Law&Crime Sidebar - Alex Murdaugh’s Partner-In-Crime Seeks New Trial Based on Family Murderer’s Testimony

Episode Date: March 14, 2023

Alex Murdaugh’s financial theft accomplice, Russell Laffitte, requested a new trial after the disgraced lawyer testified the former Palmetto State Bank CEO had nothing to do with his crimes. Laffitte was convicted of multiple counts of fraud last November in connection to money stolen from Murdaugh’s clients. The Law&Crime Network’s Angenette Levy breaks it down with South Carolina criminal defense attorney Chris Adams.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. views 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.

Which part of what I just asked you about the pliers do you take issue with? You take issue that y'all didn't conspired to do that? You and Russell? You take issue with that? Take issue with that? Okay. I can tell you that Russell the feet, Russell Lafitte never conspired with me to do anything. Based on those words from Alec Murdoch, Russell Lafitte is asking for a new trial in federal court.

So will that request be granted? I'm Ann Janette Levy and welcome to Law and Crime's Sidebar podcast. The name Russell Lafitte came up a lot during Alec Murdoch's double murder trial, especially when it came to discussing those financial crimes that Alec Murdoch was accused of and is still accused of. Lafitte is a friend of Alec Murdoch and the former CEO of Palmetto State Bank. Lafitte was convicted last year at a trial in federal court of bank fraud, wire fraud, and conspiracy. Lafitte claims Alec Murdoch's testimony absolves him of any wrongdoing and he says because of those words, he deserves a new trial. Joining me to discuss, Russell Lafitte's

request for a new trial and Alec Murdoch's testimony at his murder trial is Chris Adams. He's a defense attorney in South Carolina and also a past president of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. Chris, welcome to Sidebar. Thank you, Anjanet. Thanks for having me. So, Chris, we see that the judge in Russell Lafitte's case has already denied one motion for a new trial. I'm not sure this judge is willing to grant another motion for a new trial based on the word of Alec Murdoch. So what's your take on this motion for a new trial first off?

Well, I've appeared in front of Judge Gergel a lot, and he is a very smart, very hardworking judge, and he will do whatever the law dictates. So he will not have figured out what the answer is before he does the research. This is a terrific motion by Mark Moore on behalf of Mr. Lafitte. He's raised the issue of a new trial based on newly discovered evidence, based on the sworn testimony of Murdoch. And Murdoch says in his sworn testimony, which, which they transcribed from the TV streaming that he did the financial crimes themselves, that Russell Lafitte was not a part of it, that they didn't talk about it, and that he basically used Russell Lafitte.

And if that were the case, Lafitte's argument, his lawyer's argument is that would negate the mental state element of willfulness for each of the crimes he was convicted of, and therefore he ought to receive a new trial. and either have a dismissal or have the chance to call Murdoch to be a witness. I think Alec Murdoch probably would have some credibility problems, but he is fessing up or at least did in the murder trial to stealing money from clients. He said he did things that were wrong. And he said Russell Lafitte, he didn't conspire with him.

So does Alec Murdoch's word mean anything when it comes to getting a new trial? Because I'm surprised that Russell Lafitte's attorneys didn't call Alec Murdoch if he was going to say this at his murder trial, why wouldn't you say it at the federal trial last year? Russell Lafitte was charged in the federal system with the banking crimes and the fraud crimes. His trial went faster, and they went to trial first before Murdoch was tried. So if you're Mr. Murdoch's lawyers, there's no way in the world you would let him go testify in Russell Lafitte's trial and subject him to cross-examination as your trial for murders are coming up. So effectively, Mr. Lafitte and his legal team would have had no opportunity to call Mr. Murdoch prior to his murder trial.

Now he's been tried and convicted. He made very favorable statements for Mr. Lafitte. And I can only imagine the trial team and new counsel for Mr. Lafitte are wondering, boy, what if we'd had Murdoch, we could have either had all charges dismissed or won acquittals for our client. Let's say, hypothetically speaking, that the new trial motion is granted and Russell Lafitte gets a new trial. Do you, as Alec Murdoch's attorneys, allow him to get up there on the stand and testify to this saying, I did it all? And then now you're in the federal venue and he possibly then is at risk of getting charged federally for these crimes. Well, that is one of the issues that I think will have to be dealt with in the motion for new trial. Is Mr. Murdoch going to be available as a witness or not. I don't think it would be adequate to bring in the transcript

from the state court hearing hearing. The federal prosecutors are never going to agree to that. They're going to say they weren't allowed the opportunity to cross-examine Mr. Murdoch as it relates to Lafitte. So they'll argue that the cross-examination by Creighton Waters and the South Carolina Attorney General's team weren't dealing with the issues that they would have dealt that the federal prosecutors would have dealt with for Lafitte, so they're not, they wouldn't be provided the opportunity for a full and fair cross-examination. So it would be interesting to see if Murdoch is willing to be a witness in a federal proceeding to assist his longtime friend, I guess, banker Russell Lafitte. I think he would have to make that commitment for this motion to really

