Murdaugh Murders Podcast - Cup of Justice Bonus 2: Under Oath, But Above Consequence?

Starting point is 00:00:02 From the creative team behind the Brutalist and starring Academy Award nominee Amanda Seifred in a career best performance, 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. Happy Friday, Murdoch Murdox podcast Superfans. And welcome to our second Cup of Justice bonus episode, serving you hot, legal takes to get your weekend started on the right foot.

Starting point is 00:00:56 A couple things before we start. On Wednesday's episode of the Murdoch Murdoers Podcast, episode 62, we told you about what went down at Russell Lafitte's shocking bond modification hearing in federal court. Highly suggests y'all go back to that episode before. listening to this one so it makes the most sense. But for a quick recap, Russell and his wife, Susie, asked the court to remove the federal ankle monitor because it was interfering with their lifestyle. The judge didn't reverse her decision, but did take Russell off of house arrest. After reading the transcript from the hearing, Liz Farrell, Eric Blan, and I got together and had a good

Starting point is 00:01:39 time analyzing everything that went down at that hearing. There was so much ground to cover. And shout out to the Weston Hilton Head Island Resort and Spa, one of my favorite spots on Hilton Head for hooking us up with a gorgeous setting to record this episode in. Y'all are awesome and we really appreciate the hospitality. So there is a lot happening with this case right now because Because Russell is, sort of, set to go to trial in November on the six federal charges he's facing, which includes conspiracy to commit wire and bank fraud, two counts of bank fraud, one count of wire fraud, and two counts a misapplication of bank funds. On Wednesday afternoon, a federal grand jury issued a second superseding indictment against

Starting point is 00:02:27 Russell that basically corrected some heirs in the previous indictments and added more information about the crimes he is accused of committing, which we will cover in a later episode. But today we're going to talk about the shocking decision from Russell's defense team to put him on the stand and how the justice system can be different for a privileged person like Russell Lafitte. So to start off, let's talk about the players, beginning with assistant U.S. attorney Emily Limehouse, the lead prosecutor on the case. This will tell you how good a lawyer Emily Limehouse is. She did not know that Russell was going to testify.

Starting point is 00:03:08 Right. So it's not like, you know, when I have a trial, the judge will say, okay, who's going to put up what witness tomorrow? And you'll say, well, I'm putting up Jerry. Well, I'll go home and I'll pull out all the exhibits and I'll prepare my cross-examination of Jerry. She was gone in for a bond modification hearing, Emily. She didn't even know that Mrs. Lafitte was going to be reading a statement.

Starting point is 00:03:31 Well, she locked out. On the fly, when Bart was giving the direct examination of Russell, she's preparing a cross-examination, and I got to tell you, that girl did really good. Yeah, so, Mandy, your opinion of Emily Limehouse, after reading that, what do you think? Well, I thought that they, I thought Bart Daniel and team underestimated her. I think that they thought that they could put Russell on the stand and get there, oh, feel sorry for us. and she, I think they assumed that she would throw softball questions at him.

Starting point is 00:04:04 Right. And, man, she rapid-fired, drilled it home. If the goal was for him to get empathy from the judge or from those that listen to it, I think it failed. Well, because, as you pointed out, it's like a phrasing of some of the things that she said to him. It's like intentional phrasing that she said. So the minor, at any time she was referring to the victims, she made sure to make the, that the courtroom or the record knows that these are not just, these are minor children.

Starting point is 00:04:33 Like, you took from children just to reiterate. And then she would, you know, what the income tax, like, she would make these little sort of things and get him to say the thing that is the most, basically the obvious to the rest of us and kind of stunning that he would admit some of that. No, like he said, she said, well, you didn't pay this back. And he said, yes, I did. Yeah. And she said, no, you lied about that.

Starting point is 00:04:56 And he said, no, I didn't. I'm telling the truth. and then she'd show him and he said, well, I guess I was wrong. Well, really, if you're under oath and you're going to tell the truth, tell the truth. Don't have to be proven wrong. And then when you're proven wrong, you just get the second. I was just a little incorrect. Right.

