called as a witness in the first trial, but he was on the witness list. And since all this went down, I don't have my glasses on, but because there he said to a. In a documentary series, it was Netflix that Murdoch told him to during this alleged roadside shooting because they're going to be able to prove that I'm responsible for Maggie and Paul. Murdoch allegedly said to cousin Eddie and he said this in this. Would that be the kind of thing that would keep him not only interesting on the witness list for you because you have not had anything that blatant. I haven't heard anything that blatant. Or is it because Eddie Smith may not be a completely reliable witness, as it were?
- [25:56]
B
Again, part of the trial strategy Got It. And so everything in the world related to this case is on the table for consideration. Things that we did in the first trial, we could be doing again. We may do things that we did not do in the first trial. We may do things slightly different. We might modify our trial strategy. Witnesses who testified the first time may or may not testify the second time. There may be new additional witnesses. I mean, we have to evaluate this case completely in light of the fact, even though we're evaluating as if it never happened, it did happen. Right. And so all the considerations that you go through heading into a trial for the first time, we have to go through. But then you have to say, okay, this worked the first time, may not work the second time, or we thought it wouldn't work the first time. Will it work the second time? So that is part of the evaluation process.
- [26:47]
A
But are you allowed to comment on whether or not he should be getting a speedy trial as well? If he's been under house arrest, I'm
- [26:55]
B
not going to comment on him because of the pending nature of his case.
- [27:00]
A
What about Blanca's book? Blanca Trubiate Simpson wrote a book. Have you read it?
- [27:06]
B
No.
- [27:06]
A
You should.
- [27:08]
B
I have not read.
- [27:08]
A
Very interesting.
- [27:09]
B
I have not read a single book related to the Murdoch saga.
- [27:12]
A
Is that Murdoch fatigue or is this trying to just say in case something happened with his appealing?
- [27:17]
B
There's nothing. There is nothing of interest to me in any books written about this case.
- [27:21]
A
And you know what? I've. When we were going through the Hulu series, I was hearing that a lot that everybody that had been involved with it were, including Creighton and everybody else that they were. They felt the same way.
- [27:33]
B
I don't. I've seen. There have been a couple of Murdaugh movies and I've seen a couple of clips of them, bits and pieces here and there. But I don't think I've watched the movie straight through. I did watch a couple of the documentaries in the months that came out, because we were in the documentaries. And I just wanted to see how they were going to present us, you know, in the documentaries. And I thought they were decent documentaries. But honestly, there's no one that can write a book that's going to be of any value or interest to me. I've lived this and I've already have my opinions. And honestly, I don't have the time. I don't have the time to read books that I do find interesting, more or less. Books I don't find interesting because I know too much about them. So I haven't read anything.
- [28:18]
A
Can I ask you, though, about one major theory within. Because Blanca and I have talked quite a bit. She's actually going out to CrimeCon with me to talk about this case more. That was scheduled long before we had this all come up. But I wanted to know, in your opinion, could there be more people involved and will that be something that you look at in your strategy, in your.
- [28:42]
B
Because everything.
- [28:43]
A
The cleaners. She literally calls them the cleaners that somebody helped, allegedly helped Alec afterwards.
- [28:51]
B
Every thing is on the table. Every consideration, every accusation, every piece of evidence, both evidence presented before and evidence not presented before. Everything has to be considered and evaluated in the process of developing a new trial strategy for this next trial.
- [29:11]
A
You know, Dick said that. Dick Harpoutlian said that the people that Alec had stole from had been made whole as far as. During the financial crimes. And as all of that went through. Do you agree with that, Sabre?
- [29:25]
B
I'm not gonna comment on that. Yeah.
- [29:27]
A
Can you comment on the Stephen Smith case and where that stands right now?
- [29:30]
B
I can comment on that.
- [29:31]
A
This was one thing that I wanted to know about as well, Maggie. There was a. There's been a lot of back and forth about marital issues and whether or not there were marital issues and whether or not she was seeing a divorce attorney. Can you comment on anything about that? Of the legitimacy of that?
