June 29, 2026
Packed Courthouse, Sparring Attorneys, And A New Trial Date For Alex Murdaugh
Apple Podcasts 
Spotify 
Castro 
RSS Feed All eyes were on a South Carolina courthouse today as 58-year-old Alex Murdaugh once again faces double murder charges for the shooting deaths of his wife and son. Murdaugh’s attorneys had him stand dramatically making the point his appearance as a convicted criminal could taint a potential jury pool. Hear how the new judge ruled on everything from what Murdaugh can wear in court, to a new DNA testing request, to a change of venue motion. Last month, the Supreme Court threw out Murdaugh’s 2023 double murder conviction after a court clerk unfairly tainted jurors during the trial.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
00:00:02
Speaker 1: Hey, there hopes.
00:00:02
Speaker 2: It is Monday, June twenty ninth, and what an eventful yet brief hearing for Alex Murdau back in court for the first time since his double murder convictions were thrown out. And it was contentious at times, and with that, welcome to this episode of Amy and TJ Robes. Contentious, but a pretty big debate was going on having to do with d N A are you serious? Do we really have DNA worth testing that could change this case altogether?
00:00:34
Speaker 3: Look, we talked about this this morning. This was the first I had ever heard about DNA underneath the nails I believe, of the left hand of his wife, Maggie Murdau. And we know this much that DNA does not belong to Alex Murdau. And the prosecutions trying to say, hey, this she had no defensive wounds, This wouldn't matter. She could have picked it up a number of ways. But no ones ever said there was a struggle when it came to these murders. Both she and her son Paul were shot to death. And look, the defend said, hold up. There were some things pointing to a possible struggle. While bullet casing was underneath her her phone was nowhere to be found.
00:01:18
Speaker 2: So, yes, the DNA became a big part of this hearing. Today is going to be a big part of the case. But this hearing was, yes, a preliminary hearing to simply set the schedule. They say, But he's back in court. His convictions were thrown out last month of double convictions because of wrongdoing by the clerk at the time. We kind of tainted the jury. But here is where we are. But Robes, there were several issues, several motions, and these are everything we want to get to and get you caught up because we were talking about this case earlier before it did take place. Actually, Robes, I told you, Wow, we're going to have to do a follow up. I didn't know it was going to be this much stuff that came out of this. Thought just going to be some scheduling.
00:01:54
Speaker 3: Yeah, you kept saying as we were listening to it, Man, this is actually actually very interesting. This isn't just paperwork or logistics or scheduling, as you pointed out, This actually had some meat and some real content. And look, the world was watching. I think the judge started off by saying, well, we've got a full house. There's a lot of interest in this case, and it has been for quite.
00:02:14
Speaker 2: Some time since the murders did take place, and certainly since he was convicted in twenty twenty three and has been in prison for that and for other financial crimes that he still continue to be in prison for. But here we are the story of the big, sillacious true crime drama that has spawned books and TV shows and podcasts. Now robes, we get to do it all over again. So several motions to take up. Let's start with the DNA robes. The DNA under the fingernail of his wife. They say they don't know who it belonged to, but they know it belongs to a male and they're trying to track it down.
00:02:50
Speaker 3: Now, yes, a male who has no known relations with Maggie Murdau. Because they can examine that testing. And so what the defense wants to do is take that DNA and I think there's a there's a conversation. They have to still decide or determine whether or not the sample is intact enough or they have enough of the sample to do.
00:03:10
Speaker 4: Further testing on it. But they wanted to go to this genealogy testing lab.
00:03:16
Speaker 2: Oh, yeah, they are saying that they have enough. They say they the state lab that's been doing this over the years. It might not be enough sample for them, But there's other company that does this.
00:03:28
Speaker 1: They don't.
00:03:28
Speaker 2: They have different markers, and they don't need as much of a sample as the other company might need. They are claiming robes that they'll be able to And he used this as an example, and I came and got you, I yelled at out. I said, oh my god, I had no idea. The same company they now want to send the DNA to is the same company that helped track down the killer in the Ohio at Idaho college student murders. Remember that brew. I can't remember the killer's name at the time at this moment. I mean, but that company helped find that killer by using genealogy. They had a sample and started matching it to other people who had been a part of twenty three and meters type D in April.
00:04:07
Speaker 3: Basically, yes, if if you're a murder a murderer, you don't necessarily you don't have to. You wouldn't have had to go on to twenty three and me or ancestry dot com and given.
00:04:20
Speaker 4: Up your DNA.
00:04:21
Speaker 3: But if any member of your family or anyone who was related to you. They can link it back to you through your family members who have signed up to be a part of these genealogy websites. And that's oftentimes how they have caught some killers. And it's pretty remarkable.
00:04:36
Speaker 2: We have seen it happened. We've seen a bunch of true crime shows in which this has happened. But Robes, they want to test this DNA out.
00:04:44
Speaker 1: Here's the thing. Nobody seems to be a posed no.
00:04:48
Speaker 3: And in fact, the defense said they'll pay for it, and the judge said, good, it's on you.
00:04:52
Speaker 2: But the prosecution isn't hooting and hollering. They said, yeah, give us a name of a contact. We'll put you in touch with our guy and get it going. So, Robes, is it possible? Is this a stretch?
00:05:04
Speaker 1: Do they just want to make sure?
00:05:07
Speaker 2: But if there is foreign DNA, there's a bunch of reasons, Robes, it could be under there. But it looks like it's going to be testing and it might take some time.
00:05:15
Speaker 3: Look, yes, And that was part of what they were trying to figure out, that timeline, that DNA testing timeline, to try and figure out when the next hearing could be they're going to be It sounds like several preliminary hearings before they end up in a new trial, which is scheduled right now for next spring spring of twenty twenty seven.