Starting point is 00:05:12 Yeah. So who among us laughed when Russell got that second ankle monitor? We can be honest. We all laughed. I laughed. It's so funny. It seemed a little unbelievable, but I guess the idea that... The only people that were shocked in the courtroom was the Murdoch side, our side, when we got up and we

Starting point is 00:05:27 argued. Did you just call them the Murdof side? Yeah, because that's what they are. They call themselves victims. Listen, they're all trying to separate themselves from Alex, but they were tied to the hip with him for 40 years when it was convenient. So now when it's not inconvenient, you can't separate. But the fact matter is, it was a joke to think that this man should get a $20,000 bond with no restrictions on federal charges when the sentence is that if he's convicted or over 10 years. These are serious crimes. And like I said, it's not a parking ticket. Right. So now, September 6, back in the federal court. But you saw what was going to happen. Where you mean? In the original bond hearing, Bart, or it was Matt Austin, got up and said,

Starting point is 00:06:13 we don't disagree with much of what has been said. What we're saying is what he did wasn't criminal. So that was a forecast of what we heard on September 6th. Because when we were, we're saying, we're saying, we're When Russ testified, he basically admitted to everything. And then if you go to the transcript on page 112, Bart gave you his conclusion. Bart Daniel said he breached his fiduciary duties. He was negligent and possibly grossly negligent, but he's not criminal. So I just have to say that taking this case to trial is a big gamble for Russell because he faces dozens of years in federal prison.

Starting point is 00:06:52 And having Russell take the stand just a couple months. months before he's set to go to trial, that is a huge gamble, especially all just for a pesky ankle monitor. No, and a judge usually doesn't reverse their decision. That's a big thing for a judge. When a judge makes a ruling, judges don't like to change their order because if they change their order, then they start to look like they're vacillating or they weren't really sure or wasn't a good order the first time. And there really wasn't a good, did you read the motion and the memo of support and against. Right. There wasn't, there really wasn't cogent reasons why there should be a change or why Judge Cherry was wrong the first time. Right. Yeah. That was so. I read it as like kind of a

Starting point is 00:07:38 whining, uh, wane. Like, that's what it seemed like to me. Well, this is, this has been the whole thing in this Murdoch case. All these defense lawyers are kicked back on their heels. You can't parlay on your back foot. And they're all shocked. Dick, Jim were shocked when Alex's bond was seven million dollars. Boy were they ever. First, first he didn't get bond by Judge Newman. And then Judge Lee, who they thought is going to be more amenable to a lower bond, she comes in at seven million bucks, not even a 10 percent, just raised seven million. I have to ask me, do you, like, is that one of the most particular points of pride is when you see the good old boys, like the look on their face when they realize they haven't gotten their way? I will never forget the first. I will never forget the first. bond hearing, or it was technically Alex's second bond hearing in Columbia when Newman denied his bond and Harputtland, I was right behind him and he stood up and just freaked out. That was our arguments because I got up and I told Judge Newman there's 300 cameras here in this courtroom and the whole world's watching. Our justice system is on trial. Our states

Starting point is 00:08:50 have a black eye and Ronnie said, well, I don't think, you know, I think the bond should be commencement with how much he stole, I think it should be $8 million. And like, you, the whole courtroom, all the lawyers are like, nobody's ever asked for $8 million before. Yeah, it turned into The Muppet Show for a minute there with a lot of people murmuring. Yeah. Because you remember Dick got up after he said, no, Bonnie. He's like, I immediately wanted you to reconsider this. What do we do?

Starting point is 00:09:16 You know, let's get a, you know, the psychiatrist to say that he's, you know, he's clear of drugs. because Newman used was really sharp. He said, I'm not sure he's over this drug dependency that he's got, his drug addiction. That was one of the major things. And Dick was saying, well, we're going to go get an expert who's going to say he's had the treatment. He's good. He's no longer an addict. So going back to what Mandy said, so the original motion to reconsider our modified bond read to you like whining because it was basically like, we don't like this, change it.

Starting point is 00:09:51 Yeah, and I didn't really say why he deserves his bond to be changed. It was just, I want to go to my kids football. I'm not a normal criminal. So going into it. But the feds were completely caught off guard because. Well, don't say it yet. So there's the, so there's, we go into this hearing, right? None of us are there.

