GUILTY SC - Paul Murdaugh & mom Margaret Found Shot To Death - Alex Murdaugh Accused - Islandton #39

[AugustWest]

Most of these issues were initially excluded, then allowed after defense "opened the door”. Do you feel the door was sufficiently opened, if so, how will that effect the appeal? It’s my understanding those issues can be introduced as to motive but not to character. I’m not sure how one distinguishes between the two, they seem intertwined in this case. Would the deciding factor be how prejudicial the information is? I am assuming you are a lawyer, I appreciate your insight.

@Loveallmyhorsesdogsandcats

I will try my best to answer each of your questions and explain the rationale for each. I am changing order of the questions to make it easier for me to explain. Legal folk like to break down issues separately. Let's start with the character vs. motive evidence issue.

The rule governing this is Evidentiary Rule 404. I have only included the relevant language of the rule below. Here is a link to the rule in its entirety: Rule 404. Character Evidence; Other Crimes, Wrongs, or Acts

Character Evidence

• (1) General Rule: Evidence of a person’s character or character trait is not admissible to prove that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the character or trait.
• (2) Exceptions for a Defendant or Victim in a Criminal Case: a defendant may offer evidence of the defendant’s pertinent trait, and if the evidence is admitted, the prosecutor may offer evidence to rebut it. This is the opening the door part of the rule.

Note the language; character evidence starts out at default as not admissible. In other words, a judge has no say at all in its admission. It is barred. Do not pass go, do not collect $200. Only one way in otherwise. A defendant may offer character evidence, then the prosecution may offer evidence to rebut this. Notice that this requires the judge to determine the intention of the defendant in offering the character evidence. Did the defendant really offer this as character evidence, or some other reason? Was the particular evidence introduced inadvertently? Did it come out in testimony that the defendant intended to show something other than character?

Other Crimes, Wrongs, or Acts (the "Motive" part)

• (1) Prohibited Uses: Evidence of any other crime, wrong, or act is not admissible to prove a person’s character in order to show that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the character.
• (2) Permitted Uses. This evidence may be admissible for another purpose, such as proving motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, absence of mistake, or lack of accident.

Again, note the language. Other crimes evidence to show character in conformity therewith is not admissible. It is completely barred. Do not pass go, do not collect $200. Not even something a judge can consider. The default is non-inclusion. Only can be used to show motive, intent, and so on as described above. Even if admissible, it is only so at the discretion of the judge, as evidenced by the "may be" language of the exception.

This is when the next pertinent rule of evidence kicks in. That is Rule 403.

• The court may exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of one or more of the following: unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_403.

Under 403, any and all relevant evidence can be excluded by the judge for the above reasons. In other words, the rule expects the judge to determine whether any relevant evidence, including and not limited to character and/or motive evidence is prejudicial, confusing, cumulative, and so on. Even if relevant, it should not be admitted as a general rule.

So how would I answer your questions? First, I would say that generally Rule 404 means "don't include the character evidence." That, in my opinion, is where all judges should start. They should lean to non-inclusion.

Next, did the defendant open the door? In my opinion, yes, but only after the state put on its case. The state witnesses testified to his character, then the judge had to determine the intent of the defense questions to these witnesses. The state placed the defense, inadvertently, in a position where the character evidence was inevitably introduced. I could swing either way on this issue. I don't know if the defense would have introduced any character evidence at all in their case-in-chief; they probably would have.

Now the motive issue, which falls under the 404 "other crimes" section. I think the prosecution should have been allowed to use any information relevant to show motive, which included his financial crimes. However, this is where I got a sick feeling in my stomach when it was included. It became extremely cumulative, extremely confusing, and IMO possibly prejudicial to the jury. Murdaugh is such a piece of garbage outside of the question of the murders that I think it hard to separate his misdeeds. Thus, I do believe this will come down to a prejudice issue, not only on Rule 404 grounds but also on Rule 403 grounds.

None of this reflects poorly on Judge Newman. He made tough calls on these issues, and he certainly has reasonable arguments for the evidence admission. I think a lot of legal types simply see it differently. Nothing wrong with that. As Bruce Hornsby said, "lawyers dwell on small details." We argue. We disagree. That's what we do for a living.

I hope this has helped you, and I hope I answered your questions sufficiently.

 

[Periwinkl3]

I'd bet money that at some point as a lawyer, AM saw a defendant, with a dramatically runny nose and no tissue, win sympathy in a case, and he added it to his own mental toolkit.

