Loading summary
Transcript45 lines
- [00:00]
A
The death penalty is not off the table for Alec Murdoch. The South Carolina Attorney general said it loud and clear. But what will this next trial look like? I'm Ann Emerson. Welcome to Criminally Obsessed. Alec Murdoch's defense attorney told me he's got new evidence, so I wanted to find out if the prosecution does, too. The defense knows exactly what your play is as far as the. The. The. The cards you've played. Is that kind of a bummer, or is that. Is that just the way it goes, and. And you've got more cards up your sleeve, as it were. I also had to find out if the former court clerk, Becky Hill, was headed back to court to face more charges. The state Supreme Court's opinion on her interactions with the jurors was scathing, calling it shocking, egregious, disgraceful, and unprecedented. Murdoch's 2023 double murder trial lasted six weeks. I was there every day. It was dubbed the trial of the century. They couldn't get enough. And part of that was the prosecution. Creighton Waters opened the trial with this theme, the Gathering Storm.
- [01:03]
B
You're gonna hear some of what was going on in Alex Murdaugh's life leading up to that day. Stuff that happened that very day, stuff that was leading up, a perfect storm that was gathering, much like the storms that are coming outside today.
- [01:17]
A
I gotta wonder what the theme of the retrial will be. Be sure to, like, subscribe and turn on your notifications so you don't miss any of these Murdoch interviews. Let's get into it. Creighton Waters. Thank you so much for joining me, lead prosecutor on the Murdoch prosecution team. The work you did the first time was a heavy lift. Is just not. That just doesn't even cover it. The amount of blood, sweat and tears that went into the first trial. How are you feeling about the decision? That came down?
- [01:58]
B
Well, and it's good to see you again. Obviously, we're very disappointed with the court's decision, and we disagree with it, but we also respect the court. We respect the process. You know, obviously, you're exactly right. You were down there and saw just how much work the team did, and not just my folks, but all the law enforcement. And, you know, we're certainly not excited to have to go do that again, but it's our job, and we plan to do exactly that.
- [02:26]
A
How'd you find out?
- [02:29]
B
Well, interestingly, I got a email at 1001. Somehow, an article dropped 30 seconds later, but I first found out at 1001 both as it relates to, you know, the Becky Hill aspect or other issues in the case. You know, it's obviously frustrating, but it's part of the process. And so we, you know, we'll move on and do what we need to do.
- [02:58]
A
I've been schooled on this by our legal analysts, former South Carolina Attorney General Charlie Condon, that retrials happen, things happen, mistrials happen, like, stuff happens. And it's not. I mean, this case is unbelievably prominent, of course. I mean, it's the O.J. of South Carolina. It's the trial of the century. We've heard it all. But it's not that uncommon to have to retry stuff, huh?
- [03:24]
B
Well, you know, unfortunately, it isn't. Again, this is part of the process. This is America, and, and our system is set up a certain way, and, and I wouldn't have it any other way. Obviously, things like this are frustrating and, and I don't want to minimize the, the fact that we're disappointed and disagree with the decision. But I very much believe in the process. You know, I started my career doing a lot of appellate work in murder cases, and so I've had to, you know, have those conversations with victims where, you know, something got flipped. I say it all the time. It's a marathon, it's not a sprint. And so, you know, we're used to this. You know, not happy about it, but we're used to it. And again, it's the job. And we also. I have a team that's very committed that have spent their careers in this role because we're very committed to, to catching bad guys and, and to pursuing justice, as disappointing as it can be. It's also, you know, there's also a lot of professional pride in what we do. And so we'll dig deep and continue on.
- [04:32]
A
What stung the most out of the. The opinion. What stung the most to you when you read that?
- [04:40]
B
Well, I don't know if stinging is the right word. I mean, the court, you know, recognized, and I think they twice in that opinion talked about, you know, the excellent job that Judge Newman and both the prosecution and the state and the defense did in this case. You know, we were very aggressive about the evidence. And you're aware of this. On the financial side, we prior, it's not like we were playing gotcha. We actually, prior to trial, filed multiple 20 motions, had a big hearing on it, where we laid all our cards out on the table. And then at trial, we did all of this in camera. So we said exactly what we were going to do and why this case is unique, and why it demanded a unique application of the rules. And so we knew we were being aggressive about that, but again, we laid our cards out on the table, and Judge Newman listened to all of it and said, you know what? I agree with you. It comes in, and the Supreme Court recognized in its opinion that, you know, this evidence of motive was viable. They just put some guardrails in place, and, you know, that's. That's how the process works. I think the one thing that you don't expect, that you don't count on, you know, you take calculated risks as a lawyer. You make arguments. You know, you can win some, you can lose some, but the one thing you don't expect is to have the thing get flipped because of the actions of the clerk. And so if. If there is anything that's stung, for lack of a better word, it's. That's kind of out of your control. And that was, you know, what the court ultimately hung its hat on. So that. That certainly is the hardest part to take.
