SC - Paul Murdaugh & mom Margaret Found Shot To Death - Alex Murdaugh Accused - Islandton *Guilty* #43

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
I just finished listening to the hearing from yesterday. I have no sympathy for CF. As far as being a good guy. Of course he could be charitable when he had a steady stream of somebody else's money. I'm sure he didn't try to steal from every client but he sure picked the most vulnerable. All of the good acts discribed could have been guilt eating at him!
 
“A review of the motion does not reveal precisely when or how it is he learned of the claims he now raises,” the prosecutors’ brief says of Murdaugh, adding that a successful move for a new trial “must show that he did not know of the existence of such evidence at the time of the trial... or that he could not have discovered it by the exercise of due diligence.”

The defense filing contained sworn affidavits by two people who served on the jury, as well as sworn affidavits by defense team staffer Holli Miller that summarized interviews the defense team had with two other jurors. In the filing, the jurors’ names were blacked out.

Harpootlian also wrote a letter to U.S. Attorney Adair Boroughs requesting an FBI investigation. Both the filing and the letter say the alleged jury tampering denied Murdaugh his right to a fair jury trial
 
The South Carolina Attorney General's formal response alleges factual discrepancies in Alex Murdaugh's attorneys motion for a new trial.

#BREAKING | #AlexMurdaugh have received a response over their jury tampering claims during the murder trial. The Attorney General says their investigation has found "significant factual disputes." The state is asking Murdaugh's defense "to correct the procedural defect."


https://twitter.com/x/status/1702826568689610836


One minute video

www.courttv.com

Prosecutors Respond to Murdaugh Motion for New Trial

The South Carolina Attorney General's formal response alleges factual discrepancies in Alex Murdaugh's attorneys motion for a new trial.
www.courttv.com www.courttv.com

PROSECUTORS RESPOND TO MURDAUGH MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL​

The South Carolina Attorney General is disputing some facts in the motion filed by Alex Murdaugh's attorneys in which they allege inappropriate behavior by Clerk of Courts Becky Hill. (9/15/23)
 
Last edited:
Jurisprudence said:

"Objective investigation by SLED remains ongoing, but the inquiry has already revealed significant factual disputes as to claims in Appellant’s motion. If no credible evidence can be found to support the claims brought by Appellant, the State will be prepared to argue against the motion before the Honorable Clifton B. Newman on remand."
Click to expand...
JMOO but I think the State wants some more time to continue looking into things, arguing over some technicalities and not addressing any specific claim whatsoever is certainly one way to do that now. Obviously it’s understandable if they have some hesitation, as that Clerk works on all the cases there, and if they reveal improper conduct in one case, could others be questioned too? Definitely is a slippery slope there.

I also think (but I am skeptical) that they include nothing to backup the “significant factual disputes” claim, not even one. JMOO but if they had anything of substance to refute any specific claims, and if they didn’t really want a hearing and/or new trial, then they’d include something to shut down defense claims. But if they don’t have anything yet, or if what they have may give the defense more room to respond, then it makes sense that they’re arguing over little details at this stage.
 
MTW2011 said:
JMOO but I think the State wants some more time to continue looking into things, arguing over some technicalities and not addressing any specific claim whatsoever is certainly one way to do that now. Obviously it’s understandable if they have some hesitation, as that Clerk works on all the cases there, and if they reveal improper conduct in one case, could others be questioned too? Definitely is a slippery slope there.

I also think (but I am skeptical) that they include nothing to backup the “significant factual disputes” claim, not even one. JMOO but if they had anything of substance to refute any specific claims, and if they didn’t really want a hearing and/or new trial, then they’d include something to shut down defense claims. But if they don’t have anything yet, or if what they have may give the defense more room to respond, then it makes sense that they’re arguing over little details at this stage.
Click to expand...
I read it that the State, if so found, is ready to argue the facts of the allegation in front of the Judge. I don't think they're going to disclose their response in a press conference on the court house steps like Harpoot and Griffin did.

On the other hand, Dick and Jim love a good publicity op.

MOO
 
MTW2011 said:
JMOO but I think the State wants some more time to continue looking into things, arguing over some technicalities and not addressing any specific claim whatsoever is certainly one way to do that now. Obviously it’s understandable if they have some hesitation, as that Clerk works on all the cases there, and if they reveal improper conduct in one case, could others be questioned too? Definitely is a slippery slope there.