Starting point is 00:10:13 Right. But there is high drama going into it because of the motions, because of the memos, it got a little ugly, right? We can say that. between the federal government. So we all assumed Russell would be getting this sweet plea deal, and then that would be the end of talking about federal court. Yeah, Bart's definitely been operating under a high state of agitation.

Starting point is 00:10:33 And he's not a lawyer that does that. He's not a high drama lawyer. He's not a lawyer that shows emotion. He's a lawyer that's very measured. But you could tell even after our original bond hearing, when we were outside on Broad Street, Yeah. And we were talking to one of the reporters, and he walked by with his mirror shades on, and he cut me a glance.

Starting point is 00:10:57 Like, you knew he's upset. And he's been saying all along, this has been fueled by the plaintiff lawyers, plane of lawyers. Like somehow, we caused his client to steal money or loan money or do whatever he's charged with. Yeah, you're just messing up his game. So let's talk a little bit about the players, right? So Bart Daniel is another one of the Titans in South Carolina. He is. He was, you're going to give like a little bit of his history and what you know about him.

Starting point is 00:11:23 He was an assistant U.S. attorney. He's a hardcore Republican. You know, he's obviously Lindsey Graham's attorney in the grand jury investigation that's going on in Atlanta over the election stuff. So he's a serious contender. He was considered for the impeachment. He was going to be one of Trump's attorneys for the impeachment. He was under consideration. It seems like a lot of South Carolina attorneys.

Starting point is 00:11:47 We have Debbie Barrier. Yeah, and Rich Bowers. All involved with the Murdoch case also. So in the 80s, he was an assistant U.S. attorney, and when we had the scandal with the legislature. That was the drug trafficking. Operation Lost Trust. Lost trust. But wasn't he in Jackpot?

Starting point is 00:12:05 Wasn't he? Yeah, he was that. Yeah, he was that. And he cut his bone, cut his teeth on that. And then he further solidified his reputation, where he took down all these legislators who jeopardized their career in their reputation. for $100-dollar bribes, $200 bribes. Times are tough, Eric. So with Bart, why would you hire Bart?

Starting point is 00:12:25 Now, who hires Bart these days? He doesn't really do the blue-collar murder crime like Jack Swirling does or Dick does. Did you say blue-collar murder crime? What's that? Yeah, it's the people that would do drug crimes or you go in and you rob a store. Yeah, he's the white-collar criminal. Okay. The company that commits tax fraud or the person who's insider trading and gets charged,

Starting point is 00:12:53 you know, the kind of crimes where you don't get your hands dirty, where you come home at night and your suitcases are full of cash. That's the kind of people he represents. Okay. So it's basically federal cases. Rich people, it sounds like. Very rich people. He's got people who have rich man problems.

Starting point is 00:13:09 Right. So these are guys that when they get their target letter from the FBI or the Department of Justice or however it works. they're probably going to call a Bart Daniel. And why are they going to do that? You tell me. Because he used to be a U.S. attorney. Yeah.

Starting point is 00:13:21 So let's just get to the point with what Eric's trying to say. That whole thing of switching sides is really interesting to me. And I find it interesting because when I sue lawyers, it's like the client and the lawyer, they merge. And the lawyer who was representing my client, who I'm suing now for legal malpractice, he loved my client's case when he wanted to bring it until he screwed it up. Now he's on the other side of the courtroom and all of a sudden, oh, that case was worthless.

Starting point is 00:13:51 And I say, well, worthless, you were willing to take it on a contingency. You were willing to give all your time. Now all of a sudden it's worthless. I find the same thing with prosecutors. I mean, they're zealous and they're doing the job of the law and they're putting bad guys away. They're putting bad guys away. And then all of a sudden they announced their retirement and they walk to the other side of the street. now they're representing the bag right because now they need to get that money it's probably hard to

Starting point is 00:14:16 watch it kind of fits into the stereotype that lawyers don't really have loyalties you know that they if you pay me i'll say you pay i'll say that's really what it looks like i mean i'm going to be honest so as far as conviction you know i guess we're not even looking for that here but so so barg daniel is who russle lefitte hired to and i think it's a good hire fairly early on and in all of us so going into so now we know who bart is and we know who whom Matt. So Matt is at the table too with Russell and Bart. Right. So now we're on September 6th, Tuesday, September 6th, dramatic day. And again, I think it bears repeating that when the feds come for you and they indict you, it's as good as you did it, basically, right? Like, they have the goods.