- [29:48]
B
I can't comment on the legitimacy of any evidence that we may or may not use going into this trial, whether it's real or perceived. You know, I just don't. I don't want to make comments on anything that could be used in the trial. You're not wrong to ask me questions. I just have to be careful. And again, my general statement for everything, as you look down your list and you can ask the questions, but my general statement for everything is, look, there's a lot of stuff that's rumors and there's a lot of stuff that's real. And we have to consider both, because you don't know if that rumor is going to become something relevant and real down the road. It's. You know, it's like we said in the first trial. You know, SLED had to pursue hundreds, if not thousands of leads because they knew they would be accused of not pursuing the lead, which they were right. You know, but they had to pursue everything, even things that. That weren't real or relevant in the original case, you know, in the original investigation. And so every single time someone called in with a tip, you know, they had to go run that tip down to determine if it was a real lead or if it was a dead end. And that took thousands of man hours. And so the prosecutors, just like the investigators, have to run down every conceivable course of action based on every potential piece of evidence that may or may not be used.
- [31:11]
A
Can new evidence be. Can sled reinvestigate at this point for the trial?
- [31:16]
B
You can always bring in new evidence, of course. Absolutely.
- [31:22]
A
And who makes the call of who? You know, if there's something is brought to sled and they have to deem whether or not that's something they're going to investigate? Right. Or can you give them directive to say, look, I want to know what was underneath Maggie's fingernails? Were the phones together the whole time? Things like that.
- [31:41]
B
I'm not making a specific comment on that specific case, but generally, look, when we have a case like this, any law enforcement agent that gets any tip, we would always. And they bring it to us, we're going to always say, run it down. We're always going to say, look at it, consider it. You know, it's hard. But in any case, I'm not even talking about Murdoch right now. In any case, you have to look at everything, even things that will never be used or end up being a waste of your time. I don't consider it a waste of your time. You're eliminating the no in sales, right? There's that old sales pitch. You have to ask 10 people if they want to buy something.
- [32:16]
A
Yeah. Before they buy it.
- [32:17]
B
And nine will say no.
- [32:18]
A
Right.
- [32:19]
B
But that 10th person, if you ask them, a law of averages, the 10th person will say yes. And you got to eliminate all those no's to get to the one yes. Same thing is true in investigating. You know, you may have to go, you may have to run down nine pieces of bad information, look at it. Spend a week of your time wasting your time looking at stuff that will never be used. And then that tenth piece of information might get used, but you had to go through all that bad information to get to the good information. But now you can at least say no, Mr. Defense Attorney, we did look at it. Right? We did consider it.
- [32:51]
A
Do you have a list, though? And you don't have to tell me what's on the list. You don't have to tell me what's on the list. But do you have a list of stuff that you've thought about? Hindsight's 20 20. You get to Monday morning quarterback this whole case. Now, as far as what you remember and what you saw and what we actually did you could expand the narrative. Do you have a list somewhere that says number one? They need to look at that, and they need to look at that.
- [33:14]
B
So first off, there's been no need to create a list until a week ago.
- [33:19]
A
Okay.
- [33:20]
B
Right. I mean, the case.
- [33:21]
A
You're absolutely right. But it's hindsight. It's 20 20. There's no way you didn't think about it.
- [33:27]
B
No, actually, there is a way I didn't think about it. Good try. Don't blame you for saying that. But, like, look, I mean, we had. We moved on with our lives after this trial. Obviously, we defended it on appeal. It's come back on appeal in a reversal. Now we have to recalibrate, and there's a lot to consider to include the questions you're asking me. So all the answers to all of your questions are being fleshed out as we speak.
- [33:54]
A
Have you. And this is a personal question, you don't have to tell me, but did you ever go and visit Maggie and Paul's grave? Did you ever go and have a chance to kind of, like, from the victim standpoint? And I'm not meaning to put you on the spot about it. I think I'm talking about that also. Just.
- [34:11]
B
I don't know where they were laid to rest.
- [34:13]
A
Yeah, but tell me, you know, is this case to you more important about getting justice for Maggie and Paul, about retrying this case? Because a lot of people ask me why they're even going to retry. Why don't I ask you that? Why do you feel like you have to retry this case?