- [06:05]
A
It really is when I'm looking at what they wrote. We agree with Murdoch. Prejudice is presumed from Hill's comments. And while this presumption is rebuttable, the state failed to overcome this presumption. So was there anything else you feel like in your head, hindsight is 20 20. Is there anything you could have told the justices that would have stopped this train wreck?
- [06:30]
B
Well, well, no. I mean, we. We don't create facts. We just, you know, identify them. You know, when they say the state failed to rebut the presumption, that's how the standards expressed it doesn't mean that we failed to do something or we didn't do our jobs. It just means that the facts, as the Supreme Court saw it, were not enough to overcome that presumption. Justice Toll, of course, saw it differently. She thought the facts were enough because she put in her order that even if we applied a presumption of prejudice, that the state has overcome that. And that, of course, was based on her examining all the jurors. Obviously, 11 of them were clear and that there was, you know, no such effect or if there were any comments that were very innocuous. There was one juror, and then. And the court recognized problems with that juror. So, you know, that's how Justice Toll saw it. That's how we saw it. That after six weeks of trial, 75 witnesses, 500 exhibits, Judge Newman, the prosecution team, law enforcement, the defense, the idea that a few comments from Becky were what, you know, swayed the day we argued just doesn't make sense. But again, the court saw a differently and, and I certainly understand the expectation that we all have from court officials. And so I, I understand, you know, where they're coming from. We just didn't think that ultimately there was prejudice. Regardless of what standards you applied.
- [07:49]
A
Becky Hill took a, took a plea agreement based on the fact that she was investigated. And from what I understand, and tell me if I'm wrong. I mean, she has not faced any charges on, on jury tampering or jury interference yet. Now come down from the justices, from the high court saying it absolutely was. Does she need to face charges now for this?
- [08:14]
B
Well, obviously, you know, I couldn't comment on, you know, whether or not somebody should face charges. We either charge people or don't. Ultimately, while our office ensured that a vigorous investigation was done, that was assigned by the Attorney General to Solicitor Rick Hubbard. And Becky Hill ultimately pled guilty for lying to just toll about showing those sealed images which we so desperately tried to protect and, and showing those images and allowing members of the media to photograph them. She pled guilty to various misconduct regarding the expenditure funds and all of that. And of course, you can reach out to Rick, assess the specifics of that as to whether or not there should be charges beyond that, again, I can't. It would be inappropriate for me to comment. We either charge people or we don't. I will say, though, that the Supreme Court found her conduct, as they put it, to be egregious. And, and we were never saying that it wasn't egregious for a court official to make comments. I mean, there should be a bright line there. And we all recognize that. What we were saying, though, is that if you looked at the jurors that Justice Toll found credible, those comments were very, were fairly innocuous. And again, when you put that in the context of the entirety of this trial, they didn't have a prejudicial effect. That was our argument. And again, the Supreme Court saw it differently. That's completely their prerogative to do.
- [09:40]
A
Just tell me what exactly happens next.
- [09:44]
B
Under the rules, we have 15 days. If we wanted to seek rehearing from the supreme court, we have 90 days from either the, the decision date or if we were to seek rehearing, any decision on that, to seek review by the US Supreme Court. But I think, and again, we're still processing all this and we're going to have discussions internally. But I will say I, you know, I believe that probably the course of action is let's just go ahead and get this thing rolling and tee it up again. And, and so we will reach out to the court and try to, you know, get something on the book, scheduling wise. The defense, obviously you can ask them, I'm sure you have, as to what their position is going to be on that. And then, you know, we'll make our positions to the court and as always, the court will decide which way to go. So. But we plan to, assuming that we don't pursue any appellate remedies, and I think we're leaning we won't to try to get this thing rolling, you know, within reason, as soon as possible.
- [10:47]
A
Where is it going to be?
- [10:49]
B
That remains to be seen. And, you know, again, it would be improper for me to go ahead and litigate these issues. As a prosecutor, you know, the defense has different rules. They can kind of get out there and litigate it in the media. We're back to square one. On the, on the murder, he's innocent until proven guilty. As far as the financial crimes, as you're aware, he has pled guilty to all of those, and that's why he's in prison based on those state grand jury indictments. And then, of course, year and a half later, the feds indicted, you know, the same thing. But so he's not going anywhere. And those are all, you know, fully adjudicated. He's waived his appeals on that. But as to the murders, we're back to square one. And he's innocent until proven guilty. So I'm not going to. It would be inappropriate for me, you know, in a media interview to litigate our positions. Ultimately, I'm sure there will be motions and, or discussions among the defense, the state and the judge as to the appropriate venue. And you'll, you know, find out about those. When we litigate those in court, where
- [11:47]
A
they should be, the defense knows exactly what your play is. As far as the, the, the, the cards you played right, from just a legal strategy. Is that kind of a bummer or is that, is that just the way it goes? And, and you've got more cards up your sleeve, as it were.
