Colleton County Courthouse

Judge Clifton Newman

February 23, 2023
South Carolina v. Alex Murdaugh
Alex Murdaugh Murder Trial Day 23 Live | Alex Murdaugh Testifies!! | Morning | Lawyer Reacts -
YouTube

During the Defense Case-in-Brief, Alex Murdaugh testifies by choice, he is not required to

testify under the Fifth Amendment right of the U.S. Constitution that no one shall be compelled

in criminal cases to testify in court for self-incrimination. After the judge made clear to

Murdaugh his right to not testify, Murdaugh waived his right and will testify allowing for cross

examination from prosecution of the state.

Prior to the jury entering the courtroom, the defense council motioned to the judge under Rule

403, 401, and 404 to exclude testimonies of financial crimes taken earlier in the trial under Rule

608 for motive and character evidence. Defense argued that Murdaugh had not been convicted of

these crimes as of the date and without these testimonies, the prosecution could not prove motive

and that all it was doing was depleting Murdaugh’s character leading them to claim prejudice

along with prolonging trial unnecessarily. The judge determined that the testimonies were

relevant and admissible then so denied the motion to suppress the financial crimes during this

trial.

The defense began today calling Nolan Tuten to the stand for direct examination. During this

time the defense established Nolan’s credibility and how he knew Alex and the relationship Alex

had with his son Paul. Defense asked questions about how often Paul was on his cell phone, the

relationship Nolan had with the family, and the familiarity he had with the firearms the family
owned at the homes. They also established that Paul was planning on planting sunflowers at the

Mossell property.

During cross-examination of Nolan Tuten, the prosecution again asked about the relationship

Nolan had with the family, Paul’s cell phone usage and the firearms at the properties. They

focused on if Nolan knew if the family was careless about their firearms around the property and

if they often had them strewn about. The primary focus, however, was the final Snap Chat sent

by Paul to Nolan the night of the murders. They were establishing a timeline of what was going

on and who was viewed and/or heard in the Snap Chat video. Nolan identified the voices in the

video to be Paul and Maggie Murdaugh. The also questioned him about the lighting of the area

and determined if there was sufficient viewing for testimony. The re-direct examination also

asked if there was enough detail in the video to claim that Nolan could testify on what was taking

place during the time of the Snap Chat.

The direct examination of Alex Murdaugh came next. Alex was sworn in under oath. After taking

the stand, defense asked flat out if he had shot either his son or his wife with the firearms found

at the scene. Alex answered no. He then asked Alex if he was at the kennels the night of the

murders. Alex answered yes. He continued and asked Alex if he had lied to the responding

officers about his whereabouts during the evening, and he stated yes. This allowed Alex an

opportunity to explain why he lied and attempted to make law enforcement look bad. Alex

claimed that he lied due to his addiction to pain killers making him paranoid in addition to his

mistrust of SLED (South Carolina Law Enforcement Department). Defense then asked Alex to

tell the jury what had taken place over the day of the murders, attempting to establish a timeline

of events leading up to the time of the murders.

Defense also showed exhibits of the area in photographic evidence to mark out for the jury where

Alex was that evening, and paths he had taken in and out of the house along with where the

kennels are. The 911 phone call was also played in court allowing the jury to hear the distress in

Alex’s voice and what he told the dispatcher when he called. This led into a discussion about

Paul’s enemies and threats Paul had received prior from a boating accident that had taken place

before.

Overall, the purpose I see in today’s testimony was to show the jury that Alex was upset and

angry about his wife and son being murdered, that he disagrees with how the local law

enforcement handled the case and to create not only an alibi in his whereabouts, but his character

being a loving and kind father and husband.