Murdaugh Murders Podcast - Cup of Justice Bonus 11: Days of Bowing at the Altar of the Good Ole Boys Are Over

Starting point is 00:00:10 So, Eric, did you get a chance to listen to our latest episode of Murdoch Murders podcast? I certainly did. You went in deep on the money issue and, you know, what the motive could be behind Alex of being charged for the murders. I thought it was very in depth and I was really intrigued by the trial that took place in the early 2000s in front of Tommy Houston and all the other things. You guys did some serious deep dive. That was 2019. I know that it sounded like we were talking about a case that happened literally three years ago. After the boat crash.

Starting point is 00:00:50 So Judge Tommy Houston to tell people just really quickly, on Murdoch Murdoch's podcast, we talked about a case. And it was told to us that it was the sole case that Ehrlich Murdoch had served as lead prosecutor on. And it was the Emmanuel Buckner case. It was in Colleton County, and Immanuel Buckner was an alleged drug dealer. So this judge, Judge Tommy Houston, who was 76 years old at the time and had been retired since 1998, was somehow brought in. He had not tried a General Sessions case in Colleton County for at least 10 years. Mandy and I went back in the rosters and looked for the past 10 years.

Starting point is 00:01:31 And that was the first time that we could see that he had been there in a long time. So he was brought in to preside over this case. case, oddly. And it didn't obviously end it in a hung jury, but Eric told us that he was familiar with the name Tommy Houston for reasons that totally, totally track with what Mandy and I run in the transcript. So Eric, go ahead and tell people about Tommy Houston. Well, he was an upstate judge for most of his career, and he retired to Charleston. And so most of the last 15 years, he has sat in trials in Charleston. It was really surprising. to me to hear that he went to Colleton County because our experience with him when he left

Starting point is 00:02:13 the upstate was always in Charleston. And my partner, Ronnie and I had a medical malpractice trial, a very serious trial. A 43-year-old man had a congenital heart condition. And the doctor, his cardiologist, was supposed to do a test that was going to give him a fix that he needed. And the test was ordered but never scheduled. And then it was canceled. And then it was canceled and he was told we'll call you back and tell you when to come back in for this test. And unfortunately, right around Christmas, he died in his driveway. He just passed, just immediately fell over and died. And if they had done this test, they would have been able to do the fix that was necessary.

Starting point is 00:02:56 And so we brought a medical malpractice action and it was hard fought, hard fought case. And it turned out that Judge Houston was going to be the presiding judge over the trial. you don't know who your trial judge is going to be in a state court case, unlike federal court where they knew from the start it was going to be Judge Gergel in Russell's trial. In the state court, it's usually not assigned to a judge. So it's not Judge Newman. It could be anybody who rotates. So that's unusual, you're saying, that we know that Judge Newman will be presiding.

Starting point is 00:03:30 How about with the boat crash cases? Because we know that Daniel Hall is presiding over the boat crash case, and we know that Bentley Price is presiding over the civil conspiracy case related to the Mallory Beach boat crash. Again, this is the Murdall's. So everything becomes special and everything is not the norm. In that particular case for the Murdall, so many judges got recused, whether it was Judge Mullen or other judges. But for a normal garden variety cases that you see on the docket, and there's 4,000 cases that are filed every year in Charleston County. It's just whoever is your judge that week that the judge, that the judge, trial comes up. And whether it's a rotating judge through, who rotates through all the counties,

Starting point is 00:04:11 or it's somebody like Judge Houston who was a retired judge, that's who you got. And so when we went in, you know, we had experience from Judge Houston early in the 90s. And he was cantankerous. He was hard of hearing then. And so we're going along and we're doing great in trial. And he announces the day, at the end of the day of like the second or third day, hey, our expert witness is not going to be able to testify. I think there was a health scare or something happened where the defense expert is not going to be able to testify. So Ronnie and I don't think anything of it.

Starting point is 00:04:49 I mean, it is necessary. They're going to have to have an expert to say that their doctor didn't deviate from the standard of care. And we come in the next morning and on our fax machine, and that'll tell you how long this trial was in the early 2000s because they didn't email, was an updated interrogatory answer that named a new expert witness, a new cardiologist. And we see this and we're like, what is this mean?

Starting point is 00:05:13 So we walk in the court, and I'm not kidding you, in the middle of the courtroom was a table and a phone. And Judge Houston comes in and I stand up and he says, I know what you're going to say. And I said, Judge, please let me put it on a record. I said, we came in the office this morning and they did. disclose an expert witness that they had not disclosed before. We've had no opportunity to investigate that expert. We've had no opportunity to depose him, get their prior transcripts from other hearings. This would be patently unfair. He says, I've remedied that for you, Mr. Blant. So what do you mean? He said, here's a phone. You could call this guy on the phone. We'll postpone the bringing the jury in

Starting point is 00:05:58 from 9 o'clock to 10 o'clock. And you can ask this expert anything you want. And I said, Judge, I want to be able to investigate his background. I want to be able to look to see who he's testified for before, whether he's ever been disqualified as an expert, or how broad other courts have let him testify to. And he said, Mr. Blan, you know what he's going to say. He's going to say that the doctor on the other side did everything fine. And I said, Judge, this is against all rules of procedure.