- [12:03]
B
Well, no, I mean, we don't have cards up our sleeve. You know, again, the rules for prosecution and defense are different. We, you know, we always show our cards. And my personal practice, like, for example, with the financial evidence, even though I don't necessarily have to preview all that, I do that because, again, I want to make sure that the court knows what I'm about to do. And there's going to be an argument of law so that, you know, so that the court can make a ruling before something happens in front of the jury. That's my personal practice is, you know, not to play gotcha. So additionally, this was, you know, all the financial stuff was a state grand jury investigation. We do very, very detailed investigations and you know, witnesses testify, testify before the state grand jury and the defense has access to all of those. So all of our cards are already on the table. We don't keep cards up our sleeve. And like I said before, you know, we don't, we don't create facts. We just present them and present them in the course of, of what we believe that they prove the truth of what they prove. And so that's what we plan to do. And you know, so it is what it is. But it wasn't like anything was a surprise in the first trial for the defense, I wouldn't think. And the fact that they've got a practice round, you know, maybe that helps them. But, you know, in the end we're still going to be presenting the same facts and, and it'll be up to finding an impartial jury can be fair both to the state and the defense who will decide ultimately, the question, who
- [13:29]
A
is this impartial jury? Is what I'm trying to understand. And does that just naturally bias towards the defense if they haven't made up their mind to some degree?
- [13:38]
B
Well, no, I think that first of all, when I talked about the overwhelming evidence, I was doing so in the context of what our arguments to the court were as it related to, to Becky. But I will say this, this is the world we live in now, okay? And, and I'm sitting right now talking to you, and we all know that there are, there's a huge interest nationwide in the criminal justice process and you know, the true crime phenomenon, whatever you want to call it, there's a lot more obviously media coverage and media out outlets out there that, that do that. And so we, we can't be ostriches, you know, be an ostrich and bury our heads in the sand and pretend like modern world doesn't exist. This genie is out of the bottle. By the same token, we can't say that just because a case becomes sensational and there's always going to be the next one that's sensational and the next one that's sensational that we can't have a fair trial because then that, what that would mean is the defendant would just get away with it because, you know, you're saying that you know that anybody who's heard about it can't be a fair juror. We also are in a world where I think people are more sophisticated about content, and they understand the difference between what's in a movie or a book or a podcast or the newspaper and what's actually the truth of the evidence from the stand. And so what we will do is do what we did in the first trial and rely on our citizens to do their duty to separate the wheat from the chaff, to push out anything that they may know about the case from, from outside and be fair both to the state and the defense, and base their decision only on the evidence. And that's the world we live in. And that's, I think, how it's going to be going forward throughout the nation whenever you have a case that gets a large amount of notoriety.
- [15:25]
A
I, I agree. And you know, Alec Murdoch, from what I understand, I did get a chance to speak with, with his defense attorney, and when they presented it that, that he was going to have these double murder convictions overturned, I asked what his response was, and he didn't believe it. It wasn't happiness or sadness or anything. I mean, I don't know if it was just shock, but he just flat out didn't believe it. He said, I don't believe it. Are you surprised by that?
- [15:53]
B
You know, again, I'm not going to comment on, you know, Alex, reaction or response to that. You know, that's my job, Will, as always, to take a look at the evidence and present a case to a jury. And so that's what we hear.
- [16:11]
A
You. Have you been in touch with the Murdoch family?
- [16:13]
B
Well, again, it's not appropriate for me to comment on my conversations with any of the, the family members, other than to say, as a general matter, that, you know, we have an obligation which we take very seriously, to communicate with, you know, with family members.
- [16:33]
A
Is there an opportunity here for you to go back in with sled and reinvestigate some things?
- [16:38]
B
You know, one of the things that we always do as prosecutors and law enforcement is you're constantly, you know, accessing any information that you can. So I'm not saying that, that there's anything credible or not credible that has, quote, come out since then. But I will say that it is my job and it's the job of law enforcement to always have an open mind, and we will always do that. And so that's, that's just part of it.
- [17:06]
A
I think you said to me last time we talked, if evidence came to light, yeah, we're going to investigate it.
- [17:11]
B
No, I agree with that, that we, we always are going to investigate anything. Our job as prosecutors is very clear. Again, our rules are different than any other lawyer. Our job is not to win. Our job is to do justice. And we take that very seriously. And part of that means that, you know, you're, you're always looking carefully at your evidence. And that's exactly what we did before we went forward in the first case.