Starting point is 00:15:03 Yeah, junior soprano said to Tony the next time you come, come heavy, they come heavy. Okay. So when we're at this point, there's some conclusions you can. sort of jaw, which is that they think they have the goods. Yeah, if you look at the conviction rate on the federal court, it's almost like 99%. And what they do is they put you in a situation that you almost have to plead. Because in state court, Alex is an unusual case where they bring so many charges. In state court, there's usually one or two charges. Federal court, they bring like 22 charges.

Starting point is 00:15:37 And if you get convicted on one of those counts, it's like eight years. and we will be right back. So now also talk about Susie. So having Susie Lafitte speak after Russell is on the stand for two and a half hours, now you have her doing a 15-page speech to the courtroom, to the ladies and gentlemen of the courtroom. Judge Gergel is going to have read that transcript. Right.

Starting point is 00:16:11 And Judge Gergels, who's probably going to preside over this, or do we know he is presiding over this? He is presiding. And Judge Gergel is a tremendous judge. He's a fair judge. Yeah, great reputation. But he's human. Sure.

Starting point is 00:16:24 Judges are human and things soak into you. And Richard Gergel is not a judge that likes people who are privileged and try to separate themselves from the rank and file. Now, why would he read that transcript? Like what is a judge? Is that how they prepare for the case? Or they just have to... They're going to look at the record.

Starting point is 00:16:42 It's part of the record. And they're going to read everything. And he's going to want to learn. If he's presiding over the trial, he's going to want to learn. He's going to have law courts that are going to consume that entire file. Okay. And judges are human. What Richard Gergel doesn't like is two systems as justice.

Starting point is 00:17:00 And what I'm starting to feel like in this Lafitte case is that Big Rust needs to be treated differently than everybody else. And his wife got up and almost was talking down to all of us. Can't you see the greatness in my husband? Is this how you should treat greatness? Right. Yes. Is this how you should treat greatness? That's exactly.

Starting point is 00:17:27 He doesn't deserve. Yeah. But I think in reading the transcript, you know, obviously different things strike different people differently. For Mandy and me, though, a lot of our conversations in the past few days have been centered around that ecosystem in Hampton County and sort of like you're in high school. When you're in high school, your world is so small and contained. to high school, right? So problems that now that you're an adult that you've had in high school

Starting point is 00:17:54 are very small and, you know, but when you're in high school, you think, oh my God, that's just the biggest thing ever. So I think there's sort of an insularity here where Susie and Russell have their world. It's tiny. It's not the real world, huh? It's no. Yeah, it's very, it's, she used, she used the word disturbing when describing missing football games, missing his son's football games. That was my biggest takeaway. She did not realize, like, the seriousness and the totality of the crimes that her husband is accused of being involved in. Talk about the tone a little, like, when you were reading it what you thought about how she sounded and maybe, like, how did she start it? She started it with something like, ladies and gentlemen of the courtroom, which I thought was very strange.

Starting point is 00:18:44 The whole thing was to get sympathy, but it came across as arrogant. extremely arrogant and out of touch. No question. Because this entire thing is, what we're dealing with is people who are very vulnerable and way worse positions than the Lafitte's are in right now. People who are so vulnerable that, you know, people that lost a mother. Right. People that lost a brother.

Starting point is 00:19:10 They're in a fog, you know. How am I going to get on with my life? Can you imagine the pliola girls? It's not that they were, these are financial crimes. The financial crimes happened as a result of tragedy. Yeah, it was like high trauma. High trauma. Yeah.

Starting point is 00:19:33 I was surprised that his wife, Susie, spoke. That was one of the details that stuck out to me. I think it went on for three hours. Yeah. Which that was surprising. It was like, what is happening here? What is gone? Because again, these are usually in and out very quick.

