Murdaugh defense responds to state’s opposition to motion to dismiss indictments

COLLETON COUNTY, S.C. (WCSC) — Alex Murdaugh’s defense team has responded to the state’s opposition to his request to dismiss the murder indictments against him.

The state denies the defense’s claim that fabricated blood-spatter evidence was presented to a grand jury. Murdaugh’s lawyers say the state does not dispute the core facts behind their motion.

The motion to dismiss and the state’s subsequent filing focus on blood spatter. They also address questions about whether the victims’ blood was found on Murdaugh’s shirt and whether guns at Moselle matched the possible murder weapon.

In the new filing, Murdaugh’s team says it believes “false” evidence may have influenced a Colleton County grand jury’s decision to indict Murdaugh.

Murdaugh’s team wants the case dismissed. The team says the state can then go back to a grand jury that has not been told about the blood at all.

Murdaugh’s legal team originally made the request to dismiss in August. A motion to dismiss the indictments was later filed with more specifics about why the team believes the charges should be dismissed.

“The grand jury testimony was false, and the State knew it,” the motion states.

The motion claims the state presented fabricated forensic evidence. Specifically, it claims “that an expert had found the victims’ blood spatter on the shirt Mr. Murdaugh was wearing when he found the bodies of his wife and son, even though the State’s laboratory had confirmed, eleven months before the agent testified, that there was no human blood on the shirt.”

The agent referenced in the motion is SLED Senior Special Agent David Owen, the lead case agent.

The defense also argues Owen presented false forensic testimony to the Colleton County grand jury about guns found on Murdaugh’s property. Owen testified that “shotguns of similar make and load were found on the property.” He later admitted during his trial testimony that he knew the statement was false and explained that he was permitted to use “trickery” while interviewing a suspect.

“An agent who lies to a suspect and then tells the same lie to two grand juries has not made an error; he has made a case,” the motion reads.

The filing also claims the state leaked fabricated evidence to the press, specifically FITSNews. “The leak was an extrajudicial statement, made on behalf of the State, whose only purpose was to persuade the public of Murdaugh’s guilt before he was charged,” the document states.

In its response, the state calls the allegations “simply incorrect” and says there is no evidence anything was fabricated.

“There is no evidence of misrepresentation or intentional fabrication, much less even presentation of false evidence,” the prosecution’s response states.

Prosecutors say the blood-spatter issue was already litigated before and during the previous trial.

The state says a 2021 test indicated the possible presence of blood and spatter on Murdaugh’s white shirt. An outside expert later concluded there were more than 100 spatter stains on it.

The state acknowledges investigators initially missed a separate 2021 lab report that found no human blood in samples from the shirt. Prosecutors say the report was in a lab file provided to the defense but had not initially been given to prosecutors or the outside expert.

After reviewing the report, the expert concluded that an earlier treatment of the shirt could have caused a false negative, the state says. The state says he stood by his opinion that the shirt had blood spatter.

Prosecutors say there is ample evidence to support probable cause and that the high burden for dismissal is not met.

Murdaugh was convicted in a 2023 trial in the deaths of his wife, Maggie, and son, Paul. The South Carolina Supreme Court granted him a new trial after ruling that former Colleton County Clerk of Court Becky Hill’s jury tampering affected the outcome of the case.

Murdaugh’s next court appearance is scheduled for Friday in Lexington County. The hearing will address motions and remaining matters related to the retrial.