Hearing back in session. For background, original agreement with receivership and Murdaugh's attorneys was for $600K from Murdaugh 401(K) liquidation, ≈ $400K rest went into escrow. Jim Griffin now asking for access to $160K extra for Murdaugh's appeal of his conviction.
Griffin believes Murdaugh has a Constitutional 6th Amendment right (legal counsel of choice) to access these "legitimate, untainted funds." Griffin admits that's the question — if retirement funds are untainted. He believes they are. Also believes Receivers wrong to dispute.
Griffin says Murdaugh still owns the assets (even though they're in court control), and he asks judge to release them pursuant to Murdaugh's Constitutional rights. Griffin also says receivership attorneys are mistaken in arguing Griffin et al agreed to never ask for more money.
Jordan Crapps for receivership replying. He says no Constitutional question here, cites precedent holding 6th Amendment choice of counsel doesn't apply to appeals. Motion is fatally flawed, argument could end right there.
Crapps goes on to say SCOTUS has never recognized 6th Amendment choice of counsel, just that defendants on appeal have right to an attorney.
Judge Hall boils it down: This comes down to who pays, Murdaugh with money that's still technically his, or the taxpayer. (He adds he won't rule today, but wants to hear more discussion).
@ABCNews4
Crapps: Issue of tainted funds is moot. Receivership has control over funds, and Murdaugh has consented / relented to this via past actions & agreements. Believes there's no 6th Amendment issue. Agreement in October 2022 for $600K amounts to waiver of Constitutional claims.
Attorney John T. Lay now speaking for receivership. Wants context added. Court of equity issue. Mission is to put everybody on equal footing for claims against Murdaugh knowing funds recovered won't be enough to cover everyone fully. Action on these claims (divvying money) soon.
Lay: If we give Murdaugh more money now, he's essentially getting ahead of other claimants (including Eric Bland / Satterfield). Lay wants to prevent that, says it's in the spirit of receivership NOT to let one claim get ahead of others.
Eric Bland says it would be Murdaugh stealing more money if allowed to skip to the front of the line. His own judgement agreed to in Sattefield case predates it anyway. Adds funds from 401(k) are absolutely tainted. Mark Tinsely agrees, says Murdaugh should not get preference.
Judge Hall backtracks, says it was inappropriate for him to suggest the black and white dichotomy of Murdaugh using his own money vs. using taxpayer money to pay for appeal. Improper to speculate where money would come from at this point.
1:50 PM · May 3, 2023 PT
www.dailymail.co.uk
