Law&Crime Sidebar - 'Serial Liar': Judge Slams Alex Murdaugh During Accomplice's Criminal Case

Episode Date: April 13, 2023

Russell Laffitte, Alex Murdaugh’s accomplice involved in dozens of financial crimes, will not get a new trial. The convicted scam artist motioned for a new trial after Murdaugh testified during his double murder trial that Laffitte never conspired with him about those financial crimes. Despite the convicted killer’s testimony, a federal judge denied the motion, writing Murdaugh is a 'serial liar' and 'fraudster.' The Law&Crime Network’s Angenette Levy breaks down the judge’s written decision.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. I can tell you that Russell Lefeet, Russell LaFeed never conspired with me to do anything. Those words from Alec Murdoch will not lead to a new trial for his friend and alleged partner in crime Russell Lafitte, the federal judge in Lafitte's case calling Alec Murdoch a serial liar and more. I'm Anjanette Levy and welcome to Law and Crime Sidebar podcast. On two occasions now, Russell Lafitte has asked Judge Richard Gergel for a new trial and twice. Judge Gergel has denied that request. Lafitte's second motion for a new trial came after Alec Murdoch

testified at his double murder trial that Lafitte didn't do anything. wrong when he transferred money from clients at Palmetto State Bank where he was the CEO to himself and Murdoch. I just want everybody to understand. I do not dispute that I stole money that was not my money, that I misled people to do that. Those words meant nothing to Judge Gergel. He wrote in his decision that evidence presented at Murdoch's trial established without question that Murdoch is a serial liar. and a fraudster who stole from clients. Judge Gurgle said Murdoch is now convicted of murdering his wife, Maggie, and son Paul, so it's difficult to imagine a less credible witness in his mind.

With me to discuss Judge Gurgle's decision on Russell Lafitte's motion for a new trial is Dylan Nolan. He is director of special projects at Fitznews and also has an accounting degree, so who better to cover a financial crimes case. So, Dylan, welcome to Sidebar. Thanks for coming on. It's a pleasure. your initial thoughts, your reaction to Judge Gurgle's decision denying Russell Lafitte a new trial based on the words of Alec Murdoch, somebody he called a serial liar. I mean, this to me always read as

a long shot. Russell Lafitte has actually submitted two motions for a new trial. The first being the one with far more merit. There was a late in the game swap of two jurors. I think this is something that might have grounds at the appellate level. But Alec Murdo, somebody who perjured himself, on the stand, or at least a jury believes he did, is not the kind of person who I expected Judge Gergel to take seriously as far as giving him a new trial on those grounds. He did fall on the sword, though. Alec Murdoch, I mean, they have him kind of dead to write on these financial crimes, as far as I can tell. He said during the murder trial, I did it, I stole money, I took money that wasn't mine. So why not believe him when he says,

Russell Lafee, this was my thing. I kind of duped Russell Lafitte, too. Well, I think that there is an element of truth in Murdoz statements. I think that he cajoled Lafitte. I think that he pushed him, manipulated him, lied to him. But you have to look at the other side of the coin. And that's that somebody who has risen to the position of chief executive officer of a bank, a highly regulated financial institution, would not not know what they're doing. So even if Alex pushed him, there is just no way that he could have executed the transactions, which there is hard. evidence showing that he executed without having some thought process in his mind of this is not how proper banking occurs. Take me inside the courtroom. This was a trial about financial crimes. No cameras allowed. It's federal court. Some jurisdictions allow an audio feed. This one doesn't. So what was it like listening to all of this and listening to the case as the government built it and then Russell Lafitte testifying? Right. It was interesting. The government's case, you know, the first couple of days were the introduction of financial testimony. And if you're not familiar with how

criminal cases work, you can't assume anything. So anything that is going to go in front of the jury has to literally be presented to them. So there's days of presentation of checks, of financial documents. And during this time, it doesn't seem that the government's building too much steam because this is pretty boring stuff. But eventually, they start putting all of these pieces together, all of these checks, all of these transactions. And they make a pretty clear and convincing case that it would be impossible for Russell Lafitte to have not known that he was committing bank and wire fraud, and it also would have been impossible for him to not have conspired with Murdoch in the commission of those crimes. So the bar was high when the prosecution rests. And I think the defense team

had a shot of tearing that down. And I think the same thing happened in Alec Murda's murder trial, but I think that the defendant taking the stand was a huge mistake because I think everybody in the room saw right through the story that was the defense narrative. Let's talk a little bit the issues with the jurors in this case. It's my understanding. Judge Gergel wanted a verdict. He wanted a verdict by Thanksgiving. It's my understanding. Correct me if I'm wrong here, Dylan, you were the one in the courtroom. Did you think there were serious issues with what happened with the jurors in this case? Let me back it up a little bit to let you know that. Yes, this is the day before Thanksgiving holiday. So everybody has plans. Nobody wants to be there the next day, including the

jurors, and this was after nine hours of deliberation, that four notes come into the courtroom in pretty rapid succession. This is around 8.30 at night at this time, a little before then. And there is a juror with a medical issue, and then there's a separate note talking about a juror who they don't know if this is the same person with the medical issue who cannot deliberate. There's also somebody who has a problem following the judge's instruction with the law, so applying the law. And you can read the transcript of this day. This was rushed out as soon as the trial was over because obviously this was a contentious part of the trial. And you can see the attorneys are figuring out in live time what to do as this is kind of uncharted territory how this should be

handled. They have three jurors that are alternates who are waiting to be swapped in and they're afraid. If they swap these in and then need more jurors, they could be out of luck and have to redo the trial. So there's this discussion of basically we are in uncharted territory here. What do we do. Do you see anything happening on appeal with this case? Well, the resolution of this situation is that the judge with the counsel of the involved parties decides to go and discuss with the juror who has the problem, what their problem might be. And he doesn't know if this is the medical issue juror, if this is the juror who can't deliberate, because obviously they try to maintain the separation between the judge and the juror, especially during deliberations. So he goes

