Murdaugh Murders Podcast - Cup Of Justice Bonus 5: Motions, Motives & Mullen

Starting point is 00:00:03 Let's start with Mandy. Mandy, why don't you catch us up on this motion to compel that was filed by Dick Harputin and Jim Griffin last week? Looking for more information about a certain polygraph that was taken by Curtis Eddie Smith in the Elic Murdoch murder investigation. So first of all, my voice is shot from the wedding and talking to people for the last five, six days, whatever. We had a great time, but my voice, you can tell. But there are a couple things I want to say about this.

Starting point is 00:00:38 First of all, all this is a distraction. Let's start there. This motion to compel is a giant distraction. And honestly, my takeaway when I first read it, again, on Wedding Week, in between a million other different things, was this is all that they came up with. Because we knew that Alex was trying to pin it on Eddie since last September. We knew Alex was going to pin it on Eddie since last September. We'll repeat that many times because I cannot stress that enough.

Starting point is 00:01:10 And the fact that it took this long for the defense to officially say, we're pointing the finger here, I felt like that meant that they didn't have much else to go off of. Have you ever done a polygraph, Eric? I have for a client. It's a valuable tool for defense attorney, criminal defense attorneys. I've taken one myself. I've been strapped up and had the questions asked.

Starting point is 00:01:35 And they spend a considerable amount of time with you talking, you know, through your background or whatever the information is that they're trying to get. They try to put you at ease. And then they ask a couple questions. They ask some questions that are misdirects, meaning they want you to lie when you answer the questions so that they can see what that looks like. Right. So he was asked, Eddie was asked three questions. He was asked, did you shoot either of those people at that property, unless you were. Moselle Road. Did you shoot either of those people at the property on Moselle Road last June?

Starting point is 00:02:06 Were you present when either of those people were shot at the property at Moselle Road? So notice they didn't use the names Maggie and Paul. Is that weird? Not necessarily. You have to look at the polygraph in its totality to see how many other questions he failed. There are some people that are incapable of getting an accurate reading on questions because even the foundation question, they can't even get in a truthful manner when they are answering them truthful. So the machine itself, depending on, you know, how it's read, what the frame questions are, all that has to be looked at.

Starting point is 00:02:47 So if he failed basic questions that are true and answered them true, then it's of no value. To a criminal defense attorney, it is in tremendous value. Very rarely do you ask your client, hey, did you kill this person? or did you rape this person or did you burn that house down? What we do is we put them on a polygraph test and we hot mic them to see how they would do. If they would do very well and those questions that are answered around the fringes are truthful, then we'll tell the state, the prosecutor, you can polygraph our guy. We've already polygraphed them with, you know, a four,

Starting point is 00:03:30 former FBI guy or former sled guy who they respect and he passes it, then that would cause the prosecutor to pause. So a criminal defense attorney in most cases uses polygraph exams only if his client passes the polygraph exam. Right. So that sounds like trickery to me almost because from what I understand, polygraphs are generally not admissible. So it's going to be, I just don't understand.

Starting point is 00:03:59 So tell me how this works. But they have value. They have value. Sure. I get that they have value, but they're not a proven science per se. They're not necessarily. So from an investigator standpoint, I don't think that they think it has value beyond maybe the willingness of the accused. Well, let me give you an example. Courts have to determine what evidence comes in. And like you said, polygraph is an unproven science. But the standard for a judge is to determine under the, the Fry test or another case called Kumo Tire. Is it a generally accepted means of scientific testing? And is it the subject of peer group? So one of the things is dog barking is another thing.

Starting point is 00:04:47 Handwriting experts is another type of evidentiary thing that people. Wait, go back to dog barking. What is dog barking? Well, there's like a science. Yeah, like if a dog barking really, really loud. what is it, it means that, it means that people are coming into the house. The same thing with handwriting experts, for instance. You know, sometimes. Eric, you keep trying to move away from the dog thing, but I want to talk more about the dog thing. So you're saying that there are scientists who study dog barks and can be brought in on like a murder trial or some sort of criminal trial.

