Alex Murdaugh sat in a South Carolina courtroom this week for the first time since the state's highest court threw out his double murder conviction, and the hearing made one thing clear: the road to retrial will be fought inch by inch.
The disbarred attorney appeared before Circuit Judge David Miller on Wednesday for a pretrial hearing that tackled a stack of contested issues, from whether Murdaugh will be shackled in front of a future jury to whether DNA evidence never tested at the original trial could reshape the case entirely. Fox News reported from the Colleton County courthouse that the hearing lasted several hours and produced no final rulings, with Judge Miller taking all motions under advisement.
Murdaugh, 56, faces retrial on two counts of murder in the June 2021 shooting deaths of his wife, Maggie, and their younger son, Paul, at the family's Colleton County hunting property known as Moselle. A jury convicted him in March 2023 after a nationally televised trial. The South Carolina Supreme Court overturned that conviction in a unanimous decision, finding that former Colleton County Clerk of Court Becky Hill tampered with the jury.
Defense attorney Dick Harpootlian pressed hard on what may become the retrial's most consequential battleground: untested DNA evidence. Harpootlian told Judge Miller that biological material collected from underneath Maggie Murdaugh's fingernails was never subjected to DNA analysis before or during the 2023 trial. He argued the defense is entitled to have that material tested now, contending it could point to an alternate suspect.
Prosecutors pushed back. Attorney General Alan Wilson's team argued that the defense had access to the evidence before the first trial and chose not to test it, and that allowing testing now could amount to a fishing expedition. The state also raised chain-of-custody concerns about whether the samples remain viable after more than four years.
Judge Miller did not rule on the DNA motion Wednesday. He indicated he would issue a written order after reviewing briefs from both sides. The question of untested biological evidence has surfaced in other high-profile murder cases as well, including Scott Peterson's ongoing effort to reopen his conviction based on similar claims about DNA that was never analyzed.
Harpootlian also objected to the state's plan to require Murdaugh to wear a stun belt and leg shackles during trial. The defense argued that visible restraints would prejudice jurors against Murdaugh before a single witness takes the stand, violating his right to the presumption of innocence.
Prosecutors countered that Murdaugh is a convicted felon serving concurrent state and federal sentences for financial crimes, and that security measures are standard for defendants in custody on murder charges. They noted that any stun belt would be concealed beneath clothing and that leg shackles could be hidden by the defense table.
Harpootlian was not persuaded. He told the court that jurors notice when a defendant cannot move freely, regardless of whether hardware is technically hidden. Judge Miller took the matter under advisement alongside the other pending motions.
The defense renewed its push to move the retrial out of Colleton County. Harpootlian argued that the jury tampering scandal involving former clerk Becky Hill has so thoroughly poisoned the local jury pool that a fair trial in the county is impossible. Hill, who was later indicted on criminal charges related to her conduct, had extensive contact with jurors during the 2023 trial, according to the Supreme Court's ruling.
Harpootlian pointed to pretrial publicity and the small size of Colleton County's population, arguing that virtually every potential juror has been exposed to coverage of both the murders and the clerk scandal. He asked the judge to move the trial to a larger jurisdiction where the defense stands a better chance of seating impartial jurors.
The prosecution resisted a venue change, arguing that extensive voir dire can identify biased jurors and that moving the trial would burden witnesses and the court system. The state also noted that intense media coverage of the Murdaugh case has reached every corner of South Carolina, making any venue change of limited practical value.
Both sides sparred over timing. The defense signaled it is not ready for a rapid retrial, citing the volume of discovery, the DNA testing dispute, and the need to investigate alternate theories of the crime. Harpootlian told the judge that the defense team's retrial strategy requires months of additional preparation.
Prosecutors urged a faster timeline, noting that Murdaugh has already been acquitted of nothing and that the families of the victims deserve resolution. The state suggested a trial date in early to mid 2026, though no specific date was set Wednesday.
Judge Miller, who was assigned to the case after the Supreme Court's ruling, told both parties he would schedule a follow-up hearing once he rules on the outstanding motions. He gave no indication of which way he is leaning on any of the contested issues.
Murdaugh remains in custody regardless of the retrial's outcome on the murder charges. He is serving a 27-year federal prison sentence after pleading guilty to financial fraud charges tied to schemes in which he stole millions from clients of his family's law firm. He also received concurrent state sentences for related financial crimes.
His defense team has acknowledged those convictions but argued they should not color the murder proceedings. Harpootlian told the court Wednesday that the financial crimes and the murder charges are entirely separate matters and that prosecutors should be barred from referencing the fraud convictions in front of a jury.
The state has not yet filed a formal motion to introduce the financial crimes as evidence, but prosecutors have previously argued that Murdaugh's pattern of deception is relevant to his credibility, particularly if he chooses to testify again. At the 2023 trial, Murdaugh took the stand and admitted lying to investigators about his whereabouts on the night of the killings before changing his account.
Wednesday's hearing produced no rulings, but it drew the battle lines for a retrial that will test whether the state can secure a second conviction without the procedural shortcuts that doomed the first one. Judge Miller now holds decisions on DNA testing, restraints, venue, and scheduling, any one of which could reshape the trial before opening statements begin.
The Murdaugh case has already exposed a clerk of court's misconduct serious enough to overturn a murder verdict. The retrial will answer a different question: whether the evidence, stripped of that taint, can stand on its own.
