Mark Tinsley — Direct/Cross/Redirect
517 linesMONDAY, FEBRUARY 6, 2023
(Court resumed at 9:39 a.m.)
JUDGE NEWMAN: Good morning. Ready to proceed? All right, you may proceed.
MR. WATERS: I believe we're again here on in-camera matters, and the State would call Mark Tinsley to the stand.
IN-CAMERA HEARING RESUMED
The witness, MARK TINSLEY, was first duly sworn and testified as follows:
COURT CLERK: Take a seat in the witness stand, state your name again for the record, and spell your last name.
MARK TINSLEY: My name is Mark Tinsley.
DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. WATERS:
MR. WATERS: Mr. Tinsley, how are you doing today?
MARK TINSLEY: Good.
MR. WATERS: Very quickly, you understand -- obviously you're a lawyer and you understand we're here for some in-camera proceedings, so we're not going to go into every bit of background and detail that we would were you testifying before the jury. Do you understand that?
MARK TINSLEY: I do.
MR. WATERS: I do want to, though, kind of move through quickly some of the subject matter that the State proposes to put before the jury. But very quickly if you would, just quickly tell us what you do for a living and what kind of practice that you have.
MARK TINSLEY: My name is Mark Tinsley. I practice law in Allendale. I have a fairly statewide practice, primarily personal injury plaintiffs' work.
MR. WATERS: All right, and how long have you been practicing in Allendale?
MARK TINSLEY: Since 2000, so twenty-two, twenty-three years.
MR. WATERS: Do you have a statewide practice or is it primarily --
MARK TINSLEY: To the extent I want it statewide. I mean, I handle cases statewide if I'm inclined to handle those.
MR. WATERS: Okay. Primarily focused to the 14th Circuit. Is that fair?
MARK TINSLEY: Fourteenth and the 1st.
MR. WATERS: And the 1st? Okay. Do you know the defendant, Alex Murdaugh?
MARK TINSLEY: I do.
MR. WATERS: And how did you know him?
MARK TINSLEY: He practiced law in the adjoining county. I had a number of cases with his firm, small bars in the two counties, and I've known him since shortly after I came to Allendale.
MR. WATERS: And do you know other lawyers in the what used to be known as PMPED firm?
MARK TINSLEY: All of them.
MR. WATERS: And are those individuals that you may have had cases with or just generally in the same line of work with over the years?
MARK TINSLEY: Yes.
MR. WATERS: I want to take you to February 19. And are you familiar with the boat case?
MARK TINSLEY: Unfortunately.
MR. WATERS: Okay, and do you represent the Beach family in the lawsuit related to the death of Ms. Mallory Beach?
MARK TINSLEY: I do.
MR. WATERS: And ultimately you ended up accepting that representation and filing suit against a number of defendants, including the criminal defendant here, Alex Murdaugh. Is that correct?
MARK TINSLEY: I did.
MR. WATERS: Okay. Tell the Court just very quickly who the defendants that you sued at least initially when this case started.
MARK TINSLEY: Mr. Waters, my recollection is is that I sued Alex Murdaugh. I know I sued Luther's, which is a bar downtown in Beaufort. I sued The Woods, which was where the kids had gone for an oyster roast. I sued the Murdaugh family trust, which owned the property where the boat was launched from, and we believe there could have been some drinking that went on there. I'm not 100 percent certain in the first lawsuit if I sued Buster Murdaugh, which is Alex's son, but I think those were the defendants initially. And maybe Randolph Murdaugh personally as well.
MR. WATERS: Okay. Not long after you started the boat case and -- well, let me ask you this. Did your client, Renee Beach, have any particular experience at the scene that informed how you were handling this particular case as you went forward?
MARK TINSLEY: She certainly had an experience that prompted the call to me.
MR. WATERS: Okay, and can you explain that to the Court, please?
MARK TINSLEY: She wanted to go down to the bridge where the boat crash had occurred. I don't believe -- I think this was either Monday or Tuesday, so the crash happens early Sunday morning. The scene is cordoned off and she's told she can't go down there, and just a few minutes later Alex's father and his wife pull up in a car, and they're waved under the tape and they go down to the bridge, and she was very upset by that.
MR. WATERS: Okay, and did she -- in your discussions with her, did she give you any particular instructions about proceeding forward in this particular case as partly based on that experience?
MARK TINSLEY: No. Nobody really gives me instructions.
MR. WATERS: I understand. All right. The -- not long after you get involved in this case, did you have any chance to review and look at any insurance coverages that were made immediately available to the defendant?
MARK TINSLEY: My recollection is within a week certainly, a two week kind of time frame after the boat crash, Danny Henderson, who was handling the boat crash as Alex's personal lawyer, brought me all of Alex's insurance policies, and so I reviewed them at that time before I filed the lawsuit.