Starting point is 00:06:29 He said, Mr. Blan, it's my courtroom. If you want to call him on the phone, you could call him on the phone right now. If you don't, we're going to start the trial and he's going to go on the stand right now. That whole idea of it's my courtroom, do you still see that in courtrooms today or is that sort of a relic from the past? Yeah, I definitely think it's something that's antiquated. Yes, it's definitely some of the older judges. I don't see that anymore. You don't see that by, you know, the younger judges today.

Starting point is 00:07:05 You don't see it by the female judges. You don't see that at all. It's the old, unfortunately, white, older judges. It's called black room syndrome. When they put the black robe on, they come in the courtroom. And they, and I get it. It is their courtroom. And they want to set the rules.

Starting point is 00:07:21 But you don't have to be gratuitously mean to lawyers or litigants in front of juries just to make yourself look good. And Judge Houston, used to have a demeanor where he would be demeaning to a lawyer and look over at the jury and kind of smile. And it just was uncomfortable, but not today. Today we have great judges. They don't do that on the, ever do that on the federal court level.

Starting point is 00:07:44 And they don't do that on the state court level. So when you're talking about the rules of the courtroom, and I know that you're, you were talking about a civil case there. But in this particular case with Alec Murdoch, not only was he brought in sort of out of the blue, but he didn't seem very prepared. So he was obviously very unfamiliar with the courtroom, but he didn't seem familiar with the rules of criminal procedure either. And he actually at one point had to have a bailiff run out to get his book from the car so that he knew what was happening. Is that unusual?

Starting point is 00:08:14 That is unusual. I mean, did I hear it right that there were three prosecutors and the one prosecutor is a very accomplished. You told me she had a 95% conviction rate and had been given multiple awards for the work that she had. had done and she had taken on some pretty, sounded like some pretty hardcore defendants. And it was surprising that Alex jumped in on that trial with his father to assist her, not that she needed any assistance. This incident happened in Hampton County years and years ago in which Ehrlich was assisting his father on a case in Hampton County. And it was like an assault case. And Ehrlich went to this person and showed the warrant, the arrest warrant, and said,

Starting point is 00:09:00 where do I find the indictment number on here? And, you know, I obviously know this, and Mandy knows this, but there's no indictment number on an arrest warrant, and arrest warrant is before the indictment. So I know this is not even a real question, but it's like, I get it. He didn't know what habeas corpus was, but this guy didn't even know, like,

Starting point is 00:09:19 the son of a son of a son of a chief prosecutor doesn't know something that. So what qualified him to be a part-time? What qualified them to be a part-time prosecutor other than in name? Right. I got it. You're answering the question. But the point is, these are serious jobs.

Starting point is 00:09:38 These are, you work for the people. And we want to put people in a position of power that know what they're doing, not just because they name only. It's a serious job. Their job is to prosecute criminals and make sure that when they prosecute them, they do it in accordance with law, put away the bad people and don't prosecute good. people. That's what we want. I think it's been interesting. Have you guys been watching all the nepotism, nepo baby things on Twitter? All these people talking about, you know, people that don't deserve celebrities that didn't deserve the gigs that they got because they were children of other

Starting point is 00:10:15 celebrities. And it's really opened up a conversation as to like all these other people who got jobs because of who their parents were. And I think Alex Murdoch is a perfect example of that. I think not only, and I was thinking about this today, a lot of people- Lucky sperm club. Yeah. Born on third base is probably the best way to describe it in thinking that they hit a triple, like being like, oh, I'm great. We heard that line a couple weeks ago. Yeah, I don't remember the first person who said that on Twitter, but I was like,

Starting point is 00:10:49 that is exactly Alex Murdoch-He's on third base and he thought he got there by hitting a triple. He didn't get there by hitting a triple. Yeah, but then I, but meanwhile, he's like, what's baseball? Like he doesn't even freaking know. How many bases I can't count. What was stunning is that you guys pointed out the amount of gross income he made between 2012 and 2019. And when I read those charges, I really wasn't focused on that. I was focusing on the income tax evasion part.

Starting point is 00:11:20 But you guys actually focused on the right part, which is how much money he made and why did he need more money? money than that or why do you have to steal money above what you made? Because one year he made six and a half million dollars. So Eric, we put that in perspective of lawyers. Like, I know lawyers make all sorts of different salaries depending on, but if you're a lawyer in South Carolina making, I mean, he made $13 million within nine years. I think that that was, they're 13.9. Top one percent. That's top one percent of. Yeah, most of. lawyers that work for large firms, defense firms, they make somewhere between if they're a junior partner, 150, a senior partner, let's say 400,000. And those are lawyers that bill by the hour.

