Law&Crime Sidebar - 6 Crucial Moments in Alex Murdaugh’s Trial Working in Defense’s Favor

Episode Date: February 22, 2023

Alex Murdaugh’s defense attacked prosecutors’ evidence every chance they got during the disgraced lawyer’s family murders trial so far. Murdaugh’s attorneys, Richard Harpootlian and Jim Griffin, have been attempting to discredit the state’s evidence and create reasonable doubt, claiming none of the evidence proves Alex murdered his wife and son. The Law&Crime Network’s Angenette Levy breaks down six moments from the trial that may be working in the defense’s favor with criminal defense attorney Sara Azar.LAW&CRIME SIDEBAR PRODUCTION:YouTube Management - Bobby SzokePodcasting - Sam GoldbergWriting & Video Editing - Michael DeiningerGuest Booking - Alyssa FisherSocial Media Management - Vanessa Bein & Kiera BronsonSUBSCRIBE TO OUR OTHER PODCASTS:Court JunkieObjectionsThey Walk Among AmericaCoptales and CocktailsThe Disturbing TruthSpeaking FreelyLAW&CRIME NETWORK SOCIAL MEDIA:Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/lawandcrime/Twitter: https://twitter.com/LawCrimeNetworkFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/lawandcrimeTwitch: https://www.twitch.tv/lawandcrimenetworkTikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@lawandcrimeSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Wondery Plus subscribers can binge all episodes of this Law and Crimes series ad-free right now. Join Wondry Plus in the Wondery app Apple Podcasts or Spotify. Agent Nate Russo returns in Oracle 3, Murder at the Grandview, the latest installment of the gripping Audible Original series. When a reunion at an abandoned island hotel turns deadly, Russo must untangle accident from murder. But beware, something sinister lurks in the grand. View Shadows. Joshua Jackson delivers a bone-chilling performance in this supernatural thriller that

will keep you on the edge of your seat. Don't let your fears take hold of you as you dive into this addictive series. Love thrillers with a paranormal twist? The entire Oracle trilogy is available on Audible. Listen now on Audible. The double murder trial of Alec Murdoch has captured the attention of people around the world. We are taking a look at the six biggest moments for Murdoch's defense during this marathon trial. Remember, as you sit there right now, in your mind, he didn't do it. He is innocent. He would require a verdict of not guilty from you. That's the law. That's your oath. I'm Ann Jeanette Levy, and welcome to Law and Crime's Sidebar podcast.

We are following the trial of Alec Murdoch closely, providing updates to you every day, and we've outlined the strongest points of the state's case for you. Now it's the defense's turn, and we're pointing to six moments that have been big for Alec Murdoch's defense team as they defend him against these charges. Joining me to discuss the six points that were considered to be really good points for the defense in Alec Murdoch's trial is Sarah Azari. She's a criminal trial attorney based in Los Angeles. Sarah, welcome to Sidebar. Thanks for coming on. Thanks, Angina. Thanks for having me. We just want to be clear. You've been pretty critical of the prosecution in this case and have pointed out a lot of things that you believe were very helpful to the defense. And one of those things that we've thought was really interesting that kind of kicked off this case was especially worldly. She was one of the people who responded to the crime scene at Moselle. And she actually,

talked about under cross-examination and she had to kind of be prodded into this she had said that it was possible that there were two shooters involved that that was one possibility take a listen oh so you had these measurements but did you know the degrees until july 12 but on july 12th did anyone go back out and walk this line maybe there's so cases way up here no one looked up there correct? Not what I'm learned. Okay, and no one did a topographical study to indicate, if you follow these lines back, whether the, wherever a shooter could have been, were higher or lower than the doghouse or the small animal cave, right? But doesn't this indicate to you there were two shooters? It was a shooter up here and a shooter down here. Is there a possible? Well, let me say this. Is it a possibility that there's a possibility that there

there are two shooters, based on the data you collected. I just indicated it was movement to me. Movement from here, all the way up to here? I don't know that it went all the way there. But is it, I'm not telling you it. I mean, one explanation would be movement, correct? One explanation would be, would be two shooters. I'm sorry?

