Introduction to the Case

Disgraced former attorney Alex Murdaugh is pushing for a new trial, citing newly uncovered text messages as pivotal evidence. These messages, exchanged between Murdaugh and his alleged drug dealer Curtis “Eddie” Smith, were not disclosed during the original trial. According to lead defense attorney Dick Harpootlian, this oversight may have significantly impacted the defense’s strategy and potentially prevented Murdaugh’s conviction.

The Significance of the Text Messages

The text messages, revealed by FITSNews, provide crucial insights into the timeline of events leading up to the murders of Murdaugh’s wife Maggie and son Paul on June 7, 2021. Harpootlian emphasized that these communications could have influenced the decision to call Smith as a witness. The texts suggest ongoing drug transactions between Murdaugh and Smith, with some exchanges occurring just days before the murders.

Curtis “Eddie” Smith’s Role

Smith is alleged to have been a major OxyContin distributor in South Carolina and Murdaugh’s primary drug supplier. Despite this, he has not been prosecuted, which Harpootlian finds perplexing given the evidence against him. The defense argues that Smith’s testimony could have provided critical context regarding Murdaugh’s state of mind and actions during the week of the murders.

Jury Tampering Allegations

Murdaugh’s appeal also hinges on accusations of jury tampering by Colleton County Clerk of Court Becky Hill. Hill has been charged with obstructing justice and misconduct, as well as perjury related to her conduct during the trial. Harpootlian believes these allegations strengthen their case for a retrial, asserting that Hill attempted to influence jurors to secure a conviction.

Potential Outcomes and Implications

The appeal process is ongoing, with a decision expected by early next year. If granted, a retrial would focus solely on forensic evidence, excluding financial crimes to which Murdaugh has already pleaded guilty. Harpootlian remains confident in Murdaugh’s defense, arguing that forensic evidence does not support his client’s guilt in the murders.