Skip to content
Politics · North America

Murdaugh defense wins DNA dispute but loses ballistics bid in South Carolina

The judge warned against a courtroom “circus” as Alex Murdaugh’s defense won a DNA dispute but lost its bid over ballistics evidence. His murder convictions were overturned, and a retrial is set for April 5, 2027.

AI-assisted synthesis · Based on 4 independent reports from 5 outlets · Full text read from 1 of 4 reportsHow it's made

View timeline · 4 entries
5 outlets2 regionsLatest reporting 3 min read
Coverage: MixedL 1 · C 1 · R 2 · 1 unrated
Updat3 graphic: United States
Updat3 graphic · Map data: Natural Earth Natural Earth (public domain)

What happened

Key facts

  • The judge warned against a courtroom “circus” as Murdaugh’s defense won a DNA dispute and lost a bid concerning ballistics evidence.
  • Murdaugh’s retrial is scheduled to begin.
  • Murdaugh’s defense won a DNA dispute and lost a bid concerning ballistics evidence.
  • The judge said Murdaugh failed a test related to his financial crimes.

The brief

Alex Murdaugh’s defense won a request for DNA testing but lost a bid concerning ballistics evidence at a hearing on his South Carolina retrial, the New York Post reported. The judge overseeing the proceedings warned that she would not let the case become a courtroom “circus.” The hearing addressed disputes over evidence as the parties prepare for the retrial.

The New York Post reported that Murdaugh’s defense team said the testing would likely take about 90 days. The judge also ordered prosecutors to provide 3D crime-scene scan data by Monday. She said the state would not have to produce the same material repeatedly and asked defense staff to sign for discovery.

The judge concluded the hearing by granting a state motion to correct the record regarding a statement by defense attorney Harpootlian. At an Aug. 14 hearing, Harpootlian had said Murdaugh passed a polygraph “with flying colors.” The judge said Murdaugh had failed a test connected to his financial crimes, rather than the murder case.

Murdaugh was convicted in 2023 of murdering his wife, Maggie, and son, Paul, at the family’s Moselle property in Colleton County. He has maintained his innocence in the killings. His retrial is scheduled to begin April 5, 2027. The article also described a filing that referred to claims about two Yemassee officers.

It said the filing stated that witnesses had testified that Greg Alexander, chief of police for the Town of Yemassee, was seen with the murder weapons shortly after the June 7, 2021 killings. The filing also said a second Yemassee officer was under investigation over allegations of transporting and concealing weapons and clothing.

These are claims reported from the filing, not findings established in the article. The New York Post reported that the defense team estimated the DNA testing could take about 90 days; the judge’s order for the 3D scan data set a Monday deadline, but the article did not specify a calendar date for that deadline.

The next scheduled milestone stated in the article is the retrial, set to begin April 5, 2027.

Why it matters

  • The DNA-testing ruling gives Murdaugh’s defense access to testing it requested as it prepares for the retrial.
  • The defense lost its ballistics-evidence bid, leaving that request unsuccessful at this hearing.
  • The judge’s order requires prosecutors to provide 3D crime-scene scan data by Monday and directs defense staff to sign for discovery.
  • The case concerns Murdaugh’s 2023 convictions for murdering Maggie and Paul; he maintains his innocence, and the retrial is scheduled for April 5, 2027.

What to watch next

  • Whether prosecutors provide the 3D crime-scene scan data by the Monday deadline set by the judge.
  • Whether the DNA testing proceeds on the defense team’s estimate of about 90 days.
  • The retrial scheduled to begin April 5, 2027.

How it's being covered

Coverage analysisShow details
5 source articles · 5 unique outlets · 4 distinct reports
Coverage mix: Mixed· 1 Left · 1 Center · 2 Right
Where the outlets are based: US/Canada 60% · Europe 20% · Other 20%
Coverage mix
Mixed
Left
Center
Right
1 outlet
1 outlet
2 outlets
The marker shows coverage balance: each unique outlet counts once. 1 unrated outlet is not included.
Geography
Where the outlets covering this story are based.
5 unique outletsDominant coverage: US/Canada
How we measure coverage

How outlets' accounts compare

Updat3 does not yet have enough full reports to compare how outlets framed this story.

Timeline

Developments from this story's sources, dated background we compiled and fact-checked, and our earlier coverage. Each row says which.
  1. The deaths at Moselle drew additional scrutiny because Paul Murdaugh had been charged in 2019 with boating-under-the-influence offenses after a 2019 boat crash that killed Mallory Beach.
    Background · from our historical context
  2. The June 2021 killings followed years in which Murdaugh held positions of influence in South Carolina’s legal system.
    Background · from our historical context
  3. On March 2, 2023, a jury found him guilty of both murders, and the judge sentenced him to life in prison.
    Background · from our historical context
  4. On September 21, 2023, Murdaugh pleaded guilty in federal court to financial crimes; those offenses were separate from the murder charges.
    Background · from our historical context

How we got here

Alex Murdaugh’s original murder trial began in January 2023 in Colleton County, South Carolina, after the June 7, 2021, killings of his wife, Maggie, and son, Paul, at the family’s Moselle property. On March 2, 2023, a jury found him guilty of both murders, and the judge sentenced him to life in prison. The trial focused in part on forensic evidence from Moselle.

Prosecutors also presented firearms evidence, including testimony linking a rifle associated with the Murdaugh family to the killings. The murder case developed alongside investigations into Murdaugh’s finances.

Original sources

5 articles from 5 outlets

Every story links to the reporting it was built from. How we choose sources

Spotted a factual error, a broken link or a misleading summary? Tell us.