Yes. No, no, no, no. But one explanation of this data would be two shooters. one explanation, not the, but one. Not the only. Yeah, not the only. But it is a reasonable explanation, just like one shooter running up that way, correct?

Now, Sarah, after that cross-examination by Dick Harputlian, where Special Agent Worley was kind of forced to say, yeah, it's possible. You could tell she didn't really want to go there. Was that a big deal for you? Because it seemed to happen really early on in the state's case. Yeah, it happened early on and very close to opening statements because in opening statements, we make promises, right, to the jury that we have to keep.

You never say anything in opening that you can't, you don't think you can prove. And so their memory is still fresh that Haputli in an opening statement has said there were two shooters, ladies and gentlemen, that no way that one shooter could have killed both Maggie and Paul. And then Worley testifies early on and says, yeah, it's possible. Look, it's all about possibilities and also plausible possibilities, right? And that's where you get to doubt. If you have a possibility that it could be a different scenario, that it could be two shooters,

then that is casting doubt on the idea that Alec Murdoch single-handedly killed Maggie and Paul. I have to remember that the state's case is he killed both. It's not that he killed one and there was someone else there. So if you could blow that out of water, which is what Harputian did on Worley's cross. I thought that was very, very effective. And she also was helpful to the defense in the sense of the contamination of evidence, the failure to contain, I mean, contamination of the evidence in the scene, failure to contain the scene. You know, so there's a lot of other things that were good for the defense. But I just want to clarify one thing. I've also been critical of the defense. I know

everyone thinks I'm, you know, anti-prosecution in this case. It's a very defensible case, obviously. So if I come across as criticizing a lot of the case, a lot about the case in chief, it's not just because I'm a defense attorney, it's also because it is that kind of case. But I've, you know, criticized the defense attorneys for making speaking objections, for not objecting enough, for opening the door to some things that they shouldn't have opened the door to. And even when we get to, you know, the discussion about Sutton's testimony today, I have some criticism of that, too, for the defense. Interesting. There's been another thing that's been kind of out there. And it's hard for people

to wrap their heads around this, the fact that somebody like Alec Murdoch, who obviously is a very flawed human being, I mean, the financial crimes he's all but admitted to. He had an opioid addiction. He's charged also with a conspiracy regarding oxycodone, you know, an opiate with Curtis Eddie Smith. So there are a lot of flaws there. There are a lot of warts. However, everybody that has testified has said he loved Maggie. He loved Paul. He loved his family. There have been no discussions and no testimony that there was any domestic violence or anything like that. And one thing that the defense has pointed to is the weekend before this happened, really. Actually, it was two weekends before this happened. Memorial Day weekend. They played this video during cross-examination of one of the

state's witnesses. And it was of a birthday party for Alec Murdoch. So let's take a look at that and listen to a little bit of the testimony about Alec Murdoch's relationship with his family. And then we'll talk about it. Birthday to you. Happy birthday to God. Happy birthday, dear. Did you spend a lot of time with Paul around his dad and mom? Yes, sir, I did.

And how would you describe Paul's relationship with his father? It was an awesome relationship. And what do you mean by awesome? It just kind of seemed like Paul was the apple of his eye. Okay. And from your observation, you tell the jury what you observed of Alex's relationship with Maggie? I thought they had an awesome relationship as well from everything that I could see. You know, they were always laughing and everybody got along.

Nothing was out of the ordinary at all. Just very briefly. In your own words, you tell the jury what you believe Alex's relationship was with Paul. I think they had a very good relationship. They loved all the same things. They loved to hunt. They loved to fish. They loved to work the land.

I think the plan was for Paul to take over Moselle one day. And they had a great father-son relationship. And in your own words, can you tell the jury what you believe Alex's relationship with Maggie was? It was good. It wasn't perfect. But Maggie was happy. And I think she was happy. So, Sarah, we have Alec Murdoch being described as somebody who loved his family. Everybody thought the relationship with he and Maggie and even Paul was good. There's nobody saying they fought.

