Explained: Why Alex Murdaugh's Lawyers Want His Original Murder Indictments Thrown Out Before an April Retrial

Alex Murdaugh's lawyers are back before a South Carolina judge on Friday with an unusual request: throw out the original grand jury indictments that charged him with murdering his wife, Maggie, and their younger son, Paul. The defense says the case's chief investigator, State Law Enforcement Division agent David Owen, gave the Colleton County grand jury false testimony about blood evidence, the Associated Press reported ^[1]. Prosecutors deny that anything false reached the grand jury, and even a win for the defense may do little to slow a second murder trial already on the calendar ^[1][2].

The motion lands at a pivotal moment. The South Carolina Supreme Court threw out Murdaugh's murder convictions earlier this year because of misconduct by the court clerk who looked after his jury, and the state is preparing to try him again ^[1][5]. Here is what the new filing argues, how the case reached this point, and what comes next.

What the New Motion Argues

The defense team, led by Dick Harpootlian and Jim Griffin, filed a motion of roughly 200 pages asking Judge Debra McCaslin to dismiss the murder indictments without prejudice, The National Desk reported ^[6]. The filing accuses investigators and prosecutors of misrepresenting evidence and misleading the grand jury ^[6].

The heart of the argument is a white T-shirt. According to the AP, Murdaugh's lawyers say that when prosecutors were seeking the indictments, Owen told grand jurors that blood spatter had been found on the shirt Murdaugh wore the night of the killings ^[1]. An earlier report from state agents had found no bloodstains, the defense says, and no blood-spatter evidence from the shirt was ever introduced at the 2023 trial ^[1]. The South Carolina news site FITSNews reported that the motion says the state's own laboratory had confirmed there was no human blood on the shirt eleven months before the agent testified ^[3].

The defense has also challenged what grand jurors were told about shotguns recovered from the Murdaugh property, a point prosecutors answered in their response, according to ABC News 4 ^[2]. In a reply filed after the state's response, Murdaugh's attorneys argued that prosecutors do not actually dispute the core facts behind the motion, Live 5 News reported ^[4].

These are the defense's accusations. No judge has ruled on them; Judge McCaslin is scheduled to hear the arguments on Friday ^[6].

The phrase "without prejudice" matters. A dismissal of that kind would leave the state free to go back to a grand jury, and the AP reported that prosecutors could seek a new set of indictments as soon as next month, with defense lawyers saying they would not try to block that ^[1]. The AP described the request as a long shot that may not stop, or even delay, the retrial planned for April ^[1]. What the motion does do is put the reliability of the lead investigator's testimony at the center of the case before a new jury is chosen.

What the State Says

Prosecutors from Attorney General Alan Wilson's office called the defense allegations "simply incorrect," ABC News 4 reported ^[2]. In their filing dated Nov. 6, they argued that Owen presented nothing false to the grand jury and that, even setting the blood-spatter testimony aside entirely, there was more than enough other evidence to establish probable cause ^[2]. Probable cause is the low bar a grand jury must clear to return an indictment, and the state argued the defense has not met the high burden required to throw one out ^[2].

Related Justice After 23 Years: Texas Executes John Rubio for the Murders of Three Children as Oklahoma Executes James Pavatt

FITSNews reported that the state's 22-page response does concede mistakes involving the disputed forensic evidence and the grand jury testimony, while insisting they were not intentional misconduct ^[3]. Prosecutors acknowledged that a 2021 lab report finding no human blood in samples from the shirt was initially missed. They said the report sat in a lab file that had been turned over to the defense, but that it had not at first been given to prosecutors or to their outside expert ^[3]. After reviewing it, that expert concluded an earlier treatment of the shirt could have produced a false negative, according to the state's filing as described by FITSNews ^[3].

On the shotguns, the state said there was evidence of mixed loads in guns recovered from the property, including one shotgun loaded with both buckshot and birdshot ^[2]. The state also conceded that the investigator's recollection on the stand was imprecise, but it argued there was no intent to mislead the grand jury ^[2].

How the Case Got Here: The 2023 Conviction

Maggie and Paul Murdaugh were killed in 2021 on the family's property in Colleton County ^[1][5]. Alex Murdaugh was indicted by a Colleton County grand jury in 2022, tried in Colleton County in 2023 and convicted of both murders ^[1][2][5]. He was sentenced to life in prison ^[1].

Through every turn of this case, it is worth remembering who it is about. A mother and her son lost their lives, and the family and community they left behind have now watched the courts go through the case again and again. Whatever happens in the courtroom, they deserve a process that is honest from the first witness to the last.

The Jury-Tampering Issue and the Supreme Court's Ruling

Soon after the verdict, Murdaugh's lawyers accused Becky Hill, then the Colleton County clerk of court, of improperly influencing jurors during the trial ^[5]. In January 2024, after a one-day evidentiary hearing, retired South Carolina Chief Justice Jean Toal found that Hill's comments had not swayed the verdict and denied Murdaugh a new trial, CNN reported ^[5].

The South Carolina Supreme Court saw it differently. On May 13, 2026, the justices unanimously reversed Toal's decision and ordered a new trial, writing that they had "no choice but to reverse the denial of Murdaugh's motion for a new trial," according to CNN ^[5]. The court found that Hill's conduct improperly influenced the jury and deprived Murdaugh of a fair trial ^[5]. The ruling ordered a new trial; it did not find Murdaugh innocent ^[5].

Hill herself pleaded guilty in December 2025 to criminal charges and was sentenced to three years of probation, CNN reported ^[5]. The reversal left the state with the task of proving its case a second time, to a new jury, years after the deaths ^[1][5].

The Financial Crimes Sentences

Even with his murder convictions erased, Murdaugh is not going anywhere. He separately pleaded guilty to dozens of financial crimes and is serving state and federal sentences of 27 and 40 years that run at the same time, CNN reported ^[5]. That means the retrial is about the murder charges alone; it is not a question of whether he walks out of prison next year.

What Happens Next

Judge McCaslin is set to take up the motion at Friday's hearing in Lexington County, which is expected to be the last pretrial hearing held there ^[6]. She has already ordered the case moved to Sumter County, where the double-murder retrial is scheduled to begin on April 5, 2027 ^[6][2].

The fight over the shirt is not the only evidence dispute heading toward trial. At an Oct. 16 hearing, McCaslin allowed the defense to run its own testing on unidentified male DNA recovered from beneath Maggie Murdaugh's fingernails, The National Desk reported ^[6]. Those results could become a major point of contention before a Sumter County jury is seated.

If the judge dismisses the indictments, the next step would likely be a return trip to a grand jury, and the AP reported that could happen as soon as next month ^[1]. If she denies the motion, the case moves forward on the indictments returned in 2022, and attention shifts to the evidence fights that will shape what a new jury hears ^[2][6].

For a case that has already produced a conviction, a reversal and a criminal plea from a court officer, the lesson is a simple one that predates any courtroom: justice depends on truthful witnesses and fair judges. South Carolina now has a second chance to get the Murdaugh case right, for the sake of Maggie and Paul and for the public's trust in its courts.