Starting point is 00:05:23 People will try. People will try. The prosecution may try and say, hey, the neighbor's dog who very rarely ever barked at 3 o'clock in the morning started barking incessantly and that is the exact time that that person broke into the neighbor's house and it it is a science some people will debate whether it's an actual empirical science the peer group study but there are people that do that there's there there's a scientist and an expert for everything so there's basically like the Oh, so the prosecution or the investigators have a bunch of little bricks that they're putting together to build their case. The defense doesn't have to prove anything, right? Or you're saying in this case, you've said before that because Dick has said, my client is innocent and I'm going to prove it, now he has to sort of do that. And it's one way, I guess, accusing Eddie Smith of murder. He did basically what they've done.

Starting point is 00:06:19 Oh, he committed defamation. He did more than just accused. Yeah, I was wondering about that. Dick just accused a man who the state has never implicated. in this case hasn't charged him as a code conspirator hasn't charged him you know before or an accessory before or after this crime hasn't charged him a misprison of a felony nothing now we do why are they doing this then why would he risk that as a i mean it's dick harboulian why is he risking such such i mean he has a lot of money to lose right well i mean what's that he's he's already been charged with a fake labor day shooting at her about the time there's

Starting point is 00:06:58 polygraph evidently took place. He was additionally charged for money laundering, and he's accused of being a drug runner for Alex. So. But those are all accusations. He's not been found guilty of any of those. So in a way, his reputation is just somebody who's been accused of a lot of things to lead to Alex. The question is Dick strategically decided I'd rather face the defamation suit from the likes of Cousin Eddie. And now I can salt the public with, I found the real killer. Alec Murdoch must smell like cookies because there's very few people that I would go. I don't think there's anyone I would go to this length for, not even professionally. And Dick seems to be putting it all in the trailer and lighting a match to it.

Starting point is 00:07:41 So I'm not sure what's up with that. There's something about Alex and something about these type of people that they will compromise a lifelong reputation of good lawyering and credibility. So now that they're saying that, you know, basically they're saying the state isn't giving the full, like you had said earlier about the totality of the data. So I think is the move here basically to say, look how bad the state is at investing in this case. Well, yeah. I mean, there, there, VIT has been his main defense is, look, it's taking you a year before you brought these charges. You know, if the evidence was available from the start, you should have brought these charges from the start. you know, you, you've only singled your focus on Alex. You've not focused on anybody else. And now Dick is starting to say, look, here's Eddie, three quarters of the way into your investigation, two months before you brought your charges. Somebody fails a polygraph on the basic questions on, did they shoot somebody at this property on Moselle? But that's the thing. I think that's annoying me about this. It's just two months before you brought the charges. Like we had been hearing, you know, month after month that we had been hearing, you know, month after month that we.

Starting point is 00:08:54 the charges were coming, the charges were coming. And it just seems like this was, I just don't know why what SLED stood to gain from this. Do you think they did the polygraph perhaps at the request of Harpoolian or knowing that at some point this was going to be brought up? Because again, if they're generally not admissible in the trial, what is the point of this? What would be the point of them doing this? And he's been cooperating. What does that mean a cooperating, just a witness that cooperating? There is something more to it.

Starting point is 00:09:24 depends on, you know, what he's cooperating on. But he obviously was being cooperating on the, the drug purchasing, uh, the money issues. And the state felt he, you know, was the juice, juice worth the squeeze. Evidently, he wasn't giving information that they wanted and they decided to up the flame on him. And that's why those charges came in the spring to just let him know that we can continue to put a thumbtack to you. You know, um, from Dixon. standpoint, I've always told you he's a 44 caliber smokemaker. So he's starting a fire over here with this polygraph. Let's get back to the scientific evidence that we have, the medical evidence. Is he attacking the medical evidence? The answer is no. He's attacking peripheral stuff and saying,

Starting point is 00:10:15 let's focus over here, take your focus off the gun powder residue, take your focus off the brain matter. and the phones, the phones. Mandy, what are your thoughts about, you know, polygraph in general? I mean, I'm sure during your career as an investigative journalist, you've heard about polygraphs, do you think they're of any value? What are your concerns regarding polygraph? Polygraphs are not admissible in court. They don't matter.