There was domestic violence. Even Maggie's sister, Marion Proctor, said, you know, no marriage is perfect. Her marriage wasn't perfect, but she thought Maggie was happy. So how important is this for the defense in this case? Well, I think it's really important because, well, first of all, when you're able to, to use the prosecution's witnesses to elicit testimony that's favorable to the defendant, that's always a beautiful moment because it doesn't happen always, you know. And that's what we saw happen time and time again with multiple witnesses, including Maggie's sister. But the idea that

he's a family man, despite his flaws, is important because it makes it all the more unlikely that that tenuous motive that the that the state is trying to sell to this jury that he would blow his son's head and out his wife because he wants to divert attention from his financial ruin and put it instead on him as a murder suspect. I mean, it's it's so crazy to me still six weeks, six six weeks in. It just makes that even more tenuous, you know. And the opiate addiction to me goes hand in hand with a thievery. Not every opiate addict. is a thief and a fraud and a con man, but it is very much a cornerstone of addiction. You get into not only transacting for drugs, but hanging out with really, you know, shady,

colorful people and other kinds of illicit activity. We don't know what else what Alec Murdoch was doing, you know, and his family doesn't know. I mean, that came out too, that they were really in the dark about his finances and all that stuff. So this was not a surprise to me because I have had clients, including lawyers who have been engaged in large-scale embezzlement. They were great people. They were great husbands. They were great fathers. But unfortunately, like you said, flawed and addicted

and began to steal money from clients and then eventually everything that walked, right? So to me, look, I don't know what this jury's like down there, but I imagine they've been around addiction. They know about it, you know, that they're going to have some empathy, right? You know, And if in Avalik Murdoch testifies, he better straight up first and foremost, look the jury in the eye, say that, you know, he was a con man and a thief and all that. He's not lying today and that he never killed his wife and son, that he didn't kill them. I mean, that's like right off the bat needs to come out, right? But to me, it's critical that he's not the monster that the state is painting him to be that would kill his wife and son, you know, and that can't be discounted, right? there was no looming divorce there was no animosity or violence in the relationship between any of them

you know maggie's sister testifying about her happiness wasn't a perfect marriage what marriage is that's why probably i'm single still right i mean it's just you know it's uh hard even if you're happy it's i mean it's like it's you know it's a lot of work it's work yeah and they were just having a regular marriage so the fact that we we had the absence of all those things that we typically kind of go, hmm, you know, he had reason to kill her. We don't have here. We just don't have it. So in a lot of cases, we hear about DNA evidence. And, you know, sometimes DNA evidence is something that really points the finger at somebody. But in this case, we don't really have that. We don't have DNA at the scene that isn't one of the Murdox saying, oh my gosh, here's your

suspect, you know, there's no signs of a struggle, anything like that. But what we do have through that DNA testimony, and I think it was kind of confusing the way it was presented. But we did hear some interesting things about the DNA underneath Maggie Murdoch's fingernail, and it can't be identified. So let's take a listen to that little bit of testimony. We've gone through a pretty long list of things that you did analysis on. Did you do any analysis on any clothing or anything from the victim's bodies other than Maggie Murdoz's fingernail clippings? I analyzed Margaret Murdoz's fingernail clippings, Paul Murdoz, fingernail clippings,

as well as their buckle swaps. And when you say their buckle swaps, that was simply to collect their DNA to perform analysis. Is that correct? That was the known standard that I used to make comparisons. Yes. And under Maggie Murdoz's left finger nail clippings, you found unidentified male d.

DNA? Foreign to Margaret Murdaugh, there were some alleles present, yes. Was there DNA from an unrelated male under her fingernails? For item 70, yes, one of the alleles indicates a male contributor. And this was an unrelated male? For, do you mean unrelated as in unrelated? Let me strike that and rephrase. Were Paul and Alec Murdoch excluded as contributors?