00:05:35
Speaker 2: So and that let's go with that. That do that next rope, the scheduling. It was interesting. We are just meeting this judge and name is Deborah McCaslin, and she is going to be a hoot. She's going to be fun to watch his entire time rope. It's hard to put into contact that there are Southern accents and then they are South Carolinians.
00:05:52
Speaker 4: South Carolinian accent.
00:05:53
Speaker 3: Yes, having worked there for the first four years of my career, that that accent is very, very familiar to me. And as soon as I started hearing her talking, I was like, oh my goodness, I love it. I mean, just true South Carolinian.
00:06:05
Speaker 4: Accent right there for all and even like the lawyers back and forth, it's almost like you're watching.
00:06:09
Speaker 3: A John Grisham novel or something take place. He's always got those characters with the southern drawl. He's more Louisiana, but still it's that just South Carolina Southern accent, and it is notable.
00:06:20
Speaker 4: You'll know her voice.
00:06:21
Speaker 3: If you watch this trial or paying attention to this retrial in any way, shape or form, you will recognize her voice.
00:06:29
Speaker 4: She could pick her out of anywhere, you know, in the.
00:06:30
Speaker 2: Whole time as well. A voice is one thing. But she was polite but firm the whole time. I agree, I mean that it's clear she shouldn't be messed with. But she was the nicest person in the courtroom. Yes, but in some kind of way, it still comes across.
00:06:42
Speaker 1: This is not a woman to be trifled with.
00:06:45
Speaker 2: You now, still came across. So she's gonna be fun to watch. The other we talk about the DNA here. The other thing they had to make decisions on robes. One had to do with the change of VENU. She did not rule on that. When yeah, they're asking for a change of in you said they can't get a fair trial there, the defense says, but roll this was also interesting as well. The two sides seemed to be talking about it. She said, hey, you can give me some recommendations. You all come up with something and I'll listen. But she didn't rule it out.
00:07:13
Speaker 3: Yeah, she said, y'all come up with some recommendations. If you can't agree on something together, then I'll make the decision for you.
00:07:19
Speaker 1: Seems reasonable, it really does.
00:07:21
Speaker 3: I also liked when she basically, well, she didn't basically she told the both legal teams that she doesn't know anything. She said, I don't know anything about this first trial, so when you tell me something, please be complete. I thought that was interesting. This is basically the defense getting a clean slate. They are starting from scratch with the judge who says I was not paying attention. I don't know the details of this first trial. So please, I'm all ears, but be very specific and be very complete when you tell me things, because this isn't I'm not operating from a base of knowledge here.
00:07:56
Speaker 1: She said.
00:07:56
Speaker 2: Some of this, even some of the paperwork and some of the things about the case, she only got in recent days, so she was transparent about that. And look, she kept this thing moving. It didn't last that long, but a lot got done in a short amount of time.
00:08:09
Speaker 1: So she did not.
00:08:10
Speaker 2: Rule on the change of venue. She did not rule on the DNA officially.
00:08:15
Speaker 1: Yet.
00:08:16
Speaker 2: What she did rule on Ropes after much debate, was whether or not he could have a laptop, Whether or not Alex Murdoch could have access to a laptop while he was in prison.
00:08:25
Speaker 1: Now, this wasn't.
00:08:27
Speaker 2: Interesting back and forth And one hand I was like, Okay, what's the big deal. He needs to help work on his case. In the other hand, I was like, okay, the warden makes sense. That actually makes sense. But there was an extensive back and forth about whether or not he could have Ropes the amount of.
00:08:42
Speaker 3: Material twenty thousand pages of documents that they're having to print and then send over, and they say it's just overwhelming. And it was funny because at one point the judge said, well, hasn't he already reviewed all of this for his first trial, Like isn't this something he's already familiar with? Why do you need to now re familiarize him with this? And the lawyer was like, yeah, that was five years ago. I can't remember cases from three months ago.
00:09:08
Speaker 2: That makes perfect sense. I thought that was a decent argument. So they go back and forth with Ropes and they're trying to figure out, well, what accommodations could we make and the judge may clear not gonna let him have a laptop and his cell phone. Excuse me in it sell, the defense attorney said, that's not actually what we're talking about. We're just trying to have the wardener someone there keep the laptop and just give it to him to have access to it when he needs it. He can go to a room and sit or whatever else. The problem with that is, they said, rogues, is that if he goes and then reviews it for three hours, four hours, five hours, eight hours, someone has to be sitting there with him. They won't allow him in there with it by himself. That makes sense, they say, even and they said, the defense guaranteed that we can make sure it will not have access to Wi Fi.
00:09:50
Speaker 1: It's not able to transmit.
00:09:51
Speaker 4: It's like a thumb drive.
00:09:53
Speaker 3: Basically they would put into a computer that isn't connected to the internet.
00:09:56
Speaker 1: Still not good enough.
00:09:57
Speaker 2: And they kept making arguments, and the judge, I give her credit, she kind of did a mic drop moment.
00:10:01
Speaker 1: She said, I called the warden.
00:10:03
Speaker 2: And there was like a record scratch after they made all their arguments, Like she said.
00:10:07
Speaker 3: I think she I loved how she phrased it. I'm not going to get it exactly right, but she was just like, just forgive me. I took basically initiative before we even started this hearing, and yeah, I called the warden.
00:10:18
Speaker 2: It was kind of a weird thing, like you get home and try to explain to your parents why you got in trouble, and they said, we're already talked to the principal.
00:10:24
Speaker 3: Oh, that is exactly what it was like.