Starting point is 00:12:13 So then you got the lawyers like Mark Tinsley and Justin and me and other lawyers, but we work by contingency a lot. And so when you work on a contingency fee, you get anywhere from 33 and a third percent to 40 percent. And so this week we were fortunate enough. We settled a case for seven figures. And so my partner and I are going to get 40 percent. So most good lawyers who do plaintiffs work, really good lawyers, the really good lawyers like the Tinsleys are in the high seven figures. But most lawyers are mid-six figures to low seven figures. It's a tremendous amount of money, tremendous amount. But Alex and Ronnie Crosby, they're in a stratosphere that no lawyers very rarely get into. And I guess his lifestyle got ahead of even that amount of gross income.

Starting point is 00:13:07 Or whatever he was up to. Lifestyle. Yeah, I mean, he was making a lot of money and that. That's when I stopped and I made like a little chart of what he was making every year. And it was just unbelievable. And then to think that he was in Hampton County where if you're making, somebody else pointed this out, if you're making a hundred grand in Hampton County, that's like making 150 grand or 200. And let's slow this down. He's not Johnny Parker. He's not Mark Ball. He's not Ronnie Crosby. And he's not Lee Cope. And what I'm saying there is they made four to five times what he made. That's the kind of lawyers that they are. So he's not, he admittedly isn't a Ronnie Crosby.

Starting point is 00:13:54 Ronnie Crosby tries cases. Johnny Parker tries cases. They get the big ones. Remember, Alex was a guy that could bring the business in and then Ronnie would make it into a big case. Or he would bring it in and give it to Johnny and Johnny would make it. And so he would get a piece of the fee. But don't forget, Ronnie and Johnny, those guys are the guys that actually go before the jury and are getting the $20 million verdicts and the $30 million verdict.

Starting point is 00:14:21 So on the pay scale of Murdole law firm, he was probably middle to the bottom. Isn't that stunning? But I think the question needs to be asked as we're talking about Alex being a prosecutor and abusing the badge, which we know that he did. How was his role as a prosecutor? How did it help that firm? Because, I mean, I've heard that for so long that he was. able to bring in cases.

Starting point is 00:14:49 There are many situations where if he is going to use his influence as a prosecutor in a DUI case where there's a DUI homicide, if he can work the defendant to admit I was drinking on the job or I was drinking at this bar and in return he will help the plaintiff's attorney be able to settle a case, the defendant, then the defendant can get a lesser sentence. So if he can, if the plaintiff's attorney can recover a lot of money for that DUI victim, then the DUI defendant can maybe get a lesser sentence or he could use his influence on, hey, look, I can stave off a prosecution for you if it's, let's say, a business crime or some kind of conspiracy. I can save. I can stave off a prosecution for you, if it's, let's say, a business crime or some kind of conspiracy.

Starting point is 00:15:44 I can go and use my influence at the prosecutor's office. Pay me $300,000, Mr. Target defendant. So he can work both sides of the street. He could give people the security or the comfort. Hey, I have a relationship with Duffy Stone or this solicitor's office because I'm a part-time solicitor. So you should hire me as your defense lawyer because I'm going to be able to negotiate you a better deal.

Starting point is 00:16:11 So depending on the situation, if it's a plaintiff's case where it's a DUI and he can manipulate the criminal defendant saying I was drinking at this bar, they overserved me, or I was drinking on the job, and my boss knew it, those are the kind of things that it makes a big deal about. So why isn't it more prevalent than that you would see this in other, you know, circus solicitors offices where you have private, attorneys serving as volunteer solicitors. Because the solicitors aren't corrupt. Because they're elected by the people. I mean, Hampton County is unique. Again, this doesn't happen in Richland County. It doesn't happen in Charleston. It doesn't happen in Greville. They have their own set of problems. I'm not going to say they're perfect. But every city has those kind of problems. But nepotism problems only happen in small counties. And we'll be right back. From the creative team, Behind the Brutalist and starring Academy Award nominee Amanda Seifred in a career best performance.

Starting point is 00:17:23 Searchlight Pictures presents The Testament of Anne Lee. With rave reviews from the Venice Film Festival, this bold and magnetic musical epic tells the story inspired by a true legend. Anne Lee, founder of the radical religious movement, The Shakers, The Testament of Anne Lee. Exclusive Toronto engagement January 16th in theaters everywhere January 23rd. So real quick, Eric, and I don't know that you can answer this, but it was something that popped up for us. What is the difference between a mistrial and a hung jury? Because one of the things I noticed in the transcript was that a couple times, probably a handful of times, the defense attorney made a motion, you know, whether it was pretrial motions, motions, the limiting, whatever. And the judge didn't really address it.

Starting point is 00:18:15 And it's like he didn't want to rule on it. He ruled on some. but there are a couple that he just didn't roll on and he just let it hang and one of them was the mistrial. He moved for there to be a mistrial. The verdict came back within less than an hour basically, you know, and then I guess it was, you know, in total like an hour and a half maybe total. And, you know, he sent them back with an Allen charge and they came back 30 minutes later. But yeah, so what is the difference between a mistrial and a hung jury? Very simple. A mistrial happens because of some kind of procedure.