Yes. So male DNA under her fingernails, not from Paul, not from Alec Murdo. The foreign DNA to her, yes. They were excluded as contributors. So Sarah, we have the DNA analyst, Agent Zapata, saying, There was a DNA under the nail of Maggie Murdoch. They can't say who it belongs to. It's not the gardener.

Everybody was saying it was the gardener, but it wasn't C.B. Rowe. So we don't know whose it is. And then on top of that, early on in the trial, we heard that there was brown hair in Maggie's hand, but then we never heard anything about that again. So how important is this for the defense to be able to say, look, it's not saying anything bad about Maggie, but we don't know where that DNA came from and it can't be identified as anybody in her circle. And that's very important because remember that the entire burden to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt is on the prosecution. The defense does not have to prove anything in this case.

So it's enough to say there were other suspects. This unknown male DNA under her fingernail can't be discounted because if you've excluded Paul, which they did, if you've excluded Alec and anyone else in Buster, for example, and this is an unknown male, well, that, again, goes to the two-shooter theory and the fact that it's somebody other than within this immediate family. So the defense doesn't need to, you know, do their own analysis and prove who that male might be. It's enough that it's somebody other than the defendant. So that to me is critical. And by the way, the C.B. Row that you brought up. That was, it reminded me of a very interesting point. I can't remember which witness was testifying, but it was almost like, I think it was Owens during the famous Griffin Owens cross-examination,

where it seemed like Owens expected Alec Murdoch to do the investigation for him, right? I mean, the idea that Alec Murdoch was blurting out some names, oh, it could be the groundskeeper, because we've had some issues with them. It could be somebody from Mallory Beach lawsuit or that family because it's been really contentious with that litigation. Yeah, okay. So he's just thinking of like people that could potentially be investigated, but it's not his job to do the investigation, right? That's Sled's job and only their job. And so, you know, they, at least they looked at C.B. Roe. I mean, I'm glad they did that and ruled him out, but that doesn't discount the fact that there's someone else's DNA that's not within this family. It's certainly not

Alec Murdo. But did you think the brown hair was interesting? Because we heard about that really early in the trial that she had brown hair in her hand, and then we never heard anything about it again. Yeah, and brown hair, I mean, Alec Murdoch is, I don't even know. I mean, Buster's red, red. Alec Murdoch's like strawberry blonde, you know, certainly not brown hair. Like grayish. Yeah, strawberry blonde. Yeah. Yeah. And so again, that to me was, and I was like, okay, is this another thing they missed? Because there's a lot of missed opportunities in this investigation. There's a lot of destruction of evidence, contamination of evidence. I don't know if that's just something that just also, again, slip through the cracks

because it didn't sound like there was any testing done on it. Because even if it was to exclude people or to point to a certain direction, they should have testified to it, right? So I can only imagine that it just wasn't tested. And by the way, isn't that consistent? You don't have to answer this question. I can answer my own question. But like, it's so consistent with how the prosecution is preceded in just in the courtroom,

asking these questions, raising these issues, and it's just like, it falls flat. Like they don't, you know, they don't leave the jury with a nugget or a takeaway. So that to me is, is, is, you know, very, it's almost correlates, right? Like, okay, so we found hair. Okay. And what'd you do with it? Did you test it? If you tested it, what happened?

What was the result, you know? So it all sort of fits. It fits for me. Let's get to Agent Owen. He is the lead case agent on Paul and Mexico. Maggie's murders. And, you know, he was one of the last witnesses for the state's case in chief. And he's supposed to kind of wrap this all up and tie a bow on it for the jury. Here you go. It's all put together. But there were some things that came out on cross-examination that were

somewhat concerning. And it was about statements he made to the grand jury. These are things he testified to in front of the grand jury in order to get an indictment to tell the grand jurors, Look, we have probable cause to believe Alec Murdoch murdered his wife and son. And one of those things had to do with the fact that he said there was blood spatter on Alec Murdoch's t-shirt, that white t-shirt that we've seen. And so he was questioned about that statement he made to the grand jury, which turned out to not be true. So take a listen. Now, when you presented this case to the Colleton County grand jury to obtain a true bill indictment, you testified under oath that an expert had found multiple...