Starting point is 00:10:45 Alex Murdoch probably took a lot of polygraphs, and he probably passed them because I think he's a psychopath. Eddie Smith probably isn't used to this whole game. I'm sure Eddie grew up in the low country. He knows the power of the Murdox. I'm sure his nerves were going nuts, thinking that he's going to be the scapegoat and this double homicide. Granted, I'm not saying Eddie is completely innocent or innocent at all.

Starting point is 00:11:08 I don't know. Okay, I want to, let me just tell you first because it's kind of, it's not funny. It's actually really grotesque, but I guess, you know, don't ask Eddie for his theories unless you want to hear them. So while he was sitting for this polygraph, he had an alternate theory to what happened to Maggie and Paul. And that alternate theory is this. I'm going to just read it verbatim because it's kind of, it'll set the scene for you. I heard that Maggie had a thing going on with the groundskeeper, which I never met him, don't know his name.

Starting point is 00:11:39 And Paul went down into one of the barns and caught him, and he got upset. And he went and got his rifle and was hollering and screaming. His mama was running, and she fell down and she got up. and he shot her in the ass and the bullet come out the top of her head and then he turned to the groundskeeper guy but the groundskeeper guy already went to his truck and got a shotgun so that is eddie's version of what happened that night at moselle now let me just tell you something is eddie on lSD how does he know that she fell and got up either he's been listening to our podcast uh or somebody told him something because her falling and getting up again is from what we've been told

Starting point is 00:12:17 by our sources, one of the critical parts of her trying to escape getting shot. But what an explanation, huh? Eddie's either high on LSD or mushrooms because, one, I don't know if Eddie's got the skill set to even figure out a podcast and how to listen to it. But he's grasping its straws at this point because he knows he's facing many years in prison. How does this get introduced then when the trial happens in January, right? the state presents evidence. Dick's not introducing this polygraph.

Starting point is 00:12:50 So what's the point? Like what is this? He's salting the earth. That's all it is. You've got jurors out there who read the newspaper. Hear the news. Listen to podcasts. Talk to neighbors over the fences.

Starting point is 00:13:04 Have coffee at the coffee shop. He wants one juror. Liz, let's get back to that. Yes, he's saying, I want my client to be proven innocent. But Dick Rputley and will walk out of that courtroom and smile if after a judge gives the dynamite Allen charge and the jury still comes back and says we're hung and the judge says I'm sorry it's a hung jury dick harpooning will walk out grin like a shire cat I also want to ask Mandy to wrap this up for us the polygraph conversation because

Starting point is 00:13:34 I think for a while now Mandy you've been saying that you know Eddie to some degree is kind of a fall guy if we're going to be talking about fall guys and you know from the very start you know you had the guy with the least amount of power getting charged. So I just want to hear your thoughts on that and if you could share that with people because, you know, we have had a lot of conversations between the two of us about Eddie and you've done a lot of reporting on that. So what do you think? When you look at means, motive, and opportunity, Eddie Smith does not have any of them. And Alex has all of them. So again, this is a giant distraction and we can't ignore that. And we'll be right back.

Starting point is 00:14:12 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.

Starting point is 00:14:32 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. Okay, Eric, I have a gift for you. And I think you're going to... Wow, that's nice. First, I just want to give a little background.