I also think (but I am skeptical) that they include nothing to backup the “significant factual disputes” claim, not even one. JMOO but if they had anything of substance to refute any specific claims, and if they didn’t really want a hearing and/or new trial, then they’d include something to shut down defense claims. But if they don’t have anything yet, or if what they have may give the defense more room to respond, then it makes sense that they’re arguing over little details at this stage.
Click to expand...
To be fair to the state they only had 10 days to investigate and respond. They are also alleging procedural defects and saying the defense needs to correct those first. They don’t have to concede anything they don’t have to after they spent 6 weeks at incredible expense and effort to convict him. Defense is gonna have to work to get that hearing! As they should! Apparently, AM is supposed to file an affidavit himself about what he knew or didn’t know during the trial. There were rumors during the trial according to Angenette Levy of Law and Crime. Defense has insinuated they heard these rumors during the trial so the question is why didn’t they come forward at that time? My guess is they wanted to use it as an excuse to reopen the case and get a new judge after they got the guilty verdict which I’m sure they were anticipating.

I’m sure a hearing will be granted and we’re gonna find out out all the shady practices of Harpootlian and Griffin on this matter! JMO
 
MTW2011 said:
JMOO but I think the State wants some more time to continue looking into things, arguing over some technicalities and not addressing any specific claim whatsoever is certainly one way to do that now. Obviously it’s understandable if they have some hesitation, as that Clerk works on all the cases there, and if they reveal improper conduct in one case, could others be questioned too? Definitely is a slippery slope there.

I also think (but I am skeptical) that they include nothing to backup the “significant factual disputes” claim, not even one. JMOO but if they had anything of substance to refute any specific claims, and if they didn’t really want a hearing and/or new trial, then they’d include something to shut down defense claims. But if they don’t have anything yet, or if what they have may give the defense more room to respond, then it makes sense that they’re arguing over little details at this stage.
Click to expand...
I was also disappointed that they offered no specifics disputing the factual claims of the motion but I think that is mostly my own curiosity about all this. I get why BH and other jurors are not speaking out at this time too but I want to know what they have to say and I want to know NOW. Unfortunately, I don’t always get what I want :)
 
Weki said:
To be fair to the state they only had 10 days to investigate and respond. They are also alleging procedural defects and saying the defense needs to correct those first. They don’t have to concede anything they don’t have to after they spent 6 weeks at incredible expense and effort to convict him. Defense is gonna have to work to get that hearing! As they should! Apparently, AM is supposed to file an affidavit himself about what he knew or didn’t know during the trial. There were rumors during the trial according to Angenette Levy of Law and Crime. Defense has insinuated they heard these rumors during the trial so the question is why didn’t they come forward at that time? My guess is they wanted to use it as an excuse to reopen the case and get a new judge after they got the guilty verdict which I’m sure they were anticipating.

I’m sure a hearing will be granted and we’re gonna find out out all the shady practices of Harpootlian and Griffin on this matter! JMO
Click to expand...
Good points!

It seems many are saying the jurors didn’t know to speak up during the trial about the clerk’s alleged improprieties or the jurors discussing the case prematurely. But if the defense team was aware of any of this during the trial and said nothing what is their excuse?

And if you are correct in your guess that they wanted to wait - as a back up plan (my words) - and if prosecution can show that - does that negate the defense‘s right to move for the new trial?

I have mixed feelings on this as I think it is important for BH’s actions to be reviewed since the allegations have been made and again my curiosity wants to see that reviewed in open court with juror testimony and cameras where we can watch too. But I don’t think a new trial will have a different outcome and hate to see the taxpayers pay for a new trial.
 
LetsSolvIt said:
Judge Newman is my Man of the Year!

Wise, oh my gosh, wise! Thoughtful, intelligent, articulate, exudes integrity, and solid as a rock. We need so many more Clifton Newmans — everyone needs a dad or grandpa like him. (Wish we had a heart emoji.)
Click to expand...
And my favorite part of the state’s response to the motion for new trial was that they pointed out that if the appeals court stays the appeal and remands it to the trial court for review of the motion for new trial that it would be remanded to Judge Newman.

i know defense has suggested he may have to be recused because he may become a witness but the really interesting part of that to me is that defense counsel have now made themselves potential witnesses too with statements about seeing things at the jury visit to Mosel or hearing rumblings before the trial was over.
 
aafromaa said:
i know defense has suggested he may have to be recused because he may become a witness but the really interesting part of that to me is that defense counsel have now made themselves potential witnesses too with statements about seeing things at the jury visit to Mosel or hearing rumblings before the trial was over.
Click to expand...

IMHO, it really says a lot as to the defense's motives and potential veracity when you compare two things:

1) during the trial, Mark Tinsley donates to Miss Shelly's (Alec's mom's caregiver) go fund me after she testified. THE VERY NEXT DAY the defense brings this up first thing and protests this issue in court before the judge.