Your Honor, is he talking about grand jury presentation? Carlton County, that's, you can't... It's not a record of a county grand jury. I didn't hear the complete question. It sounds objectionable, but let me hear the question. Well, let me lay a foundation. Mr. Excuse me.

Agent Owen, before you testified before the Collin County Grand Jury, you prepared an outline of your presentation. Did you not? I did. And in that outline, you identified essentially a narrative what you were going to tell the grand jury, correct? Yes. And did you follow that narrative? For the most part, yes. And in that narrative, didn't you state that an expert found multiple particles of

blood spatter on the shoulders in front of Alex shirt. Isn't that correct? Yes. And is that what you told the Collivan County Grand Jury? Yes. However, what sled and this expert out in Oklahoma overlooked is Agent Zapatas confirmatory blood testing about which she testified earlier in this trial that out of 74 cuttings from Alex T-shirt, zero tested positive.

for human blood. You don't completely overlooked the fact that when you did human tracing test to confirm whether it's blood, it came up negative. And wasn't that overlooked? I had never seen that report. When did you see the report? November of 2022. After Alec had been indicted and months from trial, is that right? Yes. So Sarah, we have Agent Owen under cross-examination by Jim Griffin, And I think everybody realizes that was a really good cross-examination by Jim Griffin. And he was able to get him to say, look, yeah, he told the grand jury this. And Owen kind of tried to say, well, you know, that's what I thought at the time. And he didn't see this one report until last November that said it wasn't blood on the T-shirt, which seems like a really big deal.

Alec Murdoch's T-shirt tested negative for the presence of blood, although Maggie and Paul's DNA was found on his shirt along with one of the family friends. So your thoughts on how big of a deal that is for the defense and what the jurors might think of that. Just to be clear, I think Maggie and Paul's DNA were on his T-shirt. Right, not blood. Correct. And look, that was. Yes, their DNA was on the shirt. Yeah, that was huge, Anjanet, because I don't care what side you're on if you're taking

sides to begin with, prosecution or defense. The idea that this is exculpatory what we call Brady evidence, right? grand jury decides whether there's probable cause to indict somebody so even though it's a low standard it's not proved beyond a reasonable doubt it's still a standard and it can make a difference between not indicting or indicting somebody it's a critical piece of evidence it's literally the the blood that they had in this case right they thought they had that was destroyed he had an email about this confirmatory report it wasn't even even a presumptive test it was the next step next level test that said there's no human blood on this t-shirt, right? And he had it for five months

in his email, unclear whether he just didn't check or lost it. I call it the dog, you know, ate my email excuse, right? It was embarrassing. And it was terrible because it's one thing where, you know, you could say you have a liar on both sides of the case. You have Owens, the lead investigator who said he used trickery and he's allowed to use trickery. Well, okay, maybe with a defendant, but with the grand jury with respect to how the guns are loaded. No, you're not allowed to use trickery there, right? And then you've got Alec Murdoch for the defense. We got like two liars, right?

But I can tell you, you know, I've been doing this 20 years. Jurors look at officers and law enforcement. They hold them to a much higher standard. It is really bad when you have somebody who misses things, should have, you know, five months is a long time. It's not like a little oversight, you know, says it's okay to use trickery. on a grand jury that then indicts the defendant. These are not like little, oh, well, bad boy, you know, we're going to let it go.

No, these are bad. These are bad. And that was a blockbuster. Again, I don't care what side you're on. That was probably the biggest, most exciting part of this trial so far. I haven't seen anything top that on either side, you know. It was really blockbuster. It really was.