Starting point is 00:14:52 In 2017, Carmen Mullen, Judge Carmen Mullen, was involved in a situation on Hilton Head where she lives in Port Royal Plantation. And it was... This is sort of a mythical police report. For some reason, our police reporters missed this. And it could be simply that... it's because her name is misspelled throughout the police report. So if you were to do a search or ask for reports on Carmen Mullen, M-U-L-L-E-N, you would not have gotten this report. So this police report had her last name misspelled, and we finally found it, and I want you to read it.

Starting point is 00:15:34 It's very short. It's an incident report. It's just one page. So I'm going to text that to you right now. and while you're reading it, I'm going to let the listeners know a little bit about this report because it's a dozy. I think you're going to,

Starting point is 00:15:49 I think you're going to be pretty shocked by this. So are you putting me on the spot? I had to. I think you're going to see why I had to put you on the spot. I could not give this to you earlier because I think it's going to put you in a position. So I'd rather put you on a position live on the air than, you know, behind the scenes.

Starting point is 00:16:08 So here's what the report is. everybody. In December 2017, a woman called her the security in Port Royal Plantation and said that she had a man living with her and she wanted him off of her property. This man, his name was Ernie Letito, and he was referred to as Ernie the attorney around Hilton Head area. And he's sort of a troubled guy. I don't want to go too much into him. He is not a practicing attorney. So, you know, he's a guy on Hilton Head that is one of those local personalities that people know of. And some people, you know, were taking care of him, making sure that he had a place to live and all of that. So this place where he lived on Port Royal, the woman he was living with no longer wanted him there, she called security.

Starting point is 00:16:51 Security called deputies. And a deputy named, his last name was DeMars, and he was new. He had been at the sheriff's office for about six months at that time. So he didn't know people in the area to the degree that you would need to know in order for what the judge wanted. to happen to happen. So Carmen Mullen, the judge that's been involved with the Murdoch stuff, her name's come up quite a bit. And as Eric's reading this, Eric actually filed a joint complaint against her with a commission on judicial conduct along with solicitor Pasco. So we haven't heard anything on that. So on this particular day in December 2017, Carmen Mullen involves herself.

Starting point is 00:17:36 So the deputy is inside the house talking to the owner of the house. And the security guard's like, hey, Judge Mullen is here. She wants to talk to a deputy. So Mullen comes in and she basically says, listen, you got to arrest him on something. Let's find something to arrest him on. And, you know, he doesn't have a trespass notice where he can't be on this property. And the deputy is like, look, there's an eviction process. She needs to go through the eviction process as she wants this guy off her property.

Starting point is 00:18:04 his behavior, he hasn't done anything, she's not accusing him of anything. So Judge Mullen and goes and speaks to the homeowner to see if she can find something that's arrestable, some sort of offense that would qualify for an arrest, and she couldn't. So instead she starts to talk about a trespass notice that he has at a local gas station. So there's this gas station, he's not supposed to go to it. So she offers allegedly, according to this report, to drive Ernie the attorney to this gas station so that the deputy can arrest him there. So she is almost facilitating an arrest of this guy,

Starting point is 00:18:40 trying to find a way to get him arrested. Additionally, she finds out from the homeowner that there is an investigation going on involving Ernie at the time with the sheriff's office. So she says, why don't we arrest him as part of that investigation? Now, they say, we haven't worked up any warrants. We're still investigating it. We don't know if he's ready to be arrested on that.

Starting point is 00:19:03 or if he'll be arrested on that. But, you know, if we're going to arrest them, we'll go to the magistrate and get that warrant signed. She says, well, I'm a judge. I can sign a warrant. So at that point, the new deputy is like, look, my supervisor wants me to leave the scene. We'll have somebody, you know, figure this out in the normal course of investigations and eviction process.

Starting point is 00:19:25 And apparently she was, you know, they made a note to say that she was, you know, kind to the deputy. She wasn't a jerk or anything like that. But this raises obviously a lot of questions about what she as a judge, how she conducts herself. So it looks like Eric has read the report. Eric, you okay? Okay. Did you hear me gold?

