LEXINGTON, SC — The judge presiding over Alex Murdaugh’s double-murder retrial sharply criticized both sides Friday over their escalating disputes about evidence, warning that she “will not allow these proceedings to become a circus.”
During a tense hearing, Judge Debra McCaslin granted the defense’s request for additional DNA testing but rejected its broader bid for ballistic evidence.
McCaslin also clarified the record regarding a polygraph test that Murdaugh attorney Dick Harpootlian said in August his client had passed “with flying colors.” The judge said Friday that Murdaugh actually failed the examination, which concerned his financial crimes rather than the killings.
Murdaugh was convicted in 2023 of killing his wife, Maggie, and their son, Paul, at the family’s Moselle property in Colleton County.
The South Carolina Supreme Court later overturned those convictions, ruling that former Colleton County Clerk of Court Becky Hill improperly influenced the jury.
His retrial is set to begin April 5, 2027. Murdaugh has continued to deny responsibility for the murders.
McCaslin sided with the defense, over prosecutors’ objections, in allowing DNA testing of swabs taken from Maggie Murdaugh’s phone. The analysis will likely use the last samples available for testing.
The judge cited Murdaugh’s due-process rights and his right to present a “full and complete defense.” Defense attorneys estimated that the testing will take about 90 days.
McCaslin ruled that the defense will not have to disclose the DNA results to prosecutors unless attorneys intend to use them at trial.
The judge denied Murdaugh’s request for a list of every crime in the 2nd and 14th judicial circuits since 2021 involving .300 Blackout ammunition. The defense also sought records of every firearm recovered in those cases and shell casings from other shootings.
McCaslin said the defense theory that the alleged murder weapon may be connected to an unsolved crime was speculative and relied only on news reports. She added that the South Carolina Law Enforcement Division does not maintain such a list and that conducting a manual search would be unduly burdensome and could interfere with active investigations.
Although McCaslin denied Harpootlian’s request to have a defense expert physically examine the crime-scene shell casings, she ordered the state to provide the defense with all raw data related to them.
She also ordered prosecutors to turn over 3D crime-scene scan data by Monday. At the same time, McCaslin said she would not require the state to produce the same material repeatedly and directed the defense to have staff members sign for discovery materials.
McCaslin issued a similar warning after the state agreed to provide cellphone extraction data from Maggie and Paul’s phones, emphasizing that it would be the final time prosecutors would be required to turn over that material.
At the close of the hearing, McCaslin granted a state motion to correct the record concerning Harpootlian’s statement at an Aug. 14 hearing that Murdaugh had passed a polygraph “with flying colors.”
READ MORE: Hot Winds Fuel California Wildfires, Destroying Coastal Homes
The judge said the polygraph examined whether Murdaugh had concealed other assets and that he failed it. She added that Murdaugh has never taken a polygraph concerning the killings of Maggie and Paul Murdaugh.
McCaslin acknowledged that Harpootlian had submitted a letter apologizing for any confusion. She then warned both sides that “candor with the court is not optional.”
McCaslin also ruled in favor of prosecutors on a defense request for evidence involving the disposal of the murder weapons, which have never been found.
The judge said the state is required to provide that material only if it demonstrates that the information could benefit Murdaugh’s defense.
Murdaugh’s attorneys initially asked McCaslin to compel prosecutors to disclose information they possessed “concerning the handling, transport, concealment, or disposal of the alleged weapons used to kill Maggie Murdaugh and Paul Murdaugh, including the statement a witness gave to agents of the South Carolina Law Enforcement Division in 2023 that a Lowcountry police chief spoke of arriving early at the scene and of providing Defendant Murdaugh a change of clothes, the reports of every interview conducted on that subject, and the testimony and exhibits presented to the State Grand Jury concerning it.”
According to the motion, filed in late September by Murdaugh’s attorneys, press reports indicate that a state grand jury received testimony alleging Yemassee Police Chief Greg Alexander was observed in possession of the murder weapons shortly after the June 7, 2021, killings.
“According to those reports, witnesses have testified that the Chief of Police of the Town of Yemassee, Greg Alexander, was seen with the murder weapons in the immediate aftermath of the June 7, 2021, killings, and that second Yemassee officer is under investigation for transporting and concealing weapons and clothing,” the filing states.
It cites a story from The Post and Courier, which reported that “a Lowcountry official told SLED agents that Chief Alexander ‘spoke of arriving early to the murder scene and talked about providing a change of clothes to Murdaugh,’ and that the official believed the guns and clothing were brought into the police station and stored there.”
Notably, the allegations couldn’t be corroborated by The Post and Courier.
Alexander, through his attorney, Joe McCulloch, denied accusations made in the media reports.
“The same explanation has been provided to SLED,” McCulloch told Fox News Digital. “That truth will outlive any ridiculous rumors and gossip.”
Former prosecutor Joshua Ritter told Fox News Digital he considers the allegation against Alexander a “wild goose chase.”
“This is one of those cases that, you know, a lot of reporting was done early on, a lot of conspiracy theories swirling around this case,” Ritter said.
“I don’t see any reason for the judge to allow for this essentially wild goose chase in regards to an uncorroborated report about law enforcement perhaps being in possession of the murder weapon.”
“Obviously, the defense would love to pursue this to its absolute limit because they think that there’s a snowball’s chance that it might yield something, but I think that the judge is probably going to give very little leeway on something like this,” he added.