On Tuesday, Buster Murdoch took the stand, and he was asked about those 300 blackout rifles. There were three on property. Two are missing. One bought, well, two of them were bought back in 2018. There was a replacement. Buster was asked about this and about whether or not Paul ever used his gun and how Paul treated guns around the property. So take a listen. At some point in time, you and Paul receive 300 blackouts for Christmas. Yes, sir. Do you remember roughly, was that 2016 or 2017? Sounds right. Okay. And what color was your 300 blackout? It was black. And have you been sitting in this courtroom during the entire trial? Yes, sir.

And the jury's seen a black, 300 blackout. Is that yours? It is. That is my 300 blackout. Is that the one you got for Christmas? Yes, sir. And what color was Paul's? Paul's was black and tan. And we say black and tan. What part was tan and what part was black? So the receiver would have been tan, and the, I think, and barrel would have been tan?

What part would have been black? Stock, maybe. Okay. And so yours was all black, his was black and tan. That's right. What happened to his that he got for Christmas in 2016? His gun was apparently stolen, lost, taken. Yeah.

Do you, how do you know that? That's just what Paul told me. Did... What happened to your gun after Paul's was stolen? my gun became you know what we would both use and would um what did that create some confrontation between you two at times yes sir and and what why well kind of like I just touched on so he would use it he's not very good about putting it back where he found it I leave it somewhere I go back and you know want to get it and it's

not there did um did did you uh Notice, were you aware that Paul got a replacement at some point in time? No, sir. Well, you heard about that in the courtroom? Yes, sir. Okay. But up to that point, did you ever see Paul use the replacement? No, sir.

I've never seen a replacement. So every time in your presence, Paul was using a 300 blackout, which one would it be? Mine. There's, I'm not going to pull these guns out, Buster, but there's a, In this discussion, and the jury has seen a 12-gauge finale with a Mojo sticker on it. Who's gun is that? That's mine. And what's Mojo?

Mojo is a brand of decoy. It's basically what it is, it's, you know, say you buy wood duck mojo and it sits on a pole, but the wings are motorized. So it's to replicate, you know, a more alive duck. And did you, why is your, but now they have a Mojo sticker on? Because I bought a Mojo decoy in the box. It came with a sticker. And I put the sticker on the gun barrel. And so that way you know that's your gun.

That's right. So Sarah, you've got Buster Murdoch saying that his brother Paul was pretty careless with guns. He would leave them around. He wasn't always putting things back. He didn't, he never saw the replacement 300 blackout. And he said Paul often would use his 300 blackout. out, the one that we've seen in the courtroom. So how big of a deal do you think that is for the defense? Well, I think it's first, on one hand, it creates some confusion. And maybe the state's doing

that on purpose, because they have never taken the position that it's busters 300 blackout. Okay. They're saying it was a blackout, 300 blackout, that Paul had lost and then Murdoch Alec had replaced and then what they call the replacement gun was the murder weapon that again was lost or stolen, they say, and then it was never replaced again. And, you know, when you juxtapose Buster's testimony, Alec Murdoch's August 2021 statement where he shows up with Fleming and talks to Owens, he's asked about this blackout and he says, no, we replace that. It's almost as though he doesn't realize that his son Paul had lost it yet again, had lost the replacement gun again. So the prosecution's position has been that the replaced 300 blackout went missing again.

So it's like now we've got the second 300 blackout that's gone missing. So listen, the best evidence of put, you know, that could put a gun in Alec Murdoch's hands or two guns, two different guns, I should say, is blood spatter. It's high velocity blood spatter. and we don't have that. And when you talk about DNA and science, yeah, of course, jurors expect that in a double homicide trial. And we have zero.