Starting point is 00:19:47 No, I did. Tell me, what are you thinking? Well, you obviously want to kill my legal career. I have me answer questions again about the judge mom. But yeah, in all seriousness, it's a troubling report that I just. just read. You know, judges are humans. And so on one hand, they have to dispense justice, do it equally, do it without, no, you know, it's not curring favor, friends to reward enemies to punish. On the other hand, they do live in a neighborhood and they want to be protected. You know,

Starting point is 00:20:24 we do hear cases where, you know, litigants come to a judge's house and they shoot people like the judge's family in New Jersey, the federal court judge, they shot as her husband and killed him and the son. To be clear, though, this was not, this was not at her house. This is at a neighbor's house like half a mile away. So this isn't even like she. She injected herself in this where she was not asked to come and get involved, nor was at her place to get involved. I'm troubled by a number of things that took place here, which was, look, let's figure out a way to get an outcome to to get this guy arrested, not go through the proper channels of, I'm very troubled by Judge Mullen's statement, if it's correct in the narrative by the deputy, where she said, look,

Starting point is 00:21:13 I sign arrest warrants all the time, just get me an arrest warrant and I'll sign it. But she clearly jumped into something where she had no business being a part of. And now it would be equally problematic if arrest warrant was presented to her and she was to issue an arrest warrant because she would be conflicted out. So that raises an interesting question that you just said. Dick Harputlian intimated at one of Alex's hearings in the double murder trial that Mullen has signed at least one warrant related to that case. So does this now throw into question every warrant that she signed?

Starting point is 00:21:58 What does this do for her moving forward? It doesn't help her reputation. Look, even though she issued a warrant supposedly that would be a search warrant against Alex's interest, it could be said, well, she's trying to do it in order to clean her reputation, which Bland and Pasco sullied with reporting her to the bar. Listen, it's the appearance of impropriety that judges have to be concerned about, not the actual conflict. This is an outcome-determative confrontation here where she's determined to get this guy arrested under any set of circumstances. So I'm very surprised that this,

Starting point is 00:22:44 well, I'm not surprised. I was going to say I'm surprised that she was not reported by this, by the police officers, but they have to appear before her. You know, it's such a small county. you know, prosecution cases rely on police officers. Police officers rely on judges to issue warrants. You know, I'm not saying that Judge Mullen is a vindictive person, but if they reported her to ODC in 2017 for this, all hell would have broken loose in that circuit. Duffy Stone's office would have really had a problem with the police reporting a judge who sits on every one of her cases. And then Mandy, what were your, I know we've talked a lot about this, but what was your initial reaction when you read this report? What were you thinking?

Starting point is 00:23:32 I hope. I hope that the ODC gets it together and understands that, look, if she's not investigated and if she's not suspended from the bench, then our entire justice system is at stake. And our entire justice system is officially in Chambles if we do not fully inshambles. if we do not fully investigate this judge. She should not be ruling on the bench right now, not only from this report, but from her alleged involvement in the Satterfield case. Let me bring this further home on the appearance of impropriety.

Starting point is 00:24:07 I have reported Judge Mowen. I do not want her to pass judgment on any issue for any of my clients in the future based on my reporting her. I'm not saying, that she could not be objective, but it's the appearance of impropriety. So, for instance, we have a motion that is coming up in Charleston, and Judge Mullen is the presiding judge on that motion. We just got a calendar. We wrote her, and we said, Judge Mullen, you know, in light of the fact that Eric Blam reported you along with David Paskop, we would ask that you not sit in judgment