Starting point is 00:18:48 error or error of law or a juror situation which infects the sanctity of the proceedings. For instance, in a civil case, if somebody was to blurt out, that doctor has a million dollars of insurance. You can never mention the word insurance in a civil trial. If you were saying, hey, you're not tagging that doctor individually. He's got a million dollar insurance policy. Immediately, the judge would declare a mistrial. The jury's excused and unfortunately you've got to start over.

Starting point is 00:19:22 A hung jury is a completely different situation. A hung jury is everything happens perfectly. The judge makes the right rulings. He admits evidence that should come in. He excludes that evidence, doesn't have a proper foundation or his hearsay, or its probative value doesn't exceed the prejudicial value. And then it goes to the jury. He charges the jury on the law.

Starting point is 00:19:47 He gives them all of the evidence. They get all their testimony. And then they go in there and they start deliberating and they cannot reach a unanimous verdict. They then send a note to the judge. Remember, in South Carolina, in both criminal and in civil verdicts, it has to be unanimous. Some states have a 10-2.

Starting point is 00:20:08 It only has to be 10 of the jurors reach a consensus and two can be the opposite. And they come in and the judge would say, Okay, look, we have spent a fortune of money. You could see all the bailiffs and all the experts and all the people we have here. Clients have spent money on their lawyers. Please go back in there. Deliberate.

Starting point is 00:20:31 Use your free agency. Have an open mind. And he sends them back in under the Allen charge. It's called a dynamite charge. And then if they come back in and they're still hung, meaning they can't reach a unanimous verdict. He will declare at that point. a hung jury, and he will discharge the jury, and unfortunately it's going to have to be retried.

Starting point is 00:20:54 So what is that, like, is there a time limit for that? Because, you know, it could just be a few, because like I think remember when you were, hey, you had told everyone that, you know, the faster of verdict comes back, it's almost always a guilty one. And in the case that Elek, you know, prosecuted, the one case, you know, it came back real quick that they were a hung jury. And when the judge was like, go back and try again, it came back even quicker that they couldn't reach an impact, you know, they couldn't reach a decision. Did you all see Harvey Weinstein got convicted, I think a week and a half ago? The jury was out 11 days, guys. They deliberated for 11 days.

Starting point is 00:21:32 Now, if you're a defense attorney, you're really excited at that point because if they can't reach a consensus in 11 days, you're thinking, this is going to be at worst, a hung jury. At best, they're going to say, not guilty. out, they found him guilty on all charges. And so there was dynamite, there was a dynamite charge there. I've seen a judge give a dynamite charge twice. I've heard it up three times. But he has sent a jury back once with a dynamite charge. They deliberate more. They come back again and still say we're an impasse. He dynamites them again. And then they go back and get a verdict. So that's not unconstitutional. I mean, it almost feels like it's coercive.

Starting point is 00:22:16 Until the judge hears from the jury from that foreman or four woman that the deliberations have stopped, that the discussions have stopped. Remember, one of the things when we get in Emily's brief, Judge Gergel said there never was a note from the juror that said, we can no longer reach a verdict. What he said was people were pressured, people were uncomfortable. Another thing I wanted to just get clarification on with the Emmanuel Buckner case. So, you know, on a Monday, this is how it works in South Carolina, right? On a Monday, they choose their jury. In a simple case, usually it's done rather quickly. Then if there are pretrial motions, they hear that usually Monday afternoon.

Starting point is 00:23:04 In this case, they chose the jury and then Randolph stood up and was like, yeah, the defense has some pretrial motions, but we don't have any way. witnesses here that can testify as to, you know, the evidence in those motions. So can we do this tomorrow morning? So the next morning they show up. The judge is like, sure, sounds good. They show up. And lo and behold, there's a juror who sends a note up and says, actually, now that I think about it, I do recognize the defendant. And so she gets excused from the jury at Elex request. And the alternate comes in and then then we have a hung jury within, you know, less than an hour and a half. Is that, are there's like, is that a set of circus?

Starting point is 00:23:47 I would be wrong to look at that and say that doesn't seem right. That seems like a lot of things in a row there that, you know, are very circumstantial, of course, but doesn't seem right. It is something that you should question. It was odd to me that Randolph and, you know, you have three prosecutors on a case. Like, you're not prepared Monday afternoon, really? Like, what's going on here? I just feel like we're looking at a good old boy system.

Starting point is 00:24:11 working exactly probably the way it used to work before, you know, these recent years, I guess, because to me it just looked like the Murdox perhaps, you know, chose a judge. You know what I'm finding out as I get older, the longer somebody stays in a job, they get too comfortable. Comfort creates problems in my mind. The longer you are a solicitor, the more powerful you become. And that's why when we see new solicitors, come in, it's more comfortable to people like me that don't like the fix, that want to just go in and duke it out fairly and see justice be split right down the middle. I think what we've had with the Murdole situation is because it's been generational and because of the number of family members

Starting point is 00:25:01 that are infected in all levels of government in different areas of the legal system, whether it's in the 911 office or in the probate office or relatives, it comes. Comfort breeds problems. Maybe post your career a couple years. Like, you would have some crazy stories to tell us about the things you've seen as a lawyer in this state. I mean, you're already telling us stuff that it's hard to believe. But what you described is this, like, good old boy system that, like, you had to make room for yourself in? Or, like, how did you navigate to this point, your career around people like this?

