Key rulings shake up Alex Murdaugh retrial: Venue disputed, prior testimony and fingernail DNA approved

by Aaron Dixon

LEXINGTON COUNTY, S.C. (WTOC) - The roadmap for the high-profile murder retrial of former attorney Alex Murdaugh is taking shape following a series of critical pretrial rulings in a Lexington County courtroom.

Murdaugh, who appeared in court wearing street clothes, a sharp contrast to the shackles and orange jumpsuit of previous appearances, faces an upcoming retrial set to begin on April 5, 2026.

Over the course of a three-hour hearing, Circuit Court Judge Debra McCaslin handed down key decisions regarding where the trial will take place, the admissibility of past testimony, and new DNA testing.

The Battle Over the Trial’s Venue

One of the most contentious debates of the hearing centered on where the retrial will be held. Murdaugh’s defense team pushed heavily for Charleston, arguing that the city offers a larger, more impartial jury pool less connected to the Murdaugh family name.

They also cited logistical benefits, including abundant lodging, parking, and proximity for traveling experts and witnesses.

“I’m putting on the record. If you give us Charleston, we will never appeal the venue issue. Take that one off the plate,” One of Murdaugh’s attorneys, Dick Harpootlian, said.

However, state prosecutors opposed the move, arguing that Charleston would be prohibitively expensive and logistically challenging, especially with the trial coinciding with the annual Masters golf tournament.

“I am happy to consider any other option, but I am also a steward of the taxpayer money,” Lead Prosecutor Creighton Waters said, noting that Colleton County, where the first trial was held, is currently bearing a significant portion of the cost.

Judge McCaslin ruled that the retrial will not be held in the 14th Judicial Circuit, which includes Beaufort, Jasper, Hampton, Colleton, and Allendale counties.

While she has not yet finalized the new location, she indicated that she would make the decision herself with local budgets in mind.

“Colleton County is not a rich county; it’s a poor county. That will be at the forefront of my thoughts when I transfer this case,” McCaslin said. “I was in hopes that the two of y’all could agree on a destination, but since that’s not happening, I will decide and let y’all know.”

Alternative venues proposed by the state include York, Newberry, Lancaster, and Spartanburg counties.

2023 Trial Testimony Ruled Admissible

In another major blow to the defense, Judge McCaslin ruled that Murdaugh’s own testimony from his 2023 trial will be allowed in the upcoming retrial.

Murdaugh’s legal team strongly opposed the decision, arguing that the retrial is a completely separate case, a trial de novo, necessitated by errors made by a state actor. They argued that Murdaugh only took the stand in 2023 to defend himself against extensive financial evidence that was later ruled improper.

“The state, as far as I can tell, takes the position that the indictment number controls whether this is another case or not,” defense attorney Phillip Barber said. “I would point out that there is not a single case where this is not a trial de novo because of an error by a state actor.”

The state countered that the underlying charges have not changed.

“This is the same criminal case. This is not another criminal case,” Waters argued. “It’s the same indictment, it’s the same allegations... There is no question that we are starting the evidentiary presentation again from new, but that doesn’t change the case.”

Waters noted that the state’s use of the past testimony would depend on how much financial evidence is ultimately admitted in the retrial.

Outside DNA Testing of Fingernail Evidence Approved

The defense secured a significant victory regarding forensic evidence. Judge McCaslin ruled in favor of a defense motion allowing independent, outside DNA testing on material found under the fingernails of Maggie Murdaugh.

Murdaugh’s attorneys requested that the raw, unprocessed sample be sent to Othram, an advanced forensic genomics laboratory based in Texas, rather than having the State Law Enforcement Division (SLED) conduct the analysis again.

The state raised concerns that the limited sample could be degraded or destroyed during testing, suggesting that SLED should process it first.

To address these worries, the defense proposed a collaborative testing workflow.

“We want it all to go to Othram, unprocessed. They will process it, they’ll do quantitative analysis, and we will share that quantitative analysis with SLED,” defense attorney Jim Griffin explained. “Then we’ll know if there is enough to do both. If there is not enough to do both, they’ll know that, and we’ll know that.”

The judge approved the defense’s request to send the sample to Othram. Depending on how quickly the laboratory returns the results, the court may hold a special hearing to review the findings before the next scheduled court date.