Attorneys representing Alex Murdaugh have submitted a motion demanding that South Carolina prosecutors provide essential forensic evidence. This includes unidentified male DNA found under Maggie Murdaugh’s fingernails, which the defense argues was not sufficiently examined by the state crime lab.
The 93-page motion, filed by Murdaugh’s legal team, calls for additional DNA and ballistics evidence, as well as raw data from a laser scan of the Colleton County crime scene. The defense accuses the prosecution of delays that could interfere with trial preparations.
Every week the State withholds this material is a week taken from the preparation of the defense, and if the delay continues the defense may be forced to seek a continuance that Mr. Murdaugh does not want and that the Court has said it will not grant. The State should not be permitted to create, through inaction, the very delay it would then oppose,the motion states.
The defense initially requested the DNA evidence from Maggie Murdaugh’s fingernails be sent to Othram, Inc. After Othram’s testing revealed a male DNA profile, the defense argues further testing is required, as the state crime lab’s analysis was incomplete.
Murdaugh’s legal team also insists on testing a partial DNA profile found on Maggie Murdaugh’s phone. Moreover, they request information on all regional shootings involving .300 Blackout cases or projectiles, as well as raw data from a 3D laser scan by SLED of the crime scene that was previously provided only as a read-only file.
The defense also accuses the prosecution of inconsistency regarding the murder weapon. Initially, the .300 Blackout rifle was described as uncommon, yet now it is cited as one of the most popular AR cartridges.
The State has had continuous and exclusive custody of every item of physical evidence in this case, including the biological material that is the subject of Part III of this motion, for more than five years. It has tested what it wished to test, in the sequence it wished to test it, without notice to the defense and without the defense’s consent. It now proposes that the defense may not do the same,argued the defense attorneys.
Joshua Ritter, a former prosecutor, suggests that testing additional DNA might be risky for the defense.
I think it’s probably better left alone by the defense so that they can make that argument about this unknown male. ‘Who is that? Why didn’t the prosecution test it? Why didn’t they do anything about it?’he explained, pointing out the potential for the prosecution to counter that the defense could have tested it in the same timeframe.Alex Murdaugh’s 2023 conviction for the murder of his wife and son was reversed by the South Carolina Supreme Court due to jury manipulation by a court official. His retrial is set for April 5, 2027. Fox News Digital has reached out to SLED and Attorney General Alan Wilson for comments.