00:10:27
Speaker 2: It felt like that, but they are soars like a tail ropes, and it did. I didn't think about this. They said, it's a two and a half hour drive to get to the prison, thirty minutes to go through all the security to get in there. So they're saying we're three hours behind just to get there and get started, and then we only have three hours they're allowing us to sit with them, and then we got to they said, it's just not to do that five days a week. We just can't do it. That made sense as well. You know what the judge said. She said, okay, well, i'll talk to the warden, get you some more time. He said, you can get eight hours if you need to knock yourself out, but you have to send a paralegal or somebody to sit there. And they finally said, okay, I guess we can do that. Well, that's a lot I didn't understand, just how much of a burden that is. I mean, oh, well, people do it, but that's a pretty enormous burden. Something simple as a laptop that I thought wasn't a big deal. This isn't the big issue of the day.
00:11:23
Speaker 1: It turned out to be a really big issue.
00:11:25
Speaker 3: Twenty thousand pages to go through, and this is all again. I mean, they have gone through this, they have done this drill, they have walked this walk. They're getting a new opportunity, obviously, but still, this is just it's overwhelming to imagine that this is all being repeated because of one county clerk.
00:11:47
Speaker 2: County clerk who is what does she plead guilty or she pleaded guilty, clean and guilty. She's got community she she's got.
00:11:53
Speaker 3: Three years of probation and one hundred yard hours excuse me of community service, I believe. But she's also facing a lawsuit. But look, given what she's now cost the courts, what she's cost the prosecution, the defense, the legal fees that have been incurred, I think that's actually a fairly light punishment given the what everybody is having to do now. And granted the defense is very happy to do all of this because it's a second chance, but still it is just overwhelming to think one woman cost all of this.
00:12:26
Speaker 2: Now we talked about earlier, there was a lot to deal with. There are a lot of emotions filed before this hearing and she did deal with all of them, didn't rule on all of them, but she did address all of them.
00:12:37
Speaker 1: And the biggie. The biggie before.
00:12:40
Speaker 2: At least this trial. Of this hearing today had to do with his appearance. What would he be wearing and would he be shackled? Well, we got the answer when we saw him walk into court, but what is he going to be looking like later in his court appearances. She did make a ruling on that, ann robes this part when they got into this. We will explain why this was the most contentious part between the actual attorneys that we saw in the courtroom today.
00:13:09
Speaker 3: And welcome back everyone to this episode of Amy and TJ Alex Murdoch back in court today, and man, was it a spectacle, judge saying we've got a full house here. There is so much interest now in this retrial of a man who's already spending almost certainly the rest of his life behind bars for financial crimes. He fully admitted to but is fighting I guess to clear his name, so to speak. He claims he's innocent. He did not, he says, kill his wife and his son. Prosecutors say he did so to Garner's sympathy. He was dealing with an issue with his twenty two year old son, Paul, who was facing a lawsuit for a wrongful death boating accident, in addition to trying to deflect or get sympathy for these financial crimes he was about to face.
00:14:05
Speaker 4: So that is what the motive.
00:14:06
Speaker 3: Because really I was always I was always confused by the motive. And look, he was found guilty of both murders back in twenty twenty three, but the motive always seemed flimsy to me. It seemed unthinkable to me that you could murder your wife and your child, your own flesh and blood on your property, so that you could get sympathy, so that maybe people wouldn't notice or would feel bad for you, when you were being faced with pretty significant financial crimes stealing I think twelve million dollars from clients.
00:14:36
Speaker 4: Actually, yeah, So it's just like that was always.
00:14:40
Speaker 3: Such a hard for me to believe motive, And yet a jury of his peers found him guilty because there was no smoking gun, so to speak. And look, now there may be new evidence, DNA evidence that could perhaps create a different outcome for Alex Murdoch.
00:14:58
Speaker 2: Well, let's say everything exactly the same and you take the clerk out and there is no new DNA I mean, is there enough evidence there? Did the clerk have that much of an impact on this jury that it outweighed weeks of evidence and mounds of evidence that they saw. Who knows, But the point is to have a fair trial, and you don't get one if the clerk is poisoning the jury.
00:15:22
Speaker 3: Correct And in terms of a fair trial, now, his defense is trying to point out that having him come in in an orange jumpsuit with shackles because he is in prison for he's serving a concurrent twenty seven and forty yer sentence for these financial crimes. But that's a white collar crime. And to have him come in and have jurors see him look like a convicted felon, the convicted felon that he is. You know, his attorneys are saying this would unfairly sway a new jury. And he had his client stand up and said, chains around the hands, chain around the waist, chains on his feet and said he shackled like a dangerous criminal. This is going to impartially or I guess, influence the jury and make them partial to the fact that he looks violent.
00:16:12
Speaker 2: You know, part of that is write two issues, right, the jury pool versus the actual jury.
00:16:18
Speaker 1: The jury people are watching TV. A lot of people watch this today.
00:16:20
Speaker 2: A lot of people saw him as in an orange jumpsuit, you look guilty. And one of the most one of the worst parts of that is to hear them changs clinking.
00:16:30
Speaker 4: You know what you're so I didn't even think about that part of it.
00:16:32
Speaker 1: You hear that.
00:16:33
Speaker 3: I heard a lot of people commenting on just how he looked. I mean, he's fifty eight years old, babe. He looked like he was seventy years old. And people were saying, wow, he looks thinner.
00:16:43
Speaker 4: Yes he did. He looked thinner.
00:16:44
Speaker 3: He had aged significantly. I actually had to do a double take. He's just fifty eight years old. A lot of people were commenting that prison has has certainly aged him rapidly.
00:16:57
Speaker 2: You know, I, for whatever reason, I guess he looked kind of the same aim. He looked a little thinner, but I didn't notice him looking that much different than that much older. But yes, he had his attorney. He's standing right there, like, look at him.
00:17:07
Speaker 1: Is this okay? Is this what?
00:17:08
Speaker 2: And then he had this quote and Robe, this is where, Yes, the attorneys were standing at the Yeah, the defense table and the prosecution table. They were standing at the ends of the table. That put them closest together, so almost like they had an aisle seat, if you will, if they were on a plane, just separated by the one lane in the middle. So they're doing all their talking almost within arm's reach, a little more from each other. And this is where Robes some of the back and forth and the motions and some of the stuff that got kind of personal started coming out in the courtroom.