Starting point is 00:24:49 on this motion. To her credit, to her credit, she wrote back and said, not only why not sit on this motion, but I will never sit again on anything having to do with Blan Richter. That is the appropriate response. That is her saying to herself, it would create the appearance of impropriety if I sat on this case. Now, why didn't she do it with this Ernie case? I have no idea. I do. No one was watching back then. There was no Eric Bland back then. Somebody who's listening to this. If this is true, this needs to be addressed by our state. I would also say to people listening if they've had experiences with judges in South Carolina that are similar to this, they should definitely give us a call or send us an email because it's super disturbing. But here's a sentence that

Starting point is 00:25:43 Judge Mullen advised we need to find something to arrest Lottito with and remove him. I contacted my supervisor and advised them of the judge's request. Now, you can see the gravity there, right? Sort of like, this judge is requesting this thing. It's not of this, you know, neighbor's request. It's the judge. She's using her full authority in this matter. Judge Mullins went to the front door of the residence

Starting point is 00:26:06 and spoke with a complainant to determine if there was any offense that had occurred where Lottito could be arrested. Judge Mullen stated that she knew Lottito had a trespass after notice at a gas station in Beaufort. Judge Mullen said she'll find him a ride to that gas station and then call deputies to a wrestler Tito. That is chilling to me. I know this is just like a...

Starting point is 00:26:28 Did you try to get Judge Mullen's side of the story, Liz? Yeah, we emailed her for a comment. Yeah. What was her response? We didn't hear back. And that is not surprising. Well, I'm surprised because if I was attacked as a judge, I would have a lawyer or somebody respond and say that is categorically untrue and I disagree with the deputy's narrative of what was

Starting point is 00:26:55 discussed. Right, but see, here's the thing is there's going to be a CAD and there's going to be recordings. So she better be sure, you know, what's on the recordings, you know, when it comes to what, what did they radio in? What were those conversations with the supervisor? Those might not, you know, those might be worse for her, honestly. And we'll be right back. So one thing I want to do was just to go back and read this second paragraph that I've marked here. The resident advised Judge Mullins. There was a breach of trust incident that was being investigated by Investigator Chin. Judge Mullins inquired on an arrest for breach of trust.

Starting point is 00:27:34 I advised Judge Mullen. I would have to present the facts of the case to Judge Coffey to issue an arrest warrant. And Judge Coffey is the magistrate on Hilton Ed. Judge Mullen advised she signs arrest warrants all the time and she would sign the warrant. At this point, I contacted my supervisor a second time. Because he obviously is really feeling uncomfortable. Right. Because I got to contact my supervisor.

Starting point is 00:28:02 I'm getting squeezed here. I'm getting squeezed. That's right. So, you know, they do make a point, like the very last sentence of this report says Judge Mullen was very cordial with deputies. So again, you know, that kind of makes me think the opposite, but who knows? But I find it interesting that they make... What do you mean?

Starting point is 00:28:22 It makes you think the opposite. Well, why would a deputy make it a point to say that Judge Mullen was very cordial to deputies? Why I put that in there? A self-serving, right? Yeah, right. Okay. Right. Right.

Starting point is 00:28:33 And that's how this all happens. Try not to make her look so, so bad. You know what I mean? You know, or, you know, he did hammer her. If you read this, there's no way you can read this other than he's hammering Judge Mullen in this narrative. It's not doing her any favors. No, no. I mean, and again, he's a young deputy. He's new. But imagine if he weren't. So like, this is something that got reported. What are the things that don't get reported out there about judges who are used to, you know, being able to say that doesn't go in the report or. Or judges oftentimes, oftentimes say to the court reporter, don't record this, don't report this or strike that, you know, not because they're doing something.

Starting point is 00:29:19 something wrong, but it could be an extemporaneous statement that they make. They have a tendency sometimes, some judges, and I'm not saying it's wrong, but they say to the court report, I don't want that on the transcript. So, Eric, you know, when you were saying earlier, like, this could put your legal career in jeopardy, and I know Judge Mullen is not going to be hearing any cases or hearings involving your firm anymore moving forward. But what exactly, I mean, the reason I presented this to you on the air is because I knew that you might have an obligation to report her. Would that have been true? It's that also, but there's also the intangibles.