MR. WATERS: And what was the purpose of you reviewing those policies?
MARK TINSLEY: You know, in a civil case the only thing that we can do to try to, under the law, make a party whole is recover money damages. And often times when we are drafting lawsuits, we will try to draft the initial lawsuit to make sure that there's insurance coverage, so that was the reason I wanted the coverage. And beyond that, sometimes, like I did with some of the initial defendants, you can -- because of the circumstances, because of the culpability, how bad the liability is, how catastrophic the loss is, many times insurance companies can be leveraged to pay their insurance out to get these people closure. No amount of money is going to make them whole, so the best that we can do is try to get them some closure and help them heal.
MR. WATERS: All right, and what did you determine as you looked at what coverages were available to Alex but potentially could be relevant to the boat crash?
MARK TINSLEY: Well, so there was $500,000 that Progressive had on the boat; it was a watercraft policy. Although I've never seen the policy, that insurance was offered almost immediately to all of the victims, not just the Beach family. There were two other girls on the boat and two other boys, and -- including Paul Murdaugh. And so when I reviewed the policies, it was apparent to me that there was no possibility that any of the insurance that he had at the time of the boat crash would apply to this, and if there was a possibility, it would be limited to an idea that Alex was negligent in allowing Buster to give Paul his duplicate ID that he had made so Paul could purchase alcohol.
MR. WATERS: Did Alex have a policy, an umbrella policy with Nautilus at this point in time that was available?
MARK TINSLEY: He did not. He had --
MR. WATERS: Explain to the Court why that was not available, please.
MARK TINSLEY: It appeared from review of the records that there was an open claim when the policy came up for renewal, and that open claim was the Satterfield matter, and that it was Nautilus and, I think, Lloyds of London, and they would not renew the policy. And so he had to then seek other coverage, and what he ended up was with Philadelphia, and it was a commercial hunting operation policy that contained a very broad watercraft exclusion. It even barred a negligent entrustment claim as it related to water craft.
MR. WATERS: And that Philadelphia policy depended on Moselle being considered as a commercial hunting lodge. Is that correct?
MARK TINSLEY: Not only Moselle, but the occurrence. In other words, whatever it is that causes there to be coverage had to arise out of a, a commercial operation as I read the policy.
MR. WATERS: Okay. Realizing that as it related to Alex especially there was -- was he essentially underinsured as it related to what -- the recovery you were seeking in this particular case?
MARK TINSLEY: Oh, absolutely.
MR. WATERS: And what was your ultimate goal, though, in seeking recovery as it related to Alex in this case?
MARK TINSLEY: Well, it changed over time. I mean, initially I believed that the case would settle. I didn't see how people could ignore the significance of the loss, the public support of the community for the Beach family, and then the hue and cry as it related to the liability, and the Murdaughs in particular. And so, you know, it changes over time, but one consistency was to get the case resolved.
MR. WATERS: Okay, and did you make it clear to Alex's attorneys that you were seeking a personal recovery that he would have to pay as opposed to just accessing what insurance coverage was available?
MARK TINSLEY: Always.
MR. WATERS: And that was consistent all the way through. Is that correct?
MARK TINSLEY: All the way through.
MR. WATERS: Were you making substantial demands to the defense that Alex pay a substantial recovery personally?
MARK TINSLEY: I think by most standards, and I don't want to seem crass when I say this, but the Beach family stood on the causeway for eight days while their daughter's body was in the water. I don't know that there's any amount of money that would -- somebody would willingly take to go through what they've gone through. But if you were asking a lawyer who does civil work was I making a substantial demand in terms of a settlement, I think that most people would say yes.
MR. WATERS: In your assessment, did that come as a bit of a -- or did the defense express to you surprise that you were seeking a personal recovery from Alex rather than just simply trying to access what insurance coverage he had?
MARK TINSLEY: Yeah, some people did. John Tiller was primarily handling the case for Alex, and I didn't get that from John but I got it from a lot of people.
MR. WATERS: In August of 2019, is there a particular conference that those in your line of work go to?
MARK TINSLEY: It used to be called the Trial Lawyers Conference. But yeah, it's in Hilton Head and I went in 2019 of August.
MR. WATERS: Did you see the defendant there?
MARK TINSLEY: I did.
MR. WATERS: And did you have a conversation with him about the boat case?
MARK TINSLEY: I did.
MR. WATERS: All right. Can you relate that conversation to the court, please?
MARK TINSLEY: Yeah. I think, I'm not 100 percent certain, that it was a fundraiser either for Mr. Harpootlian, or it was a fundraiser for Lindsey Graham. As you come into the hotel, there's a gathering area. It's in the evening before everyone goes to dinner or it is immediately after. I'm not 100 percent certain, but the room is full of lawyers and Alex sees me and he comes across, and he gets up close in my face and says hey, Bo, what's this I'm hearing about what you're saying? I thought we were friends. And I replied, Alex, we are friends. If you don't think I can burn your house down and that I'm not doing everything -- I'm not going to do everything, you're wrong. You need to settle this case.