- [34:30]
B
All right, let me ask you this question. If somebody brutally murdered two members of your family, but then got put in prison for unrelated crimes to the murders, and we're going to spend 20 or 30 years in prison for, say, financial crimes, but you believe that they murdered your loved ones. Would you want us to go to trial for your loved ones? You answered it. I was going to say it's a rhetorical question you don't have. So when people say, why are you going to waste the state's time? And I'm like, ask yourself this question. Does it matter what he was convicted for on other charges that he's serving time for? If we believe that he committed these crimes and we've been. We're prepared to indict him for these crimes, those voices that were silenced have a right to justice as well. Our system, our criminal justice system demands it. Our code, the oaths we swore demand that we pursue justice for them. So, yeah, I think it's worth it. And look, the benefit of hindsight and the benefit of having done this before, can the trial be shorter than before? Certainly it could be. It could be. Again, there's so much we don't know, right? I mean, could it be new evidence, could be new witnesses? Could we not use some witnesses? Will we be able to streamline it? Obviously, the court has given us some insights into what they would like to see on the presentation of financial crimes. And these are all things that, you know, we can consider as we go forward. But, you know, I think that having done this before, I think that we will have the ability to at least streamline and make our trial strategy more efficient.
- [36:07]
A
But so it's not. It's still about Maggie and Paul is what I'm trying to get to, as opposed to getting someone behind bars. For this particular, I'm not even going
- [36:17]
B
to talk about the Murdoch case. I'm going to talk about the criminal justice system and my philosophy. It's never about getting a conviction. It's about pursuing the truth. Now, the other side in this particular case and other defense attorneys, they're going to say it's about getting a conviction like it's pounding the desk, it's howling at the moon. It's about redirecting people. But for me personally, it's about if I believe they. A defense attorney who believes their client is innocent is going to be indignant and is going to pound the desk because they truly believe that a prosecutor who truly believes a defendant murdered somebody is going to be. Is going to double down on that belief system and use our criminal justice system to try to get justice for those people, because that's our job, to seek justice. It's to seek the truth. You know, I can tell you this. We dismiss far more cases than we prosecute because the evidence doesn't support the charge. Once you do an investigation, sometimes charges come up, and then if something exculpatory pops up, it is unethical for us to pursue something that we can't prove a reasonable doubt. I would never weaponize the criminal justice system against somebody. Never would. And if you, if you poll everyone in this office who is a prosecutor, they would tell you the same thing. I have never asked someone to prosecute a case because I did not like or did like somebody involved in the case. That's never been a consideration for me. To me, it's literally it's about pursuing the truth. And if the truth is that somebody committed a crime, then holding that person accountable under our justice system, and you
- [37:52]
A
feel like that you got to the truth the first time.
- [37:55]
B
We do. I do.
- [37:56]
A
And are you going to get the same verdict next time?
- [38:00]
B
Well, let me get my little crystal ball out.
- [38:02]
A
I'd like to see it.
- [38:03]
B
You want to see my crystal ball? I mean, look, we're going to. It's like asking me if we're going to win the super bowl again.
- [38:09]
A
I've got to ask.
- [38:10]
B
Well, you have to ask. Look, I believe that our trial team is second to none. A lot of people, a lot of political people out there. I was reading op EDS about legislators who were engaging in gubernatorial politics, attacking this office, attacking me, blaming us for botching. When they attack me for their own political agenda, they're not attacking me. They're attacking the men and women in this office who poured ten tens of thousands of man hours into this case and poured their life's work and their blood, sweat and tears into this case. And they did so. And the court has even said this, that this office did a phenomenal job. We all. And I'm even going to toot my horn, we all did a good job. We. We made the state of South Carolina look good. First time. I believe that this office, if you want to consider the first trial a Super Bowl, I believe this. This office is capable of winning another Super Bowl. But again, I'm not going to be so arrogant and presumptuous as to say, you know, it won't be harder or it'll be. We're playing under different conditions in a different environment. And so we have to prepare for this next trial the way a team prepares for another Super Bowl. Right. Different team, different, different conditions. And so we're going to do that. And that's part of the trial strategy sessions we're about to be going, undergoing.