Starting point is 00:19:53 And then to find out that rust, testify. Yeah. For as long as he did, not just... Not for him to even open his mouth. It's stunning. And we'll talk about that. And so, and then the big thing for like a couple of two or two major things for me, it was the double wide trailer that his wife said. And then there was the tax he had not filed, he had not reported some of the fees that he had received for these conservatorship slash personal. Oh yes, he did. He reported him. No, no, no, no. He did. It's all good. Yeah, yeah. You sound like him now. He had not reported them.

Starting point is 00:20:28 He had not. Prior to a certain point in time in 2021. By the way, these taxable years were 2012, 13, and 14. Right, right. He just sat down, happened to forget income that was three times more than what your W-2 income was. Right, right. So we went, so we knew from the stories that obviously this was a lot more than we had bargained. And the end result was that he just had his house arrest lifted. So he's allowed to travel now in Allendale and Hampton County. That was not what the defense wanted, obviously. But now, Eric, you ordered the transcript, as you would often do, I guess, in a situation like this, because it pertains to your case.

Starting point is 00:21:10 Yeah, because it pertained in my case. I probably wouldn't have, Liz, until I heard that he was testifying. Because when a defendant opens his mouth, it's called it. an admission by a party opponent. So if I'm being charged of a crime or I'm a defendant in a case, the only person I can talk to in a privileged capacity is my lawyer, my priest, and in certain situations my wife, not my children, certainly not my friends, certainly not the media.

Starting point is 00:21:41 And so when a defendant opens his mouth under oath, that is testimony that can be used against him to impeach him. him and we'll be right back so we've got the scene set we got the tone we got all of that now talk about what people are saying about bart are you allowed to talk about what people are saying about bar daniel for putting him up on the stand let me not put it in the term you can talk about bart i'll just put it in if a lawyer puts his client on the stand and in direct examination has his client testify as to all of the criminal charges and why did you do what you did is unheard of. It's never done because you don't have to prove anything as a defendant. It's the government's burden of proof.

Starting point is 00:22:48 And they just gave a roadmap to the prosecution on what their defense is. Right, which is what now? Now their defense is. I'm a victim. Bart Daniel said he breached his fiduciary duties. He was grossly negligent and possibly grossly negligent, but not criminal. So how many times have you seen this happen before where the defense puts their guy on the stand during a bond reconsideration hearing? I'm telling you it's less, less than probably there's been a statistic. The ABA did it one time that said 4%. I think it's even less. probably 2% of the time that a defendant will actually get on the stand and testify in their own defense. They do it if it's a self-defense type of case or stand your ground, something where you admit I did shoot somebody or I did do it, but here's why. Which I guess they kind of are.

Starting point is 00:23:44 They're saying he did do these things. He just doesn't think they're crimes. In the Ruffle of Theat-World. No, but what he did, though, is Bart Daniel walked him directly into civil judgments with what he did, with what he said and what he had him testify to. Remember, this is a bond hearing, Liz and Mandy, this wasn't a trial. Yes. And so all he was trying to do was show I'm not a danger to the community and a flight risk.

Starting point is 00:24:09 Now, if his trial was five years from now, maybe you can justify the loosening of the restraints and put him up. But you didn't have to put him up to show that he wasn't a flight risk or a danger of the community. his wife could have done it. His children could have done it. But to put him up, you waive your privilege against self-incrimination. You waive the attorney-client privilege because he said that Alex was his attorney and now he gets into his discussions with Alex. So when you decide you're going to put your client up in a criminal case,

Starting point is 00:24:44 it's a risk-benefit analysis. Is the juice worth to squeeze? His trial was in November 8. So to take this kind of risk and waive, all these privileges and give a roadmap to the prosecution to the federal government of what your case, your defense is, for six weeks of being able to travel in Allendale and Hampton, somebody made a bad decision. So, yeah, in summary, so, like, when we're talking about, like, the reason we're there, we're literally there so that he can have one of his ankle

Starting point is 00:25:19 monitors taken off so that he can go to football games for the six-week duration between now, or maybe the two-month duration we can say between September 6. He needs to sell concessions, you know, don't forget to. Yes. Yeah, he took, football was brought up like 17 times. Yeah, but it really seemed to be like that drive. Small town, I mean. Yeah, exactly, which reminds me in high school.