00:17:37
Speaker 4: Ah.
00:17:38
Speaker 2: Yes, he told the judges. He was saying, we should make sure he can dressing what he wants to dress.
00:17:44
Speaker 1: Said.
00:17:44
Speaker 2: The idea of bringing him in here chained up the prosecutor opposing everything we're trying to expedite. This is beyond the pale. Remind him, the prosecutor, he has a duty to seek justice, not to get a conviction. Oh wow, Yeah, it got a little it got a little nasty, and the prosecutor at that point jumped in to try to defend himself. This is where mama had to step in. This is where the judge said, okay, hey, now, now now, and that was it. And they listened, they understood, and they obeyed. There was no further back and forth.
00:18:19
Speaker 1: Robes.
00:18:19
Speaker 2: I don't know if these are just more polite and gentlemanly folks, but even contentious and even opposing sides robes, they got along fairly. Well, yeah, this is going to be a polite trial if this is how it was going to go.
00:18:32
Speaker 3: I do think it's interesting you pointed out from the get go that you just immediately liked the judge.
00:18:37
Speaker 4: She was.
00:18:39
Speaker 3: Yes, she's got that southern drawl, but she has an authoritative command to her voice.
00:18:44
Speaker 4: You know, she's no nonsense. You know she You get a sense she.
00:18:47
Speaker 3: Knows her stuff and she's not, as you pointed out, to be trifled with. And I do think when you have a judge that can be polite but firm, you do set a tone that does it's contagious and the attorneys will, I think, react appropriately to what the judge is. The tone the judge's setting, everyone falls in line and that's what happened.
00:19:10
Speaker 2: I'm sitting here trying to think of a trial we watched recently where we did think the judge kind of let the trial get out of hand the attorneys, the back and forth. It was chippy and nasty and like wow, So it does the judge can set a tone.
00:19:23
Speaker 3: Oh, when a judge doesn't have a firm hand on things, it's hard.
00:19:28
Speaker 4: It's uncomfortable to watch.
00:19:30
Speaker 3: It's uncomfortable for juries to even understand what's going on when you let attorneys go rogue.
00:19:34
Speaker 4: Because they will.
00:19:35
Speaker 3: They will push and push and push and push, and you need a judge to stop it before it even starts. And it looks like she's going to do that before this trial, well before this trial even begins. And look, the whole point being that the argument from the prosecution is that this is a security risk that every time a defendant is taken to and from a jail cell to a courtroom, there's a security risk. You have that same prisoner in plain clothes, unshackled. Now you've really elevated a security risk.
00:20:07
Speaker 2: And it actually ultimately made sense in the preliminary hearings. That's one thing they say, if it's actually his trial. Yes, he can dress in plain clothes. He's not shackled because this jury is going to see him every single day.
00:20:19
Speaker 1: But this is a preliminary hearing.
00:20:21
Speaker 2: This we ain't there yet, and right now his residence is prison, so he's just coming over. This is what he is, and this is what he looks like.
00:20:31
Speaker 1: And robe you talking about a security threat.
00:20:33
Speaker 2: I mean, okay, he's not convicted now, but he was recently. I mean, do you really think, oh, that clerk, he's not really a bad violent guy. I mean, that doesn't throw everything out. He's still considered a double murderer. Yes, so I get that point. So it looks like he's going to be wearing that stuff at least in some of these preliminary hearings before his trial, which isn't supposed to start now Ropes until next April.
00:20:57
Speaker 4: April fifth, I believe was the date they gave.
00:21:00
Speaker 1: I think it was tentative. Is it seventh?
00:21:02
Speaker 4: I thought I read April fifth? But either way, it's that week.
00:21:05
Speaker 1: It's not said, you're right, and.
00:21:06
Speaker 4: It might likely change it.
00:21:07
Speaker 3: It was actually interesting to hear the judge try to navigate around spring break, because she was like, we don't want a jury who's antsy to go on spring break. Listening to this trial, like she was really trying to look up and see when Easter was and then when spring break normally is and try to find a date or a time, because this is a fairly complex trial that could last quite some time, so they wanted to make sure that no one's spring break was going to basically rush anything along.
00:21:37
Speaker 2: Diddy was coming up against fourth of July, right, there was another one recently. Whe're like, hey, it's a holiday coming up. I bet they give us a verdict quickly, and they did. Jury's do not mess around when it comes to holidays, long weekends, time off vacations. They wrap these things up. So she's smart to do that.
00:21:56
Speaker 3: Judges know, they know what happens with their jury, and they know what.
00:22:01
Speaker 4: Happens to their trial.
00:22:03
Speaker 3: If it's up against a holiday, things just get tight and you just worry that perhaps people might be pushing things or just quick to reach a consensus so they can get the heck out of there.
00:22:13
Speaker 1: Yeah, that makes sense.
00:22:14
Speaker 2: But even with all this back and forth and ropes, there was some nastiness and the motions with the back and forth and stuff gotten a little personal before.
00:22:21
Speaker 1: The hearing today.
00:22:22
Speaker 2: And then yes, there was a little back and forth with the attorneys today that got a little nasty. But Ropes this was is even encouraging. The defense attorney at one point said to the judge as or raping up, wrapping up. Despite the acrimony between me and the prosecutor today, we've really been able to work together well and been good on conversations and phones.
00:22:39
Speaker 1: So don't worry about a thing like wow, lovely, what the actual hell?
00:22:42
Speaker 4: This never happens, he actually says.
00:22:45
Speaker 1: So maybe that's the direction it's going to go. But here we go again.