Starting point is 00:29:58 Lawyers shouldn't really every day talk about judges in a way that you and I are talking about them on this podcast. And again, the issues I'm seeing with Judge Mullen, I never see with any other judge. I don't see these issues that are repeating themselves. That's not to say that Judge Mullen hasn't done a great job in other cases, sitting on a jury trial doing the correct thing. You know, her appellate reversal rate may be exemplary. But these kind of things are troubling where a judge would inject herself into something that was going on, way down the street without being asked either by law enforcement or by the neighbor to get involved. Now, again, she is a resident there.

Starting point is 00:30:56 You know, I do understand that judges are people. Judges live in a house. You know, they have a tough job. You go out to restaurants. People recognize them. You know, I've been with a judge before and somebody came up to the table and said, judge, you know, so and so, I appeared before your court and you sentenced me to jail. Now, I was sitting there scared to death wondering what was going to happen and the person said, I want to

Starting point is 00:31:24 thank you for doing that. The two years I spent in jail did more for me to rehab me and write the ship and now I have a job. I've gone back to my family. You did a great job for me, a great service and I want to thank you. That's the rare occasion. The other case is Jack's, is Jack swirling who represented somebody who was convicted. That person broke out of jail. That person went to Jack's house and held him his wife hostage for 14 hours at gunpoint with a ski mask on, and Jack finally recognized who it was that it was a former client. So there are situations where crazy stuff can happen. So I understand Judge Mullen's concern for safety,

Starting point is 00:32:15 but I do not understand why she would have personally invested herself in this. And, you know, we don't know the circumstances of what led her. Did somebody go fetch her? Did she, you know, was she outwalking her dogs and saw this happening and decided to help? And, you know, Ernie Lottito is not somebody, you know, he's, you know, somebody with a criminal history or at least of being accused. of making threats and such. Yeah, but you said he's, well, you said he's, you know, nobody ever felt that they were physically

Starting point is 00:32:46 in danger from him. You know, I'm sure. I wouldn't, I wouldn't say that, actually. I mean, I wouldn't say that nobody felt like they were in physical danger. I think there are people and lawyers out there who have restraining, had or have had restraining orders against him. He's mentally ill. And that is why the bar put his license on hold.

Starting point is 00:33:04 And he might even, I'll have to check the status of his license right. now, but he's somebody that people looked out for. You know, there were people on the island that certainly looked out for his interest because mental illness doesn't mean you need to get rejected, you know, outright and kicked out of the, kicked off the island, as it were. But, you know, certainly it's not okay to make threats against people. But in this circumstance, this incident, he was not, according to this report, making any threats. He was simply talking to himself. You know, it said basically my observation of Lottito was he

Starting point is 00:33:40 appeared to be a mental subject but was not a threat. That's literally what the report says. So this is what the judge inserted herself into. I want to go back to something that you were saying, though, earlier about judges and, you know, they're humans and all that. And you'd said this to me one time, just in a personal conversation that we're having that being a judge is a lonely job. Can you just tell people a little bit. And why do you think it's the worst? Because it's one of those things that's like there's such great respect for judges just automatically granted to them, right? We have great judges. Throughout our state court system, we have great judges, really good judges on the federal level. Now, everybody knows that the federal judges seem to have a higher pedigree. They graduated from

Starting point is 00:34:25 the higher law schools. They clerked either for other federal judges or sometimes for the appellate court judges, they tend to be viewed more serious. But other judges, sometimes they were just staff attorneys for a state department or they had a smaller town practice, not that they weren't great attorneys, but you don't get the Ronnie Crosby's being a judge. You don't get the Getney House being a judge. You don't get Dick Arbutleans being a judge, or Mark Tinsley's being a judge. And the reason is they're making so, much money in private practice, millions of dollars that they earn justly earn from good representation. And judges don't earn that much money. It's a state salary. You do get benefits.