- [17:36]
A
Obviously, I've had conversations with, with folks who, like Blanca who said that, you know, there are things that she just wasn't asked about the first time around that, you know, I'm wondering if that, that will be a possibility this time.
- [17:48]
B
Again, I'm not, I can't. And wouldn't it be inappropriate for me to sit here and comment on the viability of specific evidence other than to say that we always are going to have our eyes open at anything that comes up.
- [18:03]
A
Eddie Smith. It's a pending investigation. I just happened to ask about it a week ago just because I, I did interview Curtis Eddie Smith back in the day. It's still pending. Is it getting wrapped up anytime soon? Is it part of this?
- [18:19]
B
Again, just. I know this is, you know, frustrating, but it's a pending matter and, you know the rules. We don't, we don't comment on pending matters. I can't, you know, say anything more than about Eddie than. Other than those cases remain pending at this time.
- [18:35]
A
This is going to be another. It's, it's more like an ultra marathon. I know you said it was a marathon. I feel like you're now into an ultra marathon just by the, the extent of this. Do you feel like losing that trial within a trial, that two weeks of the financial crimes, having that pared back on some level? Can you comment on, on how that will affect the way you move forward?
- [19:04]
B
Well, again, I don't know. When you say losing it, I don't. That's not what the court's opinion said. In fact, it repeatedly said that the trial court that it was a viable theory of motive and that the trial court carefully considered it. I think what the Supreme Court did was say was have some guidance about the extent of it. Now, the defense, I'm sure, has a different viewpoint, but the plain language of the opinion is there. So, you know, again, I can't sit here and litigate exactly how it's going to go the next time other than, you know, we plan to, you know, to present our case and we'll make our arguments. And the trial court that Hears it will, you know, have the guidance of that opinion. And, you know, to some extent, obviously from that guidance, we would modulate that presentation. And I'm sure the defense is going to, just like they did last time, to object to all of it. And we will, you know, present our arguments to the court and the court will make its decision. So stay tuned.
- [20:02]
A
You know, as far as looking at the investigation, you know, we still haven't found the murder weapons. Is that frustrating?
- [20:11]
B
Well, I mean, again, facts are what they are. You know, we of course argued to the jury that in the first trial that, that family weapons were, were used and, you know, they can't be accounted for. So, you know, obviously you would always like to have a murder weapon, but as I said before, we don't create facts. We just present what the facts are and, and what we believe those facts mean. So you'd always like to find, find the murder weapon, but sometimes you don't, and that's not uncommon either.
- [20:51]
A
Is there anyone from your prosecution team besides the general, Attorney General Alan Wilson, who may have been, you know, will have moved on by November in case this happens after November? Anybody else that won't be on your team?
- [21:07]
B
Well, you know, I don't, I, I don't know that. I mean, heck, I might not be here. So most of my team's still together and, and everybody, while, you know, not relishing the opportunity to have to go do all that hard work again, still I've got a great team that we support each other and, and that makes it, you know, that makes it possible to survive it. And I'm just lucky enough to be the one that gets to, to lead such a great group of people. And that's not just my folks, but also all the law enforcement as well. You know, some of them have retired or moved on, but they understand their obligation and they' have to, you know, dust everything off and come on back and let's, let's do the job.
- [21:46]
A
Well, thank you so much for talking to me today. I appreciate it. Are you going to be able to talk anymore after this, or do you get sort of locked down soon and into prosecutorial mode?
- [21:56]
B
The rules that we take very seriously generally, of course, allow me to explain the steps in the process and generally explain, you know, what our positions are as far as the facts of the case. Just like we did before, you know, the defense can talk, but we're not going to sit here and litigate the facts. You know, that's for court.
- [22:17]
A
It's definitely a different standard.
- [22:18]
B
Right yeah, there are. There are different rules that apply to the prosecutors sometimes. I'm giving you the same answer. I can't comment on that. And. But that's. There's a good reason for that. And, and that's, you know, part of the process. It can be frustrating and be very disappointing. But, you know, I respect the court. I respect the process. I believe in the process. And so it's the process that we will follow.
- [22:43]
A
A lot of decisions still have to be made before the new trial is set for Alec Murdoch. We need to appoint a judge. We need to find out when it's going to be and where it's going to be. Drop a comment below. Tell me which county in South Carolina that you think this may be held and when do you think they'll do it? Will it be in the new year, or do you think they're really going to try and get a speedy trial before the new year? I'd love to hear your thoughts. I'm also going to be at CrimeCon in Las Vegas. That is in less than two weeks. And we have a live panel with Blanca Trubiate Simpson, the former Murdoch housekeeper and one of Maggie's confidants. And we're going to have a very honest conversation up there. I'd love for you to be there. If you want to go, you can still get tickets. Go to the CrimeCon website and put in Criminally Obsessed. One word and you will get 10% off as a promo code. I hope I see you there.