MR. WATERS: Okay, and so what was the point of that conversation? What was -- if you can explain to the Court what y'all were talking about. What is Alex upset to -- as you understood it?
MARK TINSLEY: That he was going to have to pay was what he was hearing, that's what it was -- that's what -- the point of it was we're friends. I took it as he tried to intimidate me -- he didn't intimidate me -- and sort of bully me into backing off.
MR. WATERS: Was there a mediation in September of 2019?
MARK TINSLEY: There was. No, 2000 -- September of '20.
MR. WATERS: Before we get there, we move into early March of 2020, and we probably all know the answer to this, but what happened in March of 2020 that kind of changed the world?
MARK TINSLEY: Covid. The courts shut down.
MR. WATERS: And did that have affect in slowing down things in the court systems?
MARK TINSLEY: It definitely stopped the court system. We continued to take some depositions, primarily law enforcement that was at the scene, early on. And then ultimately when everything finally shut down, I'm not sure if it's May or April, then, you know, we were sort of confined to our offices.
MR. WATERS: Did you, during the course of Covid, take the opportunity to sort of present the case to a mock jury to get an idea of how that jury might respond?
MARK TINSLEY: I did.
MR. WATERS: Okay, and were the results very favorable for your client and not favorable for Alex?
MARK TINSLEY: They were.
MR. WATERS: Did you ultimately communicate that fact to the defense?
MARK TINSLEY: I did.
MR. WATERS: Had you come into possession of some social media videos that you believed would be very advantageous to proving your case and achieving a large recovery?
MARK TINSLEY: I did, and I shared those with John Tiller.
MR. WATERS: Let me get something marked real quick.
(TEXT MESSAGE MARKED AS STATE'S EXHIBIT NUMBER 401 FOR IDENTIFICATION.)
MR. WATERS: I'm going to show you what has been marked as Exhibit 401, State's Exhibit 401, and see if you recognize that document.
MARK TINSLEY: I did, I do.
MR. WATERS: All right. What is that document?
MARK TINSLEY: It's a screen shot of text messages between myself and Tabor Vaux. Tabor was assisting me in the boat crash case.
MR. WATERS: All right.
MR. WATERS: Would you turn the screen to me real quick, please? Thank you.
MR. WATERS: All right. There's a reference here at the top about Alex not being placeholder of venue defendant, that they were hoping. And then you respond about you're not going for -- taking 500K and not walking away from someone who is judgment proof. Is that correct?
MARK TINSLEY: That's right.
MR. WATERS: And I'm sure the Court is aware but just very quickly, what's being said there but about not -- Alex not being a placeholder or venue defendant.
MARK TINSLEY: Well, so there are a couple things going on here. In October of '20, I filed a motion to compel. Alex said he was broke; he doesn't have any money. He may be able to cobble together some amount of money but he's broke, and I didn't believe it. So, I filed a motion to compel. And about a week after I had filed that motion to compel, Danny Henderson, who again was Alex's personal lawyer, came to my partner, said he couldn't believe that we were going after Alex personally. It was a line in the sand that I had crossed, a number of things like that, so that's what this conversation is about. And, you know, by November -- this is, I think, November of 2020, the Beach family, they want accountability. They want a pound of flesh, and whatever that's going to be, it's only going to be through a jury or through a substantial settlement.
MR. WATERS: All right. Well, let me back up and we'll get to the motion to compel in a second. You mentioned that you had been told by the defense essentially that Alex had no money, correct?
MARK TINSLEY: He's broke.
MR. WATERS: Did they say he could cobble together a certain amount?
MARK TINSLEY: Thought he could cobble together a million dollars.
MR. WATERS: A million dollars, and did you believe that that was accurate?
MARK TINSLEY: It couldn't have been.
MR. WATERS: All right, and why did you not believe that that was accurate?
MARK TINSLEY: Well, when you practice law not necessarily with, meaning in the same case, but when you go to a roster meeting, if there were 50 cases on the roster in Hampton Alex may have had 50 or 60 of those -- percent of those cases, and so they're actively being settled. I know that he's actively making money, and you just can't possibly be broke if you're making money the way he was making money. And then beyond that, I mean, my clients have known Alex and his family forever, and so their perspective is that there's, there's generational wealth as well.
MR. WATERS: Did you -- was $1 million going to be enough money from your client's perspective to settle this case?
MARK TINSLEY: It wasn't enough from my perspective.
MR. WATERS: Okay.
MARK TINSLEY: I can explain that if you want.
MR. WATERS: Yes, please.