Starting point is 00:35:17 You do get retirement. The reason it becomes lonely is you spend your day as a 50-year-old judge with a 23-year-old law clerk. Because when you become a judge, you almost, you almost have a shield around you. Everybody's afraid to have a personal relationship with you. Judges are afraid of that appearance of impropriety so they don't want to be seen with Eric Glenn Goffing or drinking a tailgating at a USC football game. Some of them don't. I think some of them have no problem being seen because during the Trial Lawyers Association Conference here every year, you know, there's lots of parties involving judges and lawyers, particularly the Murdox back in the day. back in their heyday two years ago.

Starting point is 00:36:03 That's a different, that's a different crowd. The crowd that I run in, I'll see judges. And we had a situation years and years and years ago, Liz, where judges were only sitting in their home county. And that created the appearance that you would get home cooked if you were not a lawyer in that county and you were litigating a case in that county, let's say Greenville going to Beaufort. So then the legislature had the idea, which is a great idea.

Starting point is 00:36:30 Well, let's send them around on a circuit. So let's send you for lawyers to Clarendon County so that they would have to sit there and they wouldn't be able to presumably home cook. Well, what happened then is judges would be taken out to dinner every night by different law firms, a better dinner here than they would be taken to a USC basketball game. Well, then that practice stopped. And now you have judges. You see them all the time. like when I go to no-name deli, I'll see a traveling judge, Judge McCauley from Anderson, eating lunch with his law clerk.

Starting point is 00:37:07 Can you imagine, you know, if you're a 53-year-old person, spending your day with a law clerk? Yes, they're interesting young people, but they're not your contemporary. They don't have the life experiences that you do. So being a judge is an incredibly lonely, lonely job. and I don't envy them. So do you think that we're going to see some action now that this report is out there? Well, I'm sure if David Pasco is listening in this podcast, he's not going to be pleased. No, certainly not.

Starting point is 00:37:42 And I don't know whether anybody on the Judicial Conduct Committee listens to our podcast. I highly doubt it. I would hope we say some. I bet they're listening now. We say some interesting and provocative things. And I know they're lawyers that listen to our podcast because they, they, you know, message us, they Instagram, they do Twitter and stuff like that. This is very serious. I'm not saying it happened.

Starting point is 00:38:07 Yeah. And it's clearly a one-sided report because it's of a from a deputy. So I want to just throw on one question here to end this with. But do you think there's any hope for the low country when it comes to judge? Yes. I think as time goes on, we're getting new judges and younger judges. You know, remember, these younger judges don't have the same relationships that the older lawyers have, that they build up over a 30 or a 40 year period. Look, again, Judge Mullen has done some wonderful things on the bench. I am absolutely sure of that. I'm sure she's made, you know, hundreds of really good just decisions. But, I am troubled by the number of things that I'm hearing about Judge Mullen. And for somebody like David Pascoe, who is a prosecutor, a current prosecutor, to have reported her, that's a very big problem. And it speaks to, you know, she may have to make a decision whether she wants to remain on the bench.

Starting point is 00:39:14 That's her call. But, you know, it is my hope that the report that David and I made in the spring be investigated, I wouldn't have made it if I didn't want it to be investigated. Look, I'm certainly investigated when everybody makes reports against me. I'm being investigated when Dick Rappootlyan reported me for, you know, my public statement. So judges should not have any special license that they're not investigated. They drink from the same cup of justice that we should drink from. So if I'm investigated based on a complaint, even if it's not a meritorious complaint, investigate it, and and dismiss it. If they investigate our complaints and they determine after full investigation that

Starting point is 00:39:59 nothing should be done, then so be it. But at least let's have an investigation. We don't want two systems of justice in our state. The Murdoch Murders 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 5: Motions, Motives & Mullen

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