00:22:49
Speaker 2: He's in court again in August. I think is the next hearing at least that's scheduled. But round two the Alex Mar Murdau double murder trial is underway. Just wanted to give you that up date because there was plenty to come out of court today. We always appreciate you spending a little time with us on TJ on behalf of my dear Amy Robock.
00:23:07
Speaker 1: We will talk to y'all very soon.
00:23:09
Speaker 4: M
Speaker 1: Hey, there hopes.
00:00:02
Speaker 2: It is Monday, June twenty ninth, and what an eventful yet brief hearing for Alex Murdau back in court for the first time since his double murder convictions were thrown out. And it was contentious at times, and with that, welcome to this episode of Amy and TJ Robes. Contentious, but a pretty big debate was going on having to do with d N A are you serious? Do we really have DNA worth testing that could change this case altogether?
00:00:34
Speaker 3: Look, we talked about this this morning. This was the first I had ever heard about DNA underneath the nails I believe, of the left hand of his wife, Maggie Murdau. And we know this much that DNA does not belong to Alex Murdau. And the prosecutions trying to say, hey, this she had no defensive wounds, This wouldn't matter. She could have picked it up a number of ways. But no ones ever said there was a struggle when it came to these murders. Both she and her son Paul were shot to death. And look, the defend said, hold up. There were some things pointing to a possible struggle. While bullet casing was underneath her her phone was nowhere to be found.
00:01:18
Speaker 2: So, yes, the DNA became a big part of this hearing. Today is going to be a big part of the case. But this hearing was, yes, a preliminary hearing to simply set the schedule. They say, But he's back in court. His convictions were thrown out last month of double convictions because of wrongdoing by the clerk at the time. We kind of tainted the jury. But here is where we are. But Robes, there were several issues, several motions, and these are everything we want to get to and get you caught up because we were talking about this case earlier before it did take place. Actually, Robes, I told you, Wow, we're going to have to do a follow up. I didn't know it was going to be this much stuff that came out of this. Thought just going to be some scheduling.
00:01:54
Speaker 3: Yeah, you kept saying as we were listening to it, Man, this is actually actually very interesting. This isn't just paperwork or logistics or scheduling, as you pointed out, This actually had some meat and some real content. And look, the world was watching. I think the judge started off by saying, well, we've got a full house. There's a lot of interest in this case, and it has been for quite.
00:02:14
Speaker 2: Some time since the murders did take place, and certainly since he was convicted in twenty twenty three and has been in prison for that and for other financial crimes that he still continue to be in prison for. But here we are the story of the big, sillacious true crime drama that has spawned books and TV shows and podcasts. Now robes, we get to do it all over again. So several motions to take up. Let's start with the DNA robes. The DNA under the fingernail of his wife. They say they don't know who it belonged to, but they know it belongs to a male and they're trying to track it down.
00:02:50
Speaker 3: Now, yes, a male who has no known relations with Maggie Murdau. Because they can examine that testing. And so what the defense wants to do is take that DNA and I think there's a there's a conversation. They have to still decide or determine whether or not the sample is intact enough or they have enough of the sample to do.
00:03:10
Speaker 4: Further testing on it. But they wanted to go to this genealogy testing lab.
00:03:16
Speaker 2: Oh, yeah, they are saying that they have enough. They say they the state lab that's been doing this over the years. It might not be enough sample for them, But there's other company that does this.
00:03:28
Speaker 1: They don't.
00:03:28
Speaker 2: They have different markers, and they don't need as much of a sample as the other company might need. They are claiming robes that they'll be able to And he used this as an example, and I came and got you, I yelled at out. I said, oh my god, I had no idea. The same company they now want to send the DNA to is the same company that helped track down the killer in the Ohio at Idaho college student murders. Remember that brew. I can't remember the killer's name at the time at this moment. I mean, but that company helped find that killer by using genealogy. They had a sample and started matching it to other people who had been a part of twenty three and meters type D in April.
00:04:07
Speaker 3: Basically, yes, if if you're a murder a murderer, you don't necessarily you don't have to. You wouldn't have had to go on to twenty three and me or ancestry dot com and given.
00:04:20
Speaker 4: Up your DNA.
00:04:21
Speaker 3: But if any member of your family or anyone who was related to you. They can link it back to you through your family members who have signed up to be a part of these genealogy websites. And that's oftentimes how they have caught some killers. And it's pretty remarkable.
00:04:36
Speaker 2: We have seen it happened. We've seen a bunch of true crime shows in which this has happened. But Robes, they want to test this DNA out.
00:04:44
Speaker 1: Here's the thing. Nobody seems to be a posed no.
00:04:48
Speaker 3: And in fact, the defense said they'll pay for it, and the judge said, good, it's on you.
00:04:52
Speaker 2: But the prosecution isn't hooting and hollering. They said, yeah, give us a name of a contact. We'll put you in touch with our guy and get it going. So, Robes, is it possible? Is this a stretch?
00:05:04
Speaker 1: Do they just want to make sure?
00:05:07
Speaker 2: But if there is foreign DNA, there's a bunch of reasons, Robes, it could be under there. But it looks like it's going to be testing and it might take some time.
00:05:15
Speaker 3: Look, yes, And that was part of what they were trying to figure out, that timeline, that DNA testing timeline, to try and figure out when the next hearing could be they're going to be It sounds like several preliminary hearings before they end up in a new trial, which is scheduled right now for next spring spring of twenty twenty seven.
00:05:35
Speaker 2: So and that let's go with that. That do that next rope, the scheduling. It was interesting. We are just meeting this judge and name is Deborah McCaslin, and she is going to be a hoot. She's going to be fun to watch his entire time rope. It's hard to put into contact that there are Southern accents and then they are South Carolinians.
00:05:52
Speaker 4: South Carolinian accent.