2) during the Moselle visit, Harpootlian says he saw evidence of BH tampering with the jury. They go back to the trial that afternoon for the prosecution to finish up, and THE DEFENSE SAYS NOTHING to the court/judge. Time is of the essence--they know that the trial portion will be concluded and the case will be given to the jury to decide. THEY SAY NOTHING. The VERY NEXT DAY is the defense's closing and the anticipated dismissal of the jury to go deliberate...you know, a time when everyone, including the defense, knows that BH will be interacting with the jury. Do they immediately rush to stop the trial to address this issue, especially given that at that point it was pretty clear to them that Alec was likely to be found guilty? NO. Defense had TWO days of court time in which to bring this up to Judge Newman before the jury is send to deliberate. And they chose not to. The defense sure can't claim that they were just common folk with no knowledge of what is appropriate behavior for a court clerk and that's why they didn't say anything at the time.
 
aafromaa said:
Good points!

It seems many are saying the jurors didn’t know to speak up during the trial about the clerk’s alleged improprieties or the jurors discussing the case prematurely. But if the defense team was aware of any of this during the trial and said nothing what is their excuse?

And if you are correct in your guess that they wanted to wait - as a back up plan (my words) - and if prosecution can show that - does that negate the defense‘s right to move for the new trial?

I have mixed feelings on this as I think it is important for BH’s actions to be reviewed since the allegations have been made and again my curiosity wants to see that reviewed in open court with juror testimony and cameras where we can watch too. But I don’t think a new trial will have a different outcome and hate to see the taxpayers pay for a new trial.
Click to expand...

BBM, yes, I think it does. If they knew before the trial was over, then it is not new information unknown to the defense. This would then leave it in the appellate court and AM would have to file an appeal on ineffective assistance of counsel.

IANAL, so take with a grain of salt.
 
aafromaa said:
And my favorite part of the state’s response to the motion for new trial was that they pointed out that if the appeals court stays the appeal and remands it to the trial court for review of the motion for new trial that it would be remanded to Judge Newman.

i know defense has suggested he may have to be recused because he may become a witness but the really interesting part of that to me is that defense counsel have now made themselves potential witnesses too with statements about seeing things at the jury visit to Mosel or hearing rumblings before the trial was over.
Click to expand...
It's a real cluster isn't it? I had to die laughing watching the Jim, Dick and ? were outside the Courthouse steps with their shades on: (Photo courtesy of AP Photo/Jeffrey Collins)

1694885911274.png
 
Lots of good points being made and I agree. I am also one that is not too thrilled with BH’s behavior. I think there’s probably been some impropriety on her part. But defense is not playing with clean hands here. If they heard or had some suspicion of jury tampering during the trial and waited until a verdict was rendered imo they have forfeited the right to raise the issue now/get a new trial. It seems that the state’s motion/law supports my belief.

I like the verbiage in the state’s reply quoting prior decisions about “unprincipled witnesses” coming forward post-verdict and “hunting” down issues post convictions to subvert Justice! There should be something extreme to allow a retrial. We already know from Eric Bland that the other jurors are going to refute these affidavits. State is saying SLED has found factual inconsistencies. I also agree Harpootlian and Griffin are potential witnesses. I’d like to know what they said to these jurors during their in person visits.

Finally, I hate to say this but many jurors are indifferent, don’t care, and can be unprincipled. It’s possible the jurors who gave affidavits are doing so for petty reasons. JMO
 
Weki said:
Lots of good points being made and I agree. I am also one that is not too thrilled with BH’s behavior. I think there’s probably been some impropriety on her part. But defense is not playing with clean hands here. If they heard or had some suspicion of jury tampering during the trial and waited until a verdict was rendered imo they have forfeited the right to raise the issue now/get a new trial. It seems that the state’s motion/law supports my belief.

I like the verbiage in the state’s reply quoting prior decisions about “unprincipled witnesses” coming forward post-verdict and “hunting” down issues post convictions to subvert Justice! There should be something extreme to allow a retrial. We already know from Eric Bland that the other jurors are going to refute these affidavits. State is saying SLED has found factual inconsistencies. I also agree Harpootlian and Griffin are potential witnesses. I’d like to know what they said to these jurors during their in person visits.

Finally, I hate to say this but many jurors are indifferent, don’t care, and can be unprincipled. It’s possible the jurors who gave affidavits are doing so for petty reasons. JMO
Click to expand...
I have learned the hard way, with this case ANYTHING is possible.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is DeKalb County John Doe (2022)?

Members online

... and 66 more.
Total: 2,800 (members: 67, guests: 2,733)

Online statistics

Members online
67
Guests online
2,733
Total visitors
2,800
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
602,553
Messages
18,142,352
Members
231,434
Latest member
NysesPieces
Back
Top