- [39:33]
A
I mean, I think that you've got your hands full, considering you also have to go through your own political race right now. Do you have any concern that Creighton Waters will be taken off of the case?
- [39:46]
B
No, Creighton, let me say this right now. Creighton and I have had a dozen conversations or more. He is going to be at the helm of this case. Again, I have full confidence in Creighton Waters, and I have full confidence in everyone that is a member of that trial team. And I have full confidence in the investigators that we work with at the state law enforcement division.
- [40:04]
A
Well, good. I mean, I know that the lead sled who has retired, he's former sled agent David Owen, came under a lot of fire on another case that I was. I was at. Michael Colucci is. Do you see that as a problem right now? Look, because he was the lead on that.
- [40:23]
B
What I'm going to say is this. I have confidence in the original trial team that included not just our team in the AG's office, but members of other law enforcement agencies. Many of them, as in other cases, they have their credibility attacked. They have their methodology attacked. They have their character attacked. They get second guessed by people who were never there at the beginning. And it's always easy for there to be a second guesser. They have the benefit of not being responsible for their decisions, and they had the benefit of hindsight that the people who were on the ground didn't have. I have full confidence in all of our team members. They're going to be accused of not doing their jobs or doing things they shouldn't have done or not doing things they should have done. That's how these things go, and we're prepared for it.
- [41:16]
A
Death penalty, how long are you going to think about this?
- [41:20]
B
Well, I mean, we were just asked that question less than a week ago, so I know, I know everybody wants answers now.
- [41:27]
A
I understand that.
- [41:28]
B
But the reality is, is these things take time, and people just have to be patient with us.
- [41:33]
A
How patient?
- [41:34]
B
Very patient.
- [41:35]
A
Very patient.
- [41:36]
B
I believe a lot of the questions as to how we're going to proceed with this case will be determined before I leave office.
- [41:43]
A
Okay.
- [41:44]
B
Okay. I mean, January, I don't. I do not plan to leave a lot of decisions on this trial on the bone. Leave a lot of meat on the bone before I leave. I intend to make a lot of these decisions because that's not to deny the next Attorney General the right to make them. I just don't want to hold our team up from moving forward with their trial strategy. And they're going to rely on me to make the decisions so they can start executing the plan long before we ever step foot in the courthouse again. So whether that. Whether the next trial is before the end of the year, whether it's the beginning of next year or later next year, whenever it happens, my goal is to try to get this thing up to full speed for the analysis phase so that we can start letting the public know, I believe before the end of the year, we'll have a trial date picked. Regardless of when that trial date is.
- [42:30]
A
Have you gotten any word on when a judge is going to be appointed to the case? That's up to Kitteridge, right?
- [42:35]
B
Correct.
- [42:37]
A
What's your. What would you prefer? Where do you want it Are you allowed to say where you want the trial to be?
- [42:43]
B
That's part of our analysis and our evaluation of the case. Nice try. Hard to do.
- [42:47]
A
Is there anything else that you want people to know about how you're feeling about this right now?
- [42:51]
B
I mean, look, it's tough to have to go through all of this again. But, you know, I try to see the world. You can see the world as having. Of having to deal with problems, or you can see the world as having to deal with challenges and opportunities. And for me, whenever something bad happens or something feels like a setback in the world, in life, a person who's a half glass person, a pessimist, is a person who sees a problem that's beating them down. That's the victim mentality. I like to see glass half full or take it the optimist side. And I believe real leaders don't see problems. They see a challenge or an opportunity. There's an opportunity here for this office to show the world a second time that it wasn't a fluke, that we weren't just good one time, that we are consistently good. And I'm guardedly optimistic about the future of the office of the Attorney General.
- [43:44]
A
My other questions, as you rightly told me, probably needed to stay within the. In Creighton Waters office and in strategy right now. But I guess the only thing I want. I never really asked you this, and I'll wrap up on this, but the kennel video, what came out of your mouth when you saw that kennel video? What was the first thing that. I'm sure you remember your reaction the first time you ever saw the kennel video.
- [44:08]
B
Oh, yeah.
- [44:09]
A
What did you do?