00:05:53
Speaker 3: Yes, having worked there for the first four years of my career, that that accent is very, very familiar to me. And as soon as I started hearing her talking, I was like, oh my goodness, I love it. I mean, just true South Carolinian.
00:06:05
Speaker 4: Accent right there for all and even like the lawyers back and forth, it's almost like you're watching.
00:06:09
Speaker 3: A John Grisham novel or something take place. He's always got those characters with the southern drawl. He's more Louisiana, but still it's that just South Carolina Southern accent, and it is notable.
00:06:20
Speaker 4: You'll know her voice.
00:06:21
Speaker 3: If you watch this trial or paying attention to this retrial in any way, shape or form, you will recognize her voice.
00:06:29
Speaker 4: She could pick her out of anywhere, you know, in the.
00:06:30
Speaker 2: Whole time as well. A voice is one thing. But she was polite but firm the whole time. I agree, I mean that it's clear she shouldn't be messed with. But she was the nicest person in the courtroom. Yes, but in some kind of way, it still comes across.
00:06:42
Speaker 1: This is not a woman to be trifled with.
00:06:45
Speaker 2: You now, still came across. So she's gonna be fun to watch. The other we talk about the DNA here. The other thing they had to make decisions on robes. One had to do with the change of VENU. She did not rule on that. When yeah, they're asking for a change of in you said they can't get a fair trial there, the defense says, but roll this was also interesting as well. The two sides seemed to be talking about it. She said, hey, you can give me some recommendations. You all come up with something and I'll listen. But she didn't rule it out.
00:07:13
Speaker 3: Yeah, she said, y'all come up with some recommendations. If you can't agree on something together, then I'll make the decision for you.
00:07:19
Speaker 1: Seems reasonable, it really does.
00:07:21
Speaker 3: I also liked when she basically, well, she didn't basically she told the both legal teams that she doesn't know anything. She said, I don't know anything about this first trial, so when you tell me something, please be complete. I thought that was interesting. This is basically the defense getting a clean slate. They are starting from scratch with the judge who says I was not paying attention. I don't know the details of this first trial. So please, I'm all ears, but be very specific and be very complete when you tell me things, because this isn't I'm not operating from a base of knowledge here.
00:07:56
Speaker 1: She said.
00:07:56
Speaker 2: Some of this, even some of the paperwork and some of the things about the case, she only got in recent days, so she was transparent about that. And look, she kept this thing moving. It didn't last that long, but a lot got done in a short amount of time.
00:08:09
Speaker 1: So she did not.
00:08:10
Speaker 2: Rule on the change of venue. She did not rule on the DNA officially.
00:08:15
Speaker 1: Yet.
00:08:16
Speaker 2: What she did rule on Ropes after much debate, was whether or not he could have a laptop, Whether or not Alex Murdoch could have access to a laptop while he was in prison.
00:08:25
Speaker 1: Now, this wasn't.
00:08:27
Speaker 2: Interesting back and forth And one hand I was like, Okay, what's the big deal. He needs to help work on his case. In the other hand, I was like, okay, the warden makes sense. That actually makes sense. But there was an extensive back and forth about whether or not he could have Ropes the amount of.
00:08:42
Speaker 3: Material twenty thousand pages of documents that they're having to print and then send over, and they say it's just overwhelming. And it was funny because at one point the judge said, well, hasn't he already reviewed all of this for his first trial, Like isn't this something he's already familiar with? Why do you need to now re familiarize him with this? And the lawyer was like, yeah, that was five years ago. I can't remember cases from three months ago.
00:09:08
Speaker 2: That makes perfect sense. I thought that was a decent argument. So they go back and forth with Ropes and they're trying to figure out, well, what accommodations could we make and the judge may clear not gonna let him have a laptop and his cell phone. Excuse me in it sell, the defense attorney said, that's not actually what we're talking about. We're just trying to have the wardener someone there keep the laptop and just give it to him to have access to it when he needs it. He can go to a room and sit or whatever else. The problem with that is, they said, rogues, is that if he goes and then reviews it for three hours, four hours, five hours, eight hours, someone has to be sitting there with him. They won't allow him in there with it by himself. That makes sense, they say, even and they said, the defense guaranteed that we can make sure it will not have access to Wi Fi.
00:09:50
Speaker 1: It's not able to transmit.
00:09:51
Speaker 4: It's like a thumb drive.
00:09:53
Speaker 3: Basically they would put into a computer that isn't connected to the internet.
00:09:56
Speaker 1: Still not good enough.
00:09:57
Speaker 2: And they kept making arguments, and the judge, I give her credit, she kind of did a mic drop moment.
00:10:01
Speaker 1: She said, I called the warden.
00:10:03
Speaker 2: And there was like a record scratch after they made all their arguments, Like she said.
00:10:07
Speaker 3: I think she I loved how she phrased it. I'm not going to get it exactly right, but she was just like, just forgive me. I took basically initiative before we even started this hearing, and yeah, I called the warden.
00:10:18
Speaker 2: It was kind of a weird thing, like you get home and try to explain to your parents why you got in trouble, and they said, we're already talked to the principal.
00:10:24
Speaker 3: Oh, that is exactly what it was like.
00:10:27
Speaker 2: It felt like that, but they are soars like a tail ropes, and it did. I didn't think about this. They said, it's a two and a half hour drive to get to the prison, thirty minutes to go through all the security to get in there. So they're saying we're three hours behind just to get there and get started, and then we only have three hours they're allowing us to sit with them, and then we got to they said, it's just not to do that five days a week. We just can't do it. That made sense as well. You know what the judge said. She said, okay, well, i'll talk to the warden, get you some more time. He said, you can get eight hours if you need to knock yourself out, but you have to send a paralegal or somebody to sit there. And they finally said, okay, I guess we can do that. Well, that's a lot I didn't understand, just how much of a burden that is. I mean, oh, well, people do it, but that's a pretty enormous burden. Something simple as a laptop that I thought wasn't a big deal. This isn't the big issue of the day.