get traction. What do you see happening with this motion? Because obviously the defense for, the defense team for Russell Lafitte filed this motion for a new trial. The prosecution, the government, will have a chance to respond to it. Then there may be some other type of surreply, and then the judge makes a decision. So that's ordinarily the case. There would be briefing by the prosecution and then a response by the defense. And Judge Gergel and his chambers would rule, and they would do that quickly, in my experience, that they would be all over it and on top of it and maybe ahead of the lawyers in being ready to deal with this rapidly. One possibility, and Jeanette, is that they would want to have,

that the judge would order this to have an evidentiary hearing, to proffer the testimony, to put up the testimony of what you would anticipate would occur at trial if this motion is granted. So the judge could rule in a way that would invite Mr. Murdoch to come in and testify under oath in federal court with federal prosecutors as to what his potential testimony would be for Mr. Lafitte, and then the judge would rule on whether that would be, would have been sufficient or not to justify a new trial. That would be a much anticipated hearing if that were to be granted. Yeah, it would be. And it's too bad there aren't cameras in federal court

because I think everybody would be interested in seeing that. And it would likely be packed to hear what Alec Murdoch might say. So what do you see happening with this motion? Do you think it's going to be denied. We've already had one motion for a new trial denied, but I found it interesting that Alec Murdoch fell on his sword in state court for this and said, you know, Russell Lafitte didn't do anything wrong. This was all me. Well, it's hard to know what to expect. In the first motion before a new trial, it was repeating an issue that had been raised and ruled upon about a juror and some odd things that happened at the very end of the trial with the excusal of a juror. that would have occurred in front of the judge, the judge would have been involved, and he would have

already ruled. So it's oftentimes challenging to get a new trial granted on something that's being relitigated. This is different. Mr. Murdoch was not available to the defense at the first trial, and his testimony does suggest that he would have had critical information for the defense. And I think that's something that Judge Gergel will take seriously. I would anticipate that he would rule based on the pleadings, but he really might not. He might want to have a hearing on it. It will be fascinating. I don't know any reason why Murdoch would lie to protect Lafitte. So you use the term he fell on his sword and maybe he did. And that suggests that he was skewing his testimony to benefit Lafitte. But really everything about that trial

suggested he was skewing the testimony to benefit himself on the murders. So I I don't know what incentive he would have had to try to help Lafitte. Certainly, I think the federal prosecutors will have arguments that might suggest why he would have skewed if he's not to be believable as to Lafitte. If he's believable as to Lafitte, if he's credible about Lafitte really didn't know and he duped him, then that's critically important for Lafitte to show that he didn't knowingly violate the various statutes he was convicted of. And correct me if I'm wrong, Chris. you know, my reading of this was Alec Murdoch got on the stand and said, yes, I did these things with the related to the financial crimes. But I did that. I'm telling you I did that. So you can believe me, I have credibility. I didn't kill my wife and son. So wasn't that

part of the calculation there? I think it was. I mean, I think when he got up, he knew he was going to have to eat the 99 financial crimes and say, you know, I'm, I'm a fraudster. I steal, but I don't murder. I don't think there was any way to run from the financial crimes. But he did not have to go a step further. And really, it wasn't the key part of his testimony about whether he did it with Lafitte or whether he was tricking Lafitte. And he indicated that he did it himself. And very clearly, more reading the transcript more clearly than I realized, as he kept saying that I committed the frauds, I did this. Russell Lafitte did not know. Russell wasn't part of it. We never sat down and discussed it, I was ripping these people off, not Russell. He was very clear about that in his testament.

The cynic in me, though, kind of wonders if there's something there and that there was a calculation on Alec Murdoch's part to say, I'm going to throw my buddy some cover because he knows where all of my skeletons are in my closet. Could that have been part of this calculation? Who knows? You're asking me to delve into the psychological profile of Murdoch, and that's challenging to do from my vantage point. But I don't know. It's Mr. Lafitte. I half expected him to show up as a witness in the Murdoch trial. And he did not. And I think he would have been a viable witness for the state if his position was, yes, I knew this stuff. And here's how, here's how Murdoch and I were pulling off financial crimes. And that would have allowed him to qualify for a reduction in his federal sentence. for cooperation. He didn't show up as a witness. Now, the prosecution, interestingly, I don't believe called any witnesses of people who were criminals. They didn't call Eddie. They didn't call Mr. Lafitte. They didn't call others, people who've been accused of crimes. So maybe they didn't

want to sully their side of the case by calling people who had questionable credibility. But Lafitte did not show up as a witness, which was surprising to me. And it may very well be because his position throughout has been, I had no idea what Murdoch was up to. Well, Chris Adams, I'm sorry, I asked you to kind of dive into the mind of Alec Murdoch, go out of your area of expertise, but it's just kind of where my mind goes. So I appreciate you being a good sport and coming on to talk with us about this. We appreciate your time. Thank you, and Jeanette.

And that's it for this edition of Law and Crime Sidebar podcast. You can download it 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 Janette Levy, and we 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.