Alex Murdaugh answers questions for prosecutor Creighton Waters on the witness stand during his murder trial on Friday, Feb. 24, 2023. (Image via Grace Beahm Alford/Staff)
After two days of grueling and emotional testimony, disgraced lawyer and accused killer Alex Murdaugh has given jurors a considerable amount of information and character to consider.
And legal experts are split on the defendant’s choice to put himself on the stand.
“Alex Murdaugh probably thought that he would be his own best defense because he is an attorney,” Los Angeles-based criminal defense attorney Matthew Barhoma told Law&Crime. “But here’s the problem with that thinking: Criminal defendants are all in the same boat, no matter their backgrounds. At the end of the day, an attorney who waives his Fifth Amendment right and takes the stand is in no better position than any other individual. Alex Murdaugh may try to game the criminal justice system, but I believe he won’t succeed.”
It is rare in the U.S. legal system for criminal defendants to take the stand, though Barhoma says that may change.
On Thursday, Murdaugh admitted that he previously lied to law enforcement about his whereabouts on the night his wife, Maggie Murdaugh, and youngest son, Paul Murdaugh, were shot and killed at the family’s expansive hunting lodge known as Moselle.
More Law&Crime coverage: Alex Murdaugh tells jury he ‘did lie’ about whereabouts on night of murders but blames drug use: I’d never ‘intentionally’ harm my wife and son
Later, the defendant told Colleton County jurors he was a drug addict who stole millions of dollars from his law firm’s clients for over a decade. That point was hammered on repeatedly by lead prosecutor Creighton Waters during the state’s lengthy cross-examination.
“My sense is that he’s going to appear as someone not in full possession of his faculties, which will hurt his case more than help it,” said Barhoma, the founder of his eponymous law firm. “Before deciding to testify, did Murdaugh consider whether his testimony will make a meaningful addition to his defense? Did he speculate about how he could hurt his defense? If he was thinking clearly, I don’t think he would have chosen to testify.”
On Friday, the cross-examination continued, and after substantial focus on the defendant’s financial crimes, the state finally turned to the murder allegations against the fallen-from-grace legal scion.
Rachel Fiset, the co-founder and managing partner of Los Angeles-based Zweiback, Fiset & Zalduendo LLP, told Law&Crime that Alex Murdaugh’s decision to testify was probably disastrous.
“Alex Murdaugh likely believed if the jury heard his story from his own voice, it would give his timeline some credibility, and he believed he would be able to convince a jury that he loved his family so much that he could never have committed the act,” Fiset said in an email. “What’s interesting about Murdaugh taking the stand is he must have weighed all of the criminal peril he could put himself in from his other pending criminal charges because he knew he would be asked about his other crimes. His attorneys had asked to narrow the scope of his cross-examination, and the judge denied that request. As an experienced attorney himself, he was very aware of the risks of taking the stand in his own defense, and this was a horrible move.”
But former Los Angeles County prosecutor and current criminal defense attorney Joshua Ritter, a partner with El Dabe Ritter Trial Lawyers, suggested the defendant did an acceptable job.
“Murdaugh had to accomplish a couple of things in this testimony,” Ritter said in an email. “First, he had to explain the inconsistencies of statements he made to law enforcement and what we now know to be true from evidence as far as his location that evening. The other thing he needed to accomplish is to humanize himself to the jurors and to set the proper emotional tone for how he had no involvement in this murder. In those two things, I think he did an excellent job. First, he admitted he lied to law enforcement, which he absolutely needed to do. The excuse he provided was that he was suffering from some sort of drug-induced paranoia. It will be up to the jurors to decide if that is believable or not, but at least the explanation satisfied that original question as to why he lied to law enforcement.
“A smart decision was that he didn’t double down on the lies he made to law enforcement or try to deny the evidence from the now-famous Snapchat video. He freely admitted that he lied to law enforcement, and to some extent, that might ingratiate him to jurors. The other thing he did was freely admit his financial crimes. So you now have on the stand a person who’s willing to admit to a lot of bad things but still maintaining his innocence as far as the murders.”
Ritter was not alone in estimating how well the state handled the defendant on cross-examination. Many court watchers and legal analysts were less than impressed by the questioning from Waters, mainly because of the drawn-out focus on Alex Murdaugh’s oft-admitted history of theft.
I don’t think Waters himself knows what he’s trying to prove at this point #MurdaughTrial @BenNorbitz https://t.co/HpifoDnAmS
— Sara Azari (@azarilaw) February 24, 2023
“I think that so far, the cross-examination has not moved the needle as far as convincing jurors of his guilt,” Ritter said. “There’s not been any kind of smoking gun moment, he’s calm and collected and has not allowed the prosecutor to get under his skin. He’s obviously smart and skilled in the way he’s answering questions and always maintaining respect for the prosecutor. And for inexplicable reasons, the prosecutor is asking a lot of open-ended questions, and that is giving Murdaugh wide latitude to present his side of the story.”
Have a tip we should know? [email protected]