 

[MyJoey]

Love to see AM take a lie detector test lol. The machine would be smoking hot!

 

[Gardenista]

I think they mean the sentencing today, not the reading of the verdict. don’t think who ever wrote the story knows the difference. moo

But Randy was not there today either

 

[Simply Southern]

You're welcome. But the rest of the influence is a lot more subtle and entrenched because of the influence that the family holds over that small corner of the state. I assume you watched Miss Shelley's testimony. She was terrified. She testified that he tried to get her to confirm that he was at his parents' house for twice the length of time that he was there. Then he (IMO pointedly, knowing that she would know exactly what he was getting at) said her upcoming wedding was probably expensive and that maybe he could help her out with the expenses... and then mentioned that he knew her boss at her day job... which I believe was the old mobster carrot/stick workover. That's how the family operated - sometimes subtly and with plausible deniability. Which was calculated exactly to make it difficult to call out, even though people knew what messages they were receiving.

Thank you for the article, I do remember him testifying. I didn't take his statements as "kick backs". It would be mighty bold to pick up money at his office, it could be bigger or video.

I do see what officers were in the office, but no implication AM was paying LE. Could they be giving depositions, serving documents, etc.

I wonder if this information was disclosed prior to him investigating AM for the law firm? Hum....
Moo

 

[Edvis]

I just listened to the defense's press conference. I have some thoughts.

They downplay the financials, twist it into whatever narrative they want and suggest the state only wanted it to show his bad character, but then claimed it was to show motive where there is no financial motive. Well who do we believe Alex's WORDS that financials was not a motive.. nothing to see here, not pressure, no stress, my world was not closing it, Jeanie was mistaken, there was nothing big with the boat case.. and on and on..

OR do we follow the trail the state laid out?

He did this financial crime and then to cover that one he had to steal X money and pay back Y thing. Then the next case came along and he took this money or did this misdeed, borrowed from this bank, cashed this check, borrowed from his friend, put his house as collateral, etc. and on and on. There was a clear path of how each next crime helped him clear up the previous misdeed. Then in June 2021 there was nobody else to "rob".. he tried to get a loan, his account was overdrawn by $300,000+, he was confronted that day, he was preparing for the boat hearing, he inquired about his 401K that same day. What was he going to do? Where was he going to get any more money? What case was pending that could get him out of this current mess? There wasn't one. He was being slowly squeezed and he did know that boat case was going to expose his financials. There was not one piece of evidence to show he could get money from anywhere else that day.

Now suppose he puts one of his properties on the market.. do you think that would fly? His financials were front and center because of the boat case and him getting rid of assets while the heat was on was not going to happen. I believe it was one of his law partners that said when they were seeing the odd financials they thought he was trying to move money around to avoid disclosing it in the boat case. That is illegal in itself. Little did they know he was just plain stealing from them.

Just because there was no life insurance on his wife and son does not mean it wasn't financially motivated. That financial pressure was on ingredient in the mix and the TIMING of it was key. The defense just wants us to take their word that Alex said there was no financial motive.. yeah okay. In Alex's world financial GAIN was not the motive.. it was keeping his financial actions secret that was motive. It was him eliminating things he thought were exposing those crimes or the reason those crimes would be found out.

So many comments here and elsewhere saying they didn't see a financial motive because there was no life insurance. Well that isn't the only way someone benefits financially from someone's death.

100% and like a Vampire doing anything and everything to avoid being exposed to the light of day.

 

[AugustWest]

Getting ready for trial Laticia Stauch around March 23rd

I normally don't get too emotionally attached to cases. This is the exception. I hope she hangs from the highest tree in Colorado.

 

[Diddian]

There's so much water in that area, too. They might have also broken down the gun(s) put the parts in a bucket filled with concrete then sunk it out in the deeper waters or in some remote, hidden cove.

BBM.

Interesting that you say "they." I assume this means you suspect one or more conspirators were involved, whether before, during, or after the murders?

When Mark Keel, Captain of SLED gave a press conference today thanking his officers for the hard work involved in this case, he promised their investigation would eventually find others, if more were involved. I wonder what they have that suggests such.

 

[Loveallmyhorsesdogsandcats]

Interesting. Who fell up the stairs? How could that happen?