Starting point is 00:25:37 Since you are not part of this group. I did it because we fought hard, we fought within the rules, we used the rules, and when we stood up, we fought for our clients. And remember, for a large part of our career, Ronnie and I have sued lawyers, which is an unpopular thing to do. So people would kind of walk around us or stand away from us. It's just good, solid work that you have to do. And you know, you know you're not going to get the benefit of the doubt. If there's going to be a, you know, a decision that can go one way or the other, they're not going to get it. And I'll give you a perfect example. A judge down there in the Hampton County, Judge Mullins area. We had a status conference in his chambers. And we had already always heard.

Starting point is 00:26:20 He was a, you know, another big figure judge like a Rodney peoples or above a nest. These are judges in our state's history that had these bigger than life reputations. Rodney peoples could undress you to the point that you would cry. And so we go in Judge Chambers and we're sitting there. And Judge turned away from Ronnie and me, who were on the left, to talk to the three other lawyers that were involved in the case and never acknowledged us for 30 minutes. Just talk to the other side. And Ronnie finally spoke up and said, excuse me, Judge, I have to get back to Charleston. And he turned and looked at us and said, so you guys can't make a living the right way you have to sue lawyers, don't you? That's how you have to make a living suing lawyers.

Starting point is 00:27:12 And so that told us right away what he thought of Ronnie and me and what we were doing in a legal malpractice setting where there was a lawyer who was accused of not representing their client correctly. And it told us everything we needed to know. That drives me nuts. Mandy, doesn't that, like, speak to you in terms of, like, if they have a problem with lawyers who are suing lawyers, they are basically saying that we do not believe that we should ever be held accountable. You know, we do not believe that anyone should ever, you know, come after us for breaking, like, the rules or being unethical or, like, if you can't even have a judge who is going to be fair about that, that just shows you how broken the system is. Yeah, and it's gaslight. in a way. It's like, I feel like he was saying that to make you feel like you were in the wrong when... I was an inferior lawyer. Couldn't make the living the right way.

Starting point is 00:28:08 Yeah. And I mean, those are things that we've heard all along with us of like, you guys are just pesky and annoying and up to no good. But that exists in every profession, man. Don't kid yourself. Like, when we, when I sue doctor, I could never get another doctor in this state who will be an expert witness for my client to say that Dr. A over here deviated from the standard of care. I have to go out of state to find another doctor because the JUA that ensures all these doctors here doesn't want doctors testifying against each other. Just like lawyers, the old proverbial joke, if a lawyer falls off a boat and there's a bunch of sharks, they give a pathway for the lawyer. to go in and say it's professional courtesy. Everybody always sticks up for each other, but I believe our profession is a self-policing profession,

Starting point is 00:29:05 and so we have to police each other. And I've always believed that lawyers put on their pants the same way everybody else does and laces up their shoes, and they deserve no special license. And if they screw up, they should be sued, the same way that any lawyer is so quick to sue a banker or somebody else that does something wrong. But see, in the business that Mandy and I are in, if there's a journalist who's done something messed up, if they've plagiarized, if they've, you know, burned sources or whatever it is printed something that's untrue, we don't protect them just because they're in the same class and category as we are. That just doesn't happen. And in fact, you know, we're harder on ourselves, I think.

Starting point is 00:29:49 And it doesn't help, but that doesn't help anything. I mean, across the board when it's like you have to call this bad behavior out exists in every profession. And if you want integrity within your own profession and as you as a professional, then you should feel obligated to call out that bad behavior and not have repercussions from it. Yeah. I mean, I've, I have gotten a lot of shit online for calling up. journalists who weren't doing their jobs when journalists write stories very incorrectly, especially don't side a source. How did Brian Williams and Mike Barnacle get away with it for so long? Mike Barnacle plagiarized when he was with the Blaston Globe. Now he's on Morning Joe. How did it Brian Williams?

Starting point is 00:30:40 I mean, get away with what he did. How come nobody called them out on it? It's because whenever you do, and this has happened to me many of times, I always get one two people that say, like, oh, Mandy, you just hate that you're just anti-media and shame on you for shaming other people within your profession. You should be sticking up for other journalists and blah, blah, blah. And it's like, I'm sticking up for journalism. I want us to all succeed and I want people to believe us. Nobody does right now because of this bad behavior. Look, lawyers deserve a lot of ridicule and scorn. It's true. Some of the age-old tropes of, you know, they double deal behind

Starting point is 00:31:23 their clients back or they're money-driven or all. But there's a lot of good lawyers that do a lot of solid good work. And I think the job that Ronnie and I do is advance that notion and get rid of the age-old canard that lawyers are more in for themselves. I'm telling you, 99% of the lawyers work hard for their clients to get a good result or defend their clients. The problem is it's the lawyers like Alex, like Corey, that really infect a large part of it. You know, one bad apple can stain a big group. It happens in your profession too. Now that you've said the Mike Barnacle and Brian Williams thing, it reminds me, of course, that there is a good old voice system in what we do too. And obviously, you know, Mandy has like both of us have dealt with. I do agree with that. But