back there and figures out this is a two birds with one stone situation because the juror with the medical problem also seems to be the one that was holding up deliberations. So, of course, on the grounds of this medical problem, which by all accounts was as serious, this juror needed medication for anxiety and was like shaking, could not even really speak to the judge. So he says, this is a clear situation where you replace a juror. That being said, I'll be very interested to see how the appeals court handles this, because there is really no clean, good. Obviously, this is by the book, without a doubt, resolution of the situation. I don't think that that given the set of circumstances, there's any way that the judge could have resolved it and have

it be completely scot-free. So it has to go to that level to be further evaluated, I think. Well, I'm sure it will go to that level. But just back to Alec Murdoch and how Judge Gergel viewed his credibility. And I find it interesting, Dylan. I don't know if you do. But I personally find it interesting that Russell Lafitte is using the words of Alec Murdoch in his double murder trial to try to get a new trial. The judge denied it. saying that Alec Murdoch now stands convicted of the double homicide of his wife and son. It is difficult to imagine a less credible witness under these circumstances. Why didn't Russell Lafitte?

Why didn't his defense team subpoena Alec Murdoch to have him get up on the stand and say, you know what, my buddy Russell Lafitte, this was not his deal. I did this. Well, I mean, that was something that came up over the course of the trial, but it was made clear by attorneys representing Murdoch that he would go up and take the fifth. it was not going to go anywhere. Well, that puts him at risk then for federal charges, federal wire fraud charges then for Alec Murdoch. Right now, he's facing state charges. It doesn't mean that federal charges couldn't come later. Well, Dylan Nolan, thanks so much for coming on to talk with us about

this. We appreciate your time. It was my pleasure. Joining me now to talk about this decision is Eric Bland. He represented some of the victims of Russell Lafitte and still represents them. Eric, Welcome back to Sidebar. Your thoughts very briefly on Judge Gurgle's decision. It was not surprising, given some of the statements he made during the trial and certainly after the first motion for a new trial was denied. Second motion was really out of desperation because essentially you're saying that Alex Murdole is credible when he said in his trial that he was not a co-conspirator, that Russell was not a co-conspirator. Russell did nothing wrong and Russell didn't take any money at my direction. Judge Gergoe in a resounding decision said

that is against Rule 33. One, it's not newly discovered evidence. Two, he said, Alex is wholly not credible. That throughout that trial, he was not credible. And both the jury and Judge Newman, in Judge Newman's comments, said that the jury was misled constantly by you throughout this trial. So one of the standards is, well, if I was to let it in, what is the likelihood that there would have been an acquittal as opposed to a conviction? And Judge Gergel said, even if I had let in Alex's testimony that Russell was not a co-conspirator with him, the jury would have still found him guilty. And what you're seeing is that Judge Gergel believes both Russell Lefeet and Alex Murdoch are bad people and believes. that Russell Lafitte still is not acknowledging his criminal conduct. He did it when he changed attorneys. It's a very dangerous thing to do, Anginette, before your sentence to change

attorneys and start to blame your trial attorneys, especially when it's a former prosecutor like Bart Daniel. That was strike number one. Then he took off against the judge when the judge dealt with the three jurors who had issues of one with the antibiotics, the other was incapable or further deliberation because he felt that there was some pressure. He took off on the judge. He took off on the judge on some evidentiary rulings. And I think you're going to see in this sentence, a judge that is going to send a decision that really says,

Russell, you need to look inside yourself, the same way that Judge Newman said in his sentencing. And don't forget, there's something in that Russell Lafee trial that never came out, which is the two Russell TV, episodes that Russell released, one before the week before the trial on YouTube in an interview with his cousin. And then another episode in the middle of the trial with his cousin, where he blamed others and didn't accept any culpability or responsibility. And he could have said it differently when he was on the stand. Alex didn't do it either. There wasn't a lot of contrition.

You know, Alex said, sure, I stole money, I took money, but he never apologized to his victims to say, look, you put me in a fiduciary position, and I should have watched out for you. I shouldn't have manipulated and exploited you. And I think Judge Gergel is going to load up Russell the feet. That's the bottom line. When's the sentencing? I would suspect it's within the next six weeks because my clients, some of my clients got victim impact statement forms that they're supposed to fill out. and return to the government. So all victims who have the ability to speak, either through the form or if they choose, at the sentencing, they could speak who are victims. And that's the Plyler sisters and some other people that I've represented, Jordan Jenks. They can speak or they can have me speak.

And I'm hopefully going to be able to speak at Russell's sentencing because I have a lot I want to say. But I do believe that it's coming and it's going to come like a freight train because he has done some things that really have upset Judge Gerber. He attacked the judge personally, attacking Bart. Daniel was not a smart thing to do. Post-trial, post-sentencing, maybe, yes, when you do an incompetency of counsel defense on your appeal, but not before your sentence. And then to say, well, geez, if I brought in the

biggest liar thief and double murderer that this state has ever seen, and I let him testify, he would have got me an acquittal. It doesn't make any sense. Well, we will be watching for that sentencing date and for the sentence. Thanks so much, Eric Bland, as always, for coming on. And that's it for this edition of Law and Crime Sidebar podcast. You can listen to and download Sidebar on Apple, Spotify, Google, and wherever else you get your podcasts. And of course, you can always watch it on Law and Crimes YouTube channel. I'm Ann Jeanette Levy, and we will see you next time. You can binge all episodes of this Law and Crime's YouTube channel. 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.