I have tripped going up stairs and fallen, would not describe it as falling up though. If she were carrying something or nit able to react fast enough to break the fall with her hands she might land face first. I don’t know where the wound was on her head. Moo

But Randy was not there today either

well, there you go, they really don‘t know what they are writing about. I thought I saw RM, thanks for the clarification

 

[Seattle1]

The Honorable Judge Clifton Newman for Supreme Court!

I just love that after he no longer had to remain neutral, he gave his personal opinion about this crime and this defendant.

Alec was at the murder scene at the time of the murders, and no one else was. Could there have been some wildly implausible theory other than that Alec murdered them? Some outer-space, fanciful, preposterous other notion of who else could have killed them, with the placid dogs and Alec himself saying no one else was there?

Most emphatically, when the suspect had proven himself to lie egregiously in every area of his life, and to all who knew him best?

No, and the judge directly told Alex and told the court and the media. No, the evidence was overwhelming.

Supreme Court Justice the Honorable Clifton Newton !

(I can hope, at least, someday)!!!!

Much to my surprise, SC has an age restriction of 72 to sit on the bench and this brilliant justice will be forced out soon. Judge Newman was also an excellent Judge when he presided over Samantha Josephson's killer (the victim mistook her killer as her Uber).

Man Sentenced to Life in Prison for Murder of College Student Samantha Josephson in Mistaken Uber Case

 

[bestill]

But Randy was not there today either

His other uncle was, Liz's husband, that may have been the 2 uncles, jmo

 

[Walela]

If you guys were jurors, would you talk to the media?

I would but only to correct any erroneous statements made about what transpired in the deliberations.

 

[Edvis]

Love to see AM take a lie detector test lol. The machine would be smoking hot!

Like throwing metal into a molton cauldron of fire.

 

[jennyjenny]

Still wanting to hear what exactly it was about the shotgun shells that caused not guilty thought.

I'll take a "shot" at this ... MM was shot with .300 blackout but shotgun shells were found around her as well. Two jurors took this to mean 2 shooters. That's my understanding ... I may be way off base.

 

[tlsmi]

It was a stunning outcome. I never had doubts myself about his guilt but I wasn't so sure about the jurors. He lured his wife there under the pretense of visiting his parent(s) yet never seemed concerned where she was so they could ride /follow each other to their house together? He just left. Makes no sense.
Lying about the kennel, of course. So many other factors.


Maybe he was planning to kill himself too. Maybe he was planning to STAGE it to appear as if Paul shot his Mother, then himself.
There is more to this and many suspect the same. He stole a ton of money. Where did all that cash go??
Moo.

 

[Simply Southern]

You're welcome. But the rest of the influence is a lot more subtle and entrenched because of the influence that the family holds over that small corner of the state. I assume you watched Miss Shelley's testimony. She was terrified. She testified that he tried to get her to confirm that he was at his parents' house for twice the length of time that he was there. Then he (IMO pointedly, knowing that she would know exactly what he was getting at) said her upcoming wedding was probably expensive and that maybe he could help her out with the expenses... and then mentioned that he knew her boss at her day job... which I believe was the old mobster carrot/stick workover. That's how the family operated - sometimes subtly and with plausible deniability. Which was calculated exactly to make it difficult to call out, even though people knew what messages they were receiving.

To clarify its one county, not that corner of the state. I'm retired and in this area frequently, I worked all over the entire state. I never heard of AM until the boat accident, made local papers. MOO...

 

[Loveallmyhorsesdogsandcats]

@Loveallmyhorsesdogsandcats

I will try my best to answer each of your questions and explain the rationale for each. I am changing order of the questions to make it easier for me to explain. Legal folk like to break down issues separately. Let's start with the character vs. motive evidence issue.

The rule governing this is Evidentiary Rule 404. I have only included the relevant language of the rule below. Here is a link to the rule in its entirety: Rule 404. Character Evidence; Other Crimes, Wrongs, or Acts

Character Evidence

• (1) General Rule: Evidence of a person’s character or character trait is not admissible to prove that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the character or trait.
• (2) Exceptions for a Defendant or Victim in a Criminal Case: a defendant may offer evidence of the defendant’s pertinent trait, and if the evidence is admitted, the prosecutor may offer evidence to rebut it. This is the opening the door part of the rule.

Note the language; character evidence starts out at default as not admissible. In other words, a judge has no say at all in its admission. It is barred. Do not pass go, do not collect $200. Only one way in otherwise. A defendant may offer character evidence, then the prosecution may offer evidence to rebut this. Notice that this requires the judge to determine the intention of the defendant in offering the character evidence. Did the defendant really offer this as character evidence, or some other reason? Was the particular evidence introduced inadvertently? Did it come out in testimony that the defendant intended to show something other than character?