Starting point is 00:32:12 But it seems like, and maybe I'm just ignoring this in our own profession or maybe I'm just finding it different in what I see from you, Eric, but it just seems like you guys have, like when you come out of law school in South Carolina, are you, is there, like, are you, you're hazed to a certain extent, right? Like there's a hazing process that goes on unless you're an Elek Murdoch, unless you're the son of a son of a son type thing. Because, I mean, you have that one story that still floors me and it's like, I can't even believe I'm going to say this out loud. but like where you had to buy Dick Harputley in a computer, a laptop or something. Tell that story because that, I think we're, I think we're ready to hear that story now. Because it's a good one, but it's also one that just makes me roll my eyes really hard. Mind-blowing. All right. Well, let me start with a hazing portion of it.

Starting point is 00:33:02 It's kind of like the military, you know, you're recruited hard by law firms, and I was recruited and went to the largest law firm in Philadelphia. So I wasn't going to stay in South Carolina and they paid me a lot of money and gave me a signing bonus and I thought I'm hot on this hot cup of coffee here really big big time in it Well, you get in the minute you get in and you actually accept the job you're treated like the worst of the worst you have to You know pile read through hundreds of dot thousands of documents here you're you're doing assignments that just seem to be A waste of time or just billing the file It's not glamorous at all that you're talked down to and they want to weed you out. You start with 20 attorneys in your class at a large law firm and they winnow you down to maybe five lawyers that can cut it and make the grade.

Starting point is 00:33:54 So that's the hazing portion of the law. So I did that until 1991 from 88 to 91 and I decided I was going to come down and be on my own and I went into partnership. and I had the good fortune of meeting Larry Richter, who was Ronnie's cousin, my partner, Ronnie's cousin. And Larry was a former family court judge, and he was running for attorney general. And he and I worked on a really big case together. And we got a great result. And he started referring me work. And his good friend was Dick Harputley.

Starting point is 00:34:29 And Dick at the time was retiring as solicitor for the fifth judicial circuit here in Columbia. Dick had been a private lawyer in the 70s and 80s for a short period of time with Jack swirling and did a wonderful job. But then he became the solicitor and he was solicitor for nine years. But then he decided he wanted to make money. Well, when he came out, he had to open a law office and he had no computer equipment, nothing. And Larry Richter called me on the phone and said, I need you to do me a favor and I think it'll be good for you. And I said, what do you need me to do? And he said, Dick needs a computer, and I think you need to buy him a computer.

Starting point is 00:35:12 And I said, really. And he said, Eric, it'll do you really good. Dick is somebody that can help you as your career grows. He will refer you work. And again, I'm coming down here. I was dying for work. I was dying to get work. And so I wasn't really wealthy at that time.

Starting point is 00:35:34 My wife and I went to Circuit City, Renee and I, and we bought a computer that was not really for Dick, it was for Holly, his assistant, who he still has as his number one assistant. And we bought the computer system for Holly. And over the next four years, Dick did refer me a lot of work, and we worked together. And then I told the story of what happened when Ronnie left his cousin Larry Richter and I chose to go with Ronnie. And then I was just basically blackballed by Dick, by Jack Swirling, by the the whole group of lawyers that were close Joe McCullough for a long time. But yeah, I bought Dick

Starting point is 00:36:09 his first computer because Larry Richter told me to buy it. But you got to do that. You're a young lawyer. What am I going to do? I'm from Philadelphia. You know, I'm not in the good old boy system. I'm not a murder at all. I'm down here. I'm just getting my feet wet. I'm starting to meet some important people like Larry Richter and Dick Harputt Leanne. Of course I'm going to buy him a computer. When you take a step back from that and you, yeah, but you also think, think of like, what kind of people are these that they think that that is an appropriate thing to do to a young lawyer? And why, like, that's such a weird power trip. Is it any different than political contributions, Mandy? Is it any different than when somebody calls you on the phone

Starting point is 00:36:52 and says, hey, Joe Cunningham's running for office, you got to give him $3,000. Isn't that the phone, same phone call? No, but I think the difference here is that, like, this is our just system. And the lawyers that you're naming were on some of the biggest cases in the last few decades in our state, Pee-Wee Gaskins, where were some of Jack Swirling's cases? They're big. Oh, yeah, yeah. Jack has tried over 300 murder cases. Yeah. And, but when you think about, like, how that throws off the scales of the justice system when only... It keeps women and minorities out of it, basically.

Starting point is 00:37:35 Like, it creates a club. It's an impenetrable. You have to, you know, do patronage. And it's been a problem since the beginning of the United States government. This is what they did. This is what George Washington did. It's what John Adams. But we think it's wrong.

Starting point is 00:37:50 Completely wrong. Say it. Say it, Liz. You just said, you just said it. You said what everybody wanted to say and has wanted to say and wanted to hear. You just said it. It is the God's honest truth. I was trying to get in, and I had that opportunity.