Starting point is 00:25:42 Friday night, place. Absolutely. Yeah, and again, I just don't think that his attorneys are understanding what normal people go through. And the entire time I was reading all of Russell's struggles with his ankle monitors, I was just thinking in my head, well, that's a lot better than jail. That's, I get it that he's under house arrest. That's an inconvenience.

Starting point is 00:26:04 That's not sitting in jail. It's not the same thing. Well, he was under house arrest. There's people who are sitting in jail. He gets to go out and cook on his grill and eat Flaming Young if somebody's going to go to the store and pick up the stake for him. Right. It's not the same, Liz.

Starting point is 00:26:19 Alleged double-eyed, yeah. Right. So now we're. talking about going to trial. So the trial right now is set for November 8th. I personally don't think we're going to see a trial. I agree. All of this is a lead up to. It seems like a kind of a game of chicken and that the defense is daring the prosecution to bring their case to trial and the prosecution is taking them up on their bluff or maybe, I'm not sure who's bluffing. Maybe no one may be bull. Well, you know, there was an attorney in the upstate that was, I gave an interview and he

Starting point is 00:26:48 was the counterpoint to me. And he said, well, you know, the defense wants to go to trial as quick as possible because they don't want the prosecution to be adequately prepared. And then he said, well, the prosecution wants to go as fast as they can to trial because they don't want defense to be prepared. Well, at that point, if everybody's going to trial so fast, then no one's going to be prepared. That's not justice. No. You know, yes, we want speedy trial. There is the speedy trial rule and people shouldn't languish with charges over their head because we're innocent to be proven guilty. But when you rush justice, you don't get full cup. Right.

Starting point is 00:27:27 We cannot rush justice. It's something that has to happen organically because different things happen along the way. Different things are going to be revealed. What if somebody starts to cooperate? What if you try rust too quickly and Alex decides he would have cooperated or Corey Fleming would have decided I'm going to cooperate. So all these cases are intertwined. And if we're rushing them, we're losing the opportunity where people can cooperate and it would change the dynamic of the case. And what they don't understand is wrestle of feet having two ankles, ankle monitors

Starting point is 00:28:06 that tangle him up at night or whatever she said. Yeah. I'm sorry, it's funny. It's funny. It's tough to take a bath. I mean, he was like, you plug them in, you're wet. You know, God forbid, you're getting shocked. Well, you know, I googled that, and you actually can take a shower with the mong. I was like, I want to know what it's like for Russell. Not plug in, though, Liz. Certainly can't plug him in. But Russell's a giant man.

Starting point is 00:28:28 He's a 6-6 or 6-7, something like that. So, you know, the idea that he has to charge himself a couple hours a day, according to his testimony, you know, there's a certain amount of pleasure, I guess, that the world can take in that. But, yeah, going back to the tone, these are people who maybe aren't used to consequence or having to have any sort of inconvenience. What about the guy that's sitting in jail that can't make his bond? I'm not talking about Alex, but the normal people that aren't getting their cases to trial in November 8th.

Starting point is 00:29:00 This guy was charged in May or July federally, and now he's getting a trial in November. Alex is charged with murder in June. He's getting his trial potentially in January. What about these people who were sitting in jail who've committed? They can't afford justice, Eric. They can't afford it. They need a coupon, some sort of voucher. No, that's not justice that they can't afford.

Starting point is 00:29:23 They can't afford to be. These guys are paying for this justice right now. That's not the definition of what justice should be. Deuteronomy said, Seerdick, Seardix, Saadik, which is a Hebrew for justice, shall thou pursue. These prosecutors aren't pursuing justice for all these other people sitting in jail. They're pursuing it against the people that they want to,

Starting point is 00:29:46 pursue it against. The Murdoch Murder's podcast is created by me, Mandy Matney, and my fiance, David Moses. Our executive editor is Liz Farrell. Produced by Luna Shark Productions.

Murdaugh Murders Podcast - Cup of Justice Bonus 2: Under Oath, But Above Consequence?

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