Other Crimes, Wrongs, or Acts (the "Motive" part)

• (1) Prohibited Uses: Evidence of any other crime, wrong, or act is not admissible to prove a person’s character in order to show that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the character.
• (2) Permitted Uses. This evidence may be admissible for another purpose, such as proving motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, absence of mistake, or lack of accident.

Again, note the language. Other crimes evidence to show character in conformity therewith is not admissible. It is completely barred. Do not pass go, do not collect $200. Not even something a judge can consider. The default is non-inclusion. Only can be used to show motive, intent, and so on as described above. Even if admissible, it is only so at the discretion of the judge, as evidenced by the "may be" language of the exception.

This is when the next pertinent rule of evidence kicks in. That is Rule 403.

• The court may exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of one or more of the following: unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_403.

Under 403, any and all relevant evidence can be excluded by the judge for the above reasons. In other words, the rule expects the judge to determine whether any relevant evidence, including and not limited to character and/or motive evidence is prejudicial, confusing, cumulative, and so on. Even if relevant, it should not be admitted as a general rule.

So how would I answer your questions? First, I would say that generally Rule 404 means "don't include the character evidence." That, in my opinion, is where all judges should start. They should lean to non-inclusion.

Next, did the defendant open the door? In my opinion, yes, but only after the state put on its case. The state witnesses testified to his character, then the judge had to determine the intent of the defense questions to these witnesses. The state placed the defense, inadvertently, in a position where the character evidence was inevitably introduced. I could swing either way on this issue. I don't know if the defense would have introduced any character evidence at all in their case-in-chief; they probably would have.

Now the motive issue, which falls under the 404 "other crimes" section. I think the prosecution should have been allowed to use any information relevant to show motive, which included his financial crimes. However, this is where I got a sick feeling in my stomach when it was included. It became extremely cumulative, extremely confusing, and IMO possibly prejudicial to the jury. Murdaugh is such a piece of garbage outside of the question of the murders that I think it hard to separate his misdeeds. Thus, I do believe this will come down to a prejudice issue, not only on Rule 404 grounds but also on Rule 403 grounds.

None of this reflects poorly on Judge Newman. He made tough calls on these issues, and he certainly has reasonable arguments for the evidence admission. I think a lot of legal types simply see it differently. Nothing wrong with that. As Bruce Hornsby said, "lawyers dwell on small details." We argue. We disagree. That's what we do for a living.

I hope this has helped you, and I hope I answered your questions sufficiently.

I appreciate the response! I was under the impression that the door was opened during the states case by the defense of cross of states witnesses, they asked about his character. CW at that point objected, if they’re going to ask about character he gets to introduce evidence to counter it. The judge sent the jury to chambers, listened to the states witness testimony before he made a decision to let them testify. They also asked MP about the Sept road side shooting which allowed the state to clarify that AM had confessed to arranging it. Does that change things?
This was during the states case,

Judge allows Alex Murdaugh's alleged financial crimes into evidence at murder trial, a pivotal win for the prosecution


Newman had said last week that it was the defense who "opened the door" to allowing Murdaugh's financial situation to be up for review when they asked witnesses on the stand about his character and if there was any reason they could think of that Murdaugh would kill his wife and son.

"Evidence of other crimes or bad acts is necessary if it is an essential part of the crimes on trial," Newman said.

 

[Warwick7]

Does anyone have a nagging thought???? What if he wasn't the murderer???

No.

 

[AugustWest]

No MD

What md has a license that could withstand writing that amount of prescription opiods for long. Plus, what pharmacy is filling these "prescriptions"? Where EXACTLY were these drugs coming from? Pure, high quality, unlaced,thousands of oxy????

If AM had access to even a quarter the opiates he claims, he's even past the pharmacist. No middleman. Straight from the factory.

IMO

 

[Edvis]

I'll take a "shot" at this ... MM was shot with .300 blackout but shotgun shells were found around her as well. Two jurors took this to mean 2 shooters. That's my understanding ... I may be way off base.

The defense pushed the two short shooters hard but shotgun shells as well as rifle shells were found all over the area including right in the garden bed up at the house. The shooting range had shells all over as well and said the family never cleaned up their brass and shells. Fresh 300 blackout shells were also found around MM and shotgun shells, 2 were found just inside the doorway where PM was shot.