Starting point is 00:38:06 The door was open for me, and I chose to enter. You were in a minority. We're never given that opportunity. And we'll be right back. So, you talked a lot about, like, policing lawyer. Lawyers have to police themselves. We've talked a lot about how judges, there's basically no accountability there. But something that's been bothering me after reading the Emmanuel Buckner case and really taking a step back and being like, this guy who is like one of the most notorious criminals in the United States right now was working for the solicitor's office, was a member of the good gut, was supposed to be a member of the good guys team for a very long time.

Starting point is 00:39:02 and that's extremely concerning to me. But my question is, is like, who would even look into that? Like, the question is, did he gain any knowledge at the solicitor's office that contributed to his criminal enterprise? Were any cases compromised? Because, like, what was his involvement? You raise a great point, Mandy. The police departments have internal affairs department. guys that are supposed to be the snoops of the snoops.

Starting point is 00:39:36 Everybody hates internal affairs, but they serve a purpose. They're supposed to be a guard against police corruption and police brutality and people on the graft. You raise a really good point. Who's the Internal Affairs Department for the solicitor's office? I think that's what's so important about what we're doing now and what our listeners are doing, which is questioning these systems and looking at. them from these angles because without constant vigilance, I just think we're going to slide back into what we were before.

Starting point is 00:40:08 You know, we've got this murder trial coming up and there's a lot of fatigue, I think, with all of us and, you know, maybe even the entire state right now with Alec Murdoch, but it's just so beyond, you know, the murders. It's so beyond the financial crimes. And, you know, it's, we've got to stay active. We've got to stay, you know, with eyes wide open here. Guess what happens when he, if God forbid, he, it's, it. If rightly so, what if he gets a not guilty verdict?

Starting point is 00:40:35 What if it's justified and he gets a hung jury? What does that do to our system? No, honestly, what do you think? Are we going to revert back? What's going to happen? Are people like us just going to fade off and say, okay, you guys tried it. You blew the trumpets, but it didn't work. And here we are.

Starting point is 00:40:52 Alex walks out a free man. Not that he will be because of the financial crimes, but in theory, Dick and Jim were right. if there's a hung jury or there's a not guilty verdict. I think we're at a point, a very crucial point, like Liz said, which is to continue asking all the questions that we are and continuing demanding change, raising our voices about our concerns with the justice system

Starting point is 00:41:19 and continuing to shine a light on all these problems that are affecting so many people. Because if you look back on, I mean, I think the most jarring thing right now is that it's very clear that the powers that be want us to just shut up and go away because there's a lot of other people that contributed to this criminal enterprise of some sort that are not getting prosecuted right now. And it's got to, we need more answers from our public officials or we need to change a lot more. How we elect judges. How we elect judges. Remember, we're only one of two states that do it the way we do it.

Starting point is 00:42:05 These potential judges have to go up and they have to bow at the order of the politicians to get nominated. And then a lot of times the politicians go from the statehouse to the bench. That's why there's this so close relationship between our bench and politicians. That's it what you just said. Eric, bowing at the altar. That is the problem because not only do you have so much bowing at the altar, you have so many people vying to be on the altar, to be the altar, to be what's being bowed at. So somebody like Alec Murdoch and, you know, people like him, that's their aspiration. It's not to be a good lawyer. It's to have the altar, to be on the altar. And unfortunately,

Starting point is 00:42:50 that seems like that is what our system is built around. And going back to Mandy's point, just about, you know, there isn't an internal affairs department. And I wouldn't say there isn't. I do think that there are policies in solicitor's offices that speak toward bad behavior and controlling it and policing it and what have you. But again, I think that we're in a system where this stuff has kept under wraps. You know, there was a situation years ago with a 14th Circuit solicitor's office. And we've talked about this on one of our episodes in which a woman was stealing

Starting point is 00:43:23 money from that office and from one of their, I think it was their bad checks program, if I remember correctly. And that didn't come out until the election. But I think there needs to be a reckoning at some point here because, and this isn't the same thing, but Mandy and I were talking about this recently with judges and their retirements. Because Tommy Houston was retired in 1998, which means that there's a whole, you know, a child born in 1998 could be a parent right now. There's a whole child that has been born out of his. Like there's an adult child now that exists who really represents Tommy Houston's retirement age. And so why are the judges allowed to come back on the bench after they retire?

Starting point is 00:44:09 Is that a good thing or is that a bad thing for the state? It doesn't seem like a good thing. I think it's a bad thing. I think that when you retire, you should retire. Air traffic controllers have to retire. I think at 57 or 60 years old, pilots have to retire. higher at 70. I'm not saying that the judges are not capable of exercising their judicial wisdom in the law. Well, into their 80s, look, we got politicians who are in their 80s. They're clearly

Starting point is 00:44:35 competent. But I do think that there are temperamental issues that change as you get older. I noticed that I'm older I'm getting. I'm shorter in temper. My energy level is different, you know, and I'm only 60 years old. I can only imagine it would be 70. Good God. What was your energy like at 30? Yeah, God. But I do think when you retire, you should retire. And the explanation is, well, we don't have enough judges. There's too many cases.