- [44:10]
B
Well, I don't know that I can say. It was part of the process I went through in order to be able to comfort level, to be able to indict for double murder. And there were a number of factors that I relied on to get to that comfort level. That was one of those factors. It wasn't the sole factor. There were other things, because I believe in my bone marrow that Mr. Murdaugh, you know, committed these crimes, otherwise I would not have indicted him for them. And everyone on our trial team believed this. But that kennel video, when we saw it the first time, was a significant piece in the puzzle of whether or not we could prove this case beyond a reasonable doubt. And it was important in that regard. And so, yeah, it was impactful for me. It wasn't solely dispositive of my decision, but it was certainly impactful in my Decision.
- [45:02]
A
What did you say?
- [45:04]
B
Wow. Very interesting. I mean, I wish I could give you something really sizzled.
- [45:10]
A
No, you do not have to.
- [45:11]
B
You're looking for a sizzle. But it was like, wow, that's really interesting. That was kind of my reaction to it. I mean, what was your reaction to it?
- [45:18]
A
Oh, my God. Oh, my God. Like, I remember seeing it thinking, you actually have him. And I know that we're gonna see, as you said, your job is to get that timeline straight. Straight as an arrow. Defense's job is to obscure that timeline as much as they can. But when you heard him on the kennel video, that was shocking.
- [45:41]
B
Come here, bottle.
- [45:42]
A
Come here, cash. Especially since we know that he did not tell the truth. He did not tell the truth to anyone.
- [45:50]
B
Right.
- [45:51]
A
About where he was. He lied. He lied to his lawyers. I mean, I'm assuming he did, or they wouldn't have been playing with that fire again.
- [46:05]
B
Because we're going back into this trial. I'm not going to comment on your analysis, but what I would say is that it was a very telling moment in the trial. It was an aha moment. It was an aha moment for me during the analysis of whether he should be indicted for murder. And it was an aha moment when he decided to tell his attorneys that he was actually there and then that he decided to take the stand. And you know what they do in the next trial? We'll find out. They're gonna develop their strategy, we're gonna develop ours. We're gonna put it in court of law for the entire world to see a second time, and we'll let the cards fall where they will.
- [46:39]
A
Yeah. And I'm not saying that that was the only thing, but obviously that was that really. Obviously. That's already on the table. Everybody's seen the kennel video. They've torn it apart. They've looked it upside down. They played it backwards. It's like the Beatles album. Like, at this point, everybody that knows this case knows the kennel video. And there will be 800 opportunities now to tear that apart. A lot of circumstantial evidence. Once again, y' all are confident that this is going to come through with another guilty verdict?
- [47:11]
B
Look, I would not pursue this case if I did not think we could prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. That's how we operate. I mean, people try to politicize cases. They say, you know, people who can convict someone in a court of public opinion get mad when a prosecutor doesn't bring a case in a court of law because they can convince themselves in a bar or restaurant with their friends. But in a court of law, there are rules of evidence, rules of criminal procedure. There are barriers and impediments to protect the accused. Obviously, under our system, our criminal justice system and getting in, and I tell people all the time I don't prosecute what I believe. I prosecute what I can prove beyond a reasonable doubt. And I know a lot of people don't like that. But you have to be able to get over the reasonable doubt barrier. Otherwise you're just weaponizing the criminal justice system. And so I believe that we can prove this case beyond a reasonable doubt, much like I did the first time. I believe we can do it the second time. That is why I have publicly said we intend to pursue it again.
- [48:15]
A
Well, I'll let you go on that.
- [48:16]
B
Yes, ma'.
- [48:17]
A
Am. I appreciate it. Thank you for talking to me. My pleasure. It is going to be fascinating. I have a feeling that you will still get a front row seat. Maybe you and Charlie can be the former South Carolina attorney generals that are at this point next time. But. But good luck with everything. You've got a busy season.
- [48:34]
B
I appreciate that means a lot.
- [48:36]
A
Drop a comment below. Tell me what you think about my conversation with the Attorney General Alan Wilson and what questions you have, because I'll be reading all of your comments and I certainly will be bringing you a lot more on the Murdoch story. Be sure to like and subscribe to Criminally Obsessed because there is a lot more to the Murdoch sag.