00:11:23
Speaker 1: It turned out to be a really big issue.
00:11:25
Speaker 3: Twenty thousand pages to go through, and this is all again. I mean, they have gone through this, they have done this drill, they have walked this walk. They're getting a new opportunity, obviously, but still, this is just it's overwhelming to imagine that this is all being repeated because of one county clerk.
00:11:47
Speaker 2: County clerk who is what does she plead guilty or she pleaded guilty, clean and guilty. She's got community she she's got.
00:11:53
Speaker 3: Three years of probation and one hundred yard hours excuse me of community service, I believe. But she's also facing a lawsuit. But look, given what she's now cost the courts, what she's cost the prosecution, the defense, the legal fees that have been incurred, I think that's actually a fairly light punishment given the what everybody is having to do now. And granted the defense is very happy to do all of this because it's a second chance, but still it is just overwhelming to think one woman cost all of this.
00:12:26
Speaker 2: Now we talked about earlier, there was a lot to deal with. There are a lot of emotions filed before this hearing and she did deal with all of them, didn't rule on all of them, but she did address all of them.
00:12:37
Speaker 1: And the biggie. The biggie before.
00:12:40
Speaker 2: At least this trial. Of this hearing today had to do with his appearance. What would he be wearing and would he be shackled? Well, we got the answer when we saw him walk into court, but what is he going to be looking like later in his court appearances. She did make a ruling on that, ann robes this part when they got into this. We will explain why this was the most contentious part between the actual attorneys that we saw in the courtroom today.
00:13:09
Speaker 3: And welcome back everyone to this episode of Amy and TJ Alex Murdoch back in court today, and man, was it a spectacle, judge saying we've got a full house here. There is so much interest now in this retrial of a man who's already spending almost certainly the rest of his life behind bars for financial crimes. He fully admitted to but is fighting I guess to clear his name, so to speak. He claims he's innocent. He did not, he says, kill his wife and his son. Prosecutors say he did so to Garner's sympathy. He was dealing with an issue with his twenty two year old son, Paul, who was facing a lawsuit for a wrongful death boating accident, in addition to trying to deflect or get sympathy for these financial crimes he was about to face.
00:14:05
Speaker 4: So that is what the motive.
00:14:06
Speaker 3: Because really I was always I was always confused by the motive. And look, he was found guilty of both murders back in twenty twenty three, but the motive always seemed flimsy to me. It seemed unthinkable to me that you could murder your wife and your child, your own flesh and blood on your property, so that you could get sympathy, so that maybe people wouldn't notice or would feel bad for you, when you were being faced with pretty significant financial crimes stealing I think twelve million dollars from clients.
00:14:36
Speaker 4: Actually, yeah, So it's just like that was always.
00:14:40
Speaker 3: Such a hard for me to believe motive, And yet a jury of his peers found him guilty because there was no smoking gun, so to speak. And look, now there may be new evidence, DNA evidence that could perhaps create a different outcome for Alex Murdoch.
00:14:58
Speaker 2: Well, let's say everything exactly the same and you take the clerk out and there is no new DNA I mean, is there enough evidence there? Did the clerk have that much of an impact on this jury that it outweighed weeks of evidence and mounds of evidence that they saw. Who knows, But the point is to have a fair trial, and you don't get one if the clerk is poisoning the jury.
00:15:22
Speaker 3: Correct And in terms of a fair trial, now, his defense is trying to point out that having him come in in an orange jumpsuit with shackles because he is in prison for he's serving a concurrent twenty seven and forty yer sentence for these financial crimes. But that's a white collar crime. And to have him come in and have jurors see him look like a convicted felon, the convicted felon that he is. You know, his attorneys are saying this would unfairly sway a new jury. And he had his client stand up and said, chains around the hands, chain around the waist, chains on his feet and said he shackled like a dangerous criminal. This is going to impartially or I guess, influence the jury and make them partial to the fact that he looks violent.
00:16:12
Speaker 2: You know, part of that is write two issues, right, the jury pool versus the actual jury.
00:16:18
Speaker 1: The jury people are watching TV. A lot of people watch this today.
00:16:20
Speaker 2: A lot of people saw him as in an orange jumpsuit, you look guilty. And one of the most one of the worst parts of that is to hear them changs clinking.
00:16:30
Speaker 4: You know what you're so I didn't even think about that part of it.
00:16:32
Speaker 1: You hear that.
00:16:33
Speaker 3: I heard a lot of people commenting on just how he looked. I mean, he's fifty eight years old, babe. He looked like he was seventy years old. And people were saying, wow, he looks thinner.
00:16:43
Speaker 4: Yes he did. He looked thinner.
00:16:44
Speaker 3: He had aged significantly. I actually had to do a double take. He's just fifty eight years old. A lot of people were commenting that prison has has certainly aged him rapidly.
00:16:57
Speaker 2: You know, I, for whatever reason, I guess he looked kind of the same aim. He looked a little thinner, but I didn't notice him looking that much different than that much older. But yes, he had his attorney. He's standing right there, like, look at him.
00:17:07
Speaker 1: Is this okay? Is this what?
00:17:08
Speaker 2: And then he had this quote and Robe, this is where, Yes, the attorneys were standing at the Yeah, the defense table and the prosecution table. They were standing at the ends of the table. That put them closest together, so almost like they had an aisle seat, if you will, if they were on a plane, just separated by the one lane in the middle. So they're doing all their talking almost within arm's reach, a little more from each other. And this is where Robes some of the back and forth and the motions and some of the stuff that got kind of personal started coming out in the courtroom.
00:17:37
Speaker 4: Ah.
00:17:38
Speaker 2: Yes, he told the judges. He was saying, we should make sure he can dressing what he wants to dress.