Starting point is 00:45:04 And so we want judges to work on a weekly or per diem basis to move the docket along. But there's certainly younger lawyers and younger judges that can do the job. And it's not, you know, generals go off into the sunset and we appoint one star generals to become two-star generals. I just feel like that we have too many older politicians in our country and too many older judges. I don't agree that with Article 3 in our Constitution that federal judges should be judges for life. I do not agree with that whatsoever. I think they should be termed, 10-year terms. I think solicitors should have term limits. I think just like politicians should have term limits because you get too comfortable in your office and you become bulletproof.

Starting point is 00:45:56 Now, I will say, I want to add one thing back to it. We could criticize Dick Harputleon for a lot of things in this case. But Dick Harputleon did something really good. He ran Dan Johnson out of office, who was the Fifth Circuit solicitor, before Byron Gibson, our current solicitor right now. And Dan Johnson got criminally prosecuted for taking money from the solicitor's account for personal use and using his car. Dick Harputley did a good job,

Starting point is 00:46:24 and that's what actually got Dick elected to become state senator. So he did a good job. That would be great if it was across the board. I agree. That was a great job. Yeah, he was known as the anti-corruption guy, right? But like Liz and I said, noticed, it's picking and choosing the corruption

Starting point is 00:46:41 that he goes after, and that's a problem. I have one more thing. Back to what you were saying about the judges. Like, I get that the age. part of it is concerning, just, you know, reading that Buckner transcript, you can see where the age factor sort of comes in because he doesn't know about how the law has changed since his heyday. You know, they're constantly pointing out, well, actually the law is different now or actually the rule has changed.

Starting point is 00:47:05 Plus he can't hear. Plus he cannot hear. He literally cannot hear. Honestly, and that is very important for a judge to actually hear witnesses testify. Seems like it would be. Unless you don't want him to hear and you bring them in for a general session, Colleton County for your one case of prosecuting a Colleton County alleged drug dealer. There's another incentive here, right? And it goes back to the patronage that we were talking about before, which is

Starting point is 00:47:30 that these judges, when you talk about retiring and returning, it's called double dipping. So what you're doing is you're earning your, what do they get, Eric? Is it a full pension? They're up to two. Yeah, they get a full pension. Judges now are earning close to $195,000 a year. And so you retire with 70% of your salary. You get obviously the state health insurance for the remainder of your life. So you retire, you get $170,000 a year for the rest of your life. Plus you get the money that you're getting to be a senior judge sitting wherever you sit on a weekly basis. So what are judges earning when they come back after returning?

Starting point is 00:48:14 Like are they, you said per diem? Are they getting, they're just getting a full salary? Or like, is somebody like Tommy Houston? Pretty close. Excellent. That's really great. And just to add to that, the people don't want that. I mean, first of all, most people aren't aware of this.

Starting point is 00:48:31 But second of all, if I feel like if you would ask every person in the state of South Carolina, once a judge retires and they're 80 years old, do you think, do you want them back? And then you have to pay for them to come back. So you're double paying them. It's crazy. You're double paying them. And back to Eric's point about politicians being too old, I think we've just come to realize that like people reach a certain age in life and they're just out of touch with what everybody

Starting point is 00:49:00 else needs, wants, cares about, et cetera. And not everybody, but a lot of people. Well, I'll tell you this. I am heartened because when I grew up, the younger generation, which I was part of, of didn't seem to be engaged. They, you know, we went to college, we weren't really into politics. It was post-Vietnam War. We got out of politics.

Starting point is 00:49:26 The Vietnam kids grew up. I think today younger kids are more engaged. I'm really encouraged based on who voted in our last elections across the country. There was a younger voter turnout that was so much more than everybody anticipated, which tells me that the younger generation, that 20 to 32 year age block, wants change. They have to know something's wrong, too, though. And I think in South Carolina, we just don't know. Like Mandy said, so many people don't know that judges are double-dipping. And I think this system is made that way by design, because again, I think it gives lawyers a lot of control over these judges,

Starting point is 00:50:07 which is, you know, now we can get you. Not only can we get you on the bench, but we can get you to get twice your salary. That is another element of control. And I don't know, the more we put this out there, you're right, Eric, there is a younger generation. But they have to know this stuff. And this stuff is just not talked about because of what you were talking about earlier, which is just sort of there's a deference that's paid. It's your career, basically. If you don't play by the rules, it's your career. No question. No question about it. Almost was my career when I chose Ronnie Richter as my partner and to side with him when he left Larry Richter, it almost cost me my entire career.

Starting point is 00:50:48 Well, we're glad that it didn't because you're with us now, and we're so lucky to have you. This Cup of Justice bonus episode of the Murdoch Murders podcast is created and hosted by me, Mandy Matney, with co-host Liz Pharrell, our executive editor, and Eric Bland, attorney at law, a.k.a. the Jack Hammer of Justice. From Luna Sharp Productions.

Murdaugh Murders Podcast - Cup of Justice Bonus 11: Days of Bowing at the Altar of the Good Ole Boys Are Over

There aren't comments yet for this episode. Click on any sentence in the transcript to leave a comment.