We really have zero science here. Finally, let's talk about the testimony of the expert witness in this case, who talked about the height of the shooter, what he believed the height of the shooter would be. Alec Murdoch is a tall guy, 6-3-6-4, they've been measuring him, all these things have gone on. And so he talked about the trajectory of the shots and how tall that shooter would have to be. Take a listen. Based on the angles and the basically trigonometry is what you're saying. You say the shooter would have been between 5-2 and 5-4 and back to have the ejected shells in the appropriate place.

you can mark that place on this sketch where these two folks are that's sort of the rain yes and you can see some of the ejected shells but they're right beside the body just off where I've got the yellow sticky

that is the area where you have I believe a two three and four so three empty 300 blackout cases. Okay. And that would be consistent

with the position of the shooters in this position and based on the angle of the the bird cage, a bird cage,

they would be somewhere between 5-2 and 5-4. That is correct. To have a shot from the hip, the lower part almost crouched down here. Sarah, how important for the defense is this testimony because the reaction on Twitter seemed to be mixed. A lot of people thought the cross-examination by the state that they eviscerated this guy. Other people felt that he made a valid point using physics and other

things like that. Yeah, I read that. And I listen to it. And honestly, I went back and forth on him and what I thought of him as he was testifying. It went off for a long time. Fernandez went into the weeds, got everybody confused. But I do think it was significant. First of all, I don't think he was eviscerated. He was challenged, but he was also pretty firm that, listen, I'm not a pathologist. I never studied this from the standpoint or expertise of a pathologist. I'm a physicist. You know, I'm a mechanical engineer. So he really kind of brought it back into his lane and just what he essentially analyzed, right, for this case and in preparation for his testimony. But there are a few important things that he established that have been at issue during this trial.

One is that Murdoch, when he pulled up to the kennels with his headlights on, would be able to see that something's a foul. He would be able to see that Maggie and Paul are laying on the ground. Something's wrong, right? And then juxtapose that with the 20-minute timer that Barber demonstrated in how long that really is. It's not unusual that he sees this. He goes, holy crap, picks up the phone and calls 911, right?

So that was important. Also, that he wasn't traveling 80 miles an hour the entire way to Almeda and back that is speed buried, that the phone wasn't thrown out of his car at 45 miles per hour, and that the orientation on the phone could change when it lands on the ground and sort of, you know, tumble, I guess he testified. And also remember, the phone was not cracked. It wasn't broken. I'm not sure that, you know, this theory that it was thrown out of the car is even really viable.

And we know that Alec Murdoch did not stop on the way to Alameda and back. So I think those were important pieces of his testimony and, of course, the inconsistency with Alec Murdoch's height. Now, here's where I'm going to critique the defense. And maybe I don't know as much as I should know to make this decision if Alec was my client. But, you know, they went through this great, you know, 3D demonstration. But they should have shown a 6-4 person on his knee, this idea that it's so awkward and unnatural for someone with Alex Hight to be shooting in a way that would have explained

the trajectory of the bullet, right? Well, demonstrated with Alex Hight instead of talking about 11-year-olds who were 5-2 to 5-4, like whatever that was, you know. Yeah, the 12-year-old thing was a little weird. It was really weird. It was really weird. It's like you're doing this 3D unless, unless that just wouldn't be good for them, unless what it would demonstrate would actually maybe weaken their argument, you know? But I thought it was really weird that you're going through the pains of doing this beautiful 3D demonstration up until this point we have not had. But then you don't actually let the jury see how awkward it is for the defendant at 6'4 to be shooting at this angle. right? That, that to me was missing. And again, in all, in all fairness, maybe it wouldn't be good if they did that. Maybe that's why they didn't do it. I don't know. Well, Sarah Azari, thank you so much for joining us to talk about some of the key points

for the defense in this case. We appreciate it and we hope you'll come back. I will. And it was great matching you today. Yes, yes. We did not plan this. It just kind of happened. No, we didn't. Take care. Bye. Me too. All right. That's it for this edition of Law and Crime Sidebar podcast. You can download and listen to Sidebar on Apple, Spotify, Google, and wherever else you get your podcast, and of course, you can always watch it

on Law and Crimes YouTube channel. I'm Ann Jeanette Levy, and I will see you next time. You can binge all episodes of this Law and Crime series, ad-free right now on Wondery Plus. Join Wondery Plus in the Wondery app. Apple Podcasts. or Spotify.