00:17:44
Speaker 1: Said.
00:17:44
Speaker 2: The idea of bringing him in here chained up the prosecutor opposing everything we're trying to expedite. This is beyond the pale. Remind him, the prosecutor, he has a duty to seek justice, not to get a conviction. Oh wow, Yeah, it got a little it got a little nasty, and the prosecutor at that point jumped in to try to defend himself. This is where mama had to step in. This is where the judge said, okay, hey, now, now now, and that was it. And they listened, they understood, and they obeyed. There was no further back and forth.
00:18:19
Speaker 1: Robes.
00:18:19
Speaker 2: I don't know if these are just more polite and gentlemanly folks, but even contentious and even opposing sides robes, they got along fairly. Well, yeah, this is going to be a polite trial if this is how it was going to go.
00:18:32
Speaker 3: I do think it's interesting you pointed out from the get go that you just immediately liked the judge.
00:18:37
Speaker 4: She was.
00:18:39
Speaker 3: Yes, she's got that southern drawl, but she has an authoritative command to her voice.
00:18:44
Speaker 4: You know, she's no nonsense. You know she You get a sense she.
00:18:47
Speaker 3: Knows her stuff and she's not, as you pointed out, to be trifled with. And I do think when you have a judge that can be polite but firm, you do set a tone that does it's contagious and the attorneys will, I think, react appropriately to what the judge is. The tone the judge's setting, everyone falls in line and that's what happened.
00:19:10
Speaker 2: I'm sitting here trying to think of a trial we watched recently where we did think the judge kind of let the trial get out of hand the attorneys, the back and forth. It was chippy and nasty and like wow, So it does the judge can set a tone.
00:19:23
Speaker 3: Oh, when a judge doesn't have a firm hand on things, it's hard.
00:19:28
Speaker 4: It's uncomfortable to watch.
00:19:30
Speaker 3: It's uncomfortable for juries to even understand what's going on when you let attorneys go rogue.
00:19:34
Speaker 4: Because they will.
00:19:35
Speaker 3: They will push and push and push and push, and you need a judge to stop it before it even starts. And it looks like she's going to do that before this trial, well before this trial even begins. And look, the whole point being that the argument from the prosecution is that this is a security risk that every time a defendant is taken to and from a jail cell to a courtroom, there's a security risk. You have that same prisoner in plain clothes, unshackled. Now you've really elevated a security risk.
00:20:07
Speaker 2: And it actually ultimately made sense in the preliminary hearings. That's one thing they say, if it's actually his trial. Yes, he can dress in plain clothes. He's not shackled because this jury is going to see him every single day.
00:20:19
Speaker 1: But this is a preliminary hearing.
00:20:21
Speaker 2: This we ain't there yet, and right now his residence is prison, so he's just coming over. This is what he is, and this is what he looks like.
00:20:31
Speaker 1: And robe you talking about a security threat.
00:20:33
Speaker 2: I mean, okay, he's not convicted now, but he was recently. I mean, do you really think, oh, that clerk, he's not really a bad violent guy. I mean, that doesn't throw everything out. He's still considered a double murderer. Yes, so I get that point. So it looks like he's going to be wearing that stuff at least in some of these preliminary hearings before his trial, which isn't supposed to start now Ropes until next April.
00:20:57
Speaker 4: April fifth, I believe was the date they gave.
00:21:00
Speaker 1: I think it was tentative. Is it seventh?
00:21:02
Speaker 4: I thought I read April fifth? But either way, it's that week.
00:21:05
Speaker 1: It's not said, you're right, and.
00:21:06
Speaker 4: It might likely change it.
00:21:07
Speaker 3: It was actually interesting to hear the judge try to navigate around spring break, because she was like, we don't want a jury who's antsy to go on spring break. Listening to this trial, like she was really trying to look up and see when Easter was and then when spring break normally is and try to find a date or a time, because this is a fairly complex trial that could last quite some time, so they wanted to make sure that no one's spring break was going to basically rush anything along.
00:21:37
Speaker 2: Diddy was coming up against fourth of July, right, there was another one recently. Whe're like, hey, it's a holiday coming up. I bet they give us a verdict quickly, and they did. Jury's do not mess around when it comes to holidays, long weekends, time off vacations. They wrap these things up. So she's smart to do that.
00:21:56
Speaker 3: Judges know, they know what happens with their jury, and they know what.
00:22:01
Speaker 4: Happens to their trial.
00:22:03
Speaker 3: If it's up against a holiday, things just get tight and you just worry that perhaps people might be pushing things or just quick to reach a consensus so they can get the heck out of there.
00:22:13
Speaker 1: Yeah, that makes sense.
00:22:14
Speaker 2: But even with all this back and forth and ropes, there was some nastiness and the motions with the back and forth and stuff gotten a little personal before.
00:22:21
Speaker 1: The hearing today.
00:22:22
Speaker 2: And then yes, there was a little back and forth with the attorneys today that got a little nasty. But Ropes this was is even encouraging. The defense attorney at one point said to the judge as or raping up, wrapping up. Despite the acrimony between me and the prosecutor today, we've really been able to work together well and been good on conversations and phones.
00:22:39
Speaker 1: So don't worry about a thing like wow, lovely, what the actual hell?
00:22:42
Speaker 4: This never happens, he actually says.
00:22:45
Speaker 1: So maybe that's the direction it's going to go. But here we go again.
00:22:49
Speaker 2: He's in court again in August. I think is the next hearing at least that's scheduled. But round two the Alex Mar Murdau double murder trial is underway. Just wanted to give you that up date because there was plenty to come out of court today. We always appreciate you spending a little time with us on TJ on behalf of my dear Amy Robock.
00:23:07
Speaker 1: We will talk to y'all very soon.
00:23:09
Speaker 4: M