MARK TINSLEY: So, one of the things that I didn't appreciate that I came to appreciate by this point in time was is that -- and it may not make a whole lot of sense, but if I told a lawyer who does what I do that I had settled a case, there's a lot of speculation because I have had cases with the firm and members of their firm are my friends, that somehow there's a fix on. I think for a long time Alex thought there was a fix on, that he was just a placeholder or venue defendant.
MR. WATERS: Right.
MARK TINSLEY: And so if I told you I've settled the case, then the next question would be what did you settle it for. I said, well, I took the insurance company. If you knew what I know and what plaintiffs lawyers, know you would think, well, there was a fix. The only reason I would take it is because it was a fix. I didn't see a substantial difference between that number and a million dollars. And so I thought that if I told ten lawyers who were knowledgeable about these kinds of matters, if I took a million dollars from Alex -- who, from everyone's perspective, has lots of money, he's making piles of money -- they would think that it was a fix. So, before we even get to what's a fair amount, what should you take, you know, the analogy I used with my clients is it's kind of like that show Deal or No Deal. You may have the million dollar suitcase or you may have a zero suitcase, but it's not until there's a significant enough offer that you could do worse that you should settle a case, any case, and that's -- and so at a million dollars it just wasn't -- it wasn't any risk to them that would prompt me to recommend them to take it.
MR. WATERS: All right. Did you make any sort of formal or informal offer to them that involved the real property as well as any sort of payment plan?
MARK TINSLEY: When I was told that Alex was broke, I offered him a payment plan. Sometimes when you settle cases, medical malpractice cases, for instance, with JUA, they will make payments. I offered to -- for him to sign over Moselle and the beach house, open his books to see that he was broke, and then work out a payment plan on the balance.
MR. WATERS: So when you say, okay, you say he's broke, I don't believe that, show me the books to prove that, what was your response from the -- Alex's defense?
MARK TINSLEY: Well, it was sort of stonewalling to begin with. I mean, ultimately I got a formal response, which was an objection that prompted the motion to compel in October of 2020.
MR. WATERS: All right.
MR. WATERS: Let me get this marked real quick.
(MOTION MARKED AS STATE'S EXHIBIT NUMBER 402 FOR IDENTIFICATION.)
(TEXT MESSAGE MARKED AS STATE'S EXHIBIT NUMBER 403 FOR IDENTIFICATION.)
MR. WATERS: I show you what's been marked as State's 402, and see if you recognize this document.
MARK TINSLEY: Yeah. So this is my motion to compel, which attaches Alex's responses to the interrogatories and requests for production.
MR. WATERS: All right, and when was this filed?
MARK TINSLEY: October 16th, 2020.
MR. WATERS: All right. All right. I'm going to put Exhibit B to this motion, your motion to compel up on the screen and zoom it in a little bit. And in part was this the objection to one of your supplemental interrogatories about what you're talking about, about opening the books?
MARK TINSLEY: Correct.
MR. WATERS: All right, and if you would, tell me what your interrogatory was asking for in number one, please.
MARK TINSLEY: Well, in as broad a terms as --
MR. WATERS: Well, let's just read it quick if we could, please. Can you read that?
MARK TINSLEY: All right: List all checking and/or savings accounts, including credit union accounts, certificates of deposit, 401(k) accounts, SEP accounts, IRA maintained by you -- IRA's maintained by you individually and/or jointly with any others, or any other accounts over which you had signature authority in any capacity regardless of whether or not the account or accounts had been closed from February 2019 to present.
MR. WATERS: All right, and ultimately what was the -- Alex's defense's response to that generally? You don't have to read that but just tell me.
MARK TINSLEY: It was overly broad, unduly burdensome, and irrelevant.
MR. WATERS: Okay, and so ultimately you filed a motion to compel. Is that correct?
MARK TINSLEY: That's correct.
MR. WATERS: And the idea was if you say you're broke, show me the books, and they had refused to with the response to this interrogatory, as well as others. Is that correct?
MARK TINSLEY: Correct.
MR. WATERS: To your knowledge, when information was being gathered by the defendant in this particular case -- let me ask you this. Who were his attorneys in the boat case, Alex's attorneys?
MARK TINSLEY: So his personal attorney, as I said, was Danny Henderson --
MR. WATERS: Okay.
MARK TINSLEY: -- who was also a partner, or shareholder with PMPED. Progressive had hired John Tiller, and John Tiller is a lawyer out of Charleston; he was mainly involved. At one point there was Amy Bower, who was an associate working with John Tiller, and then Elliot Condon ultimately -- I think Amy left in February of '21, and by then I think Elliot Condon had been hired and was assisting John Tiller.
MR. WATERS: Okay, and Mr. Henderson is a partner at PMPED but was also actively helping Alex and representing Alex in this case. Is that correct?
MARK TINSLEY: He was.
MR. WATERS: And he's the one that initially had brought you the insurance coverages for Alex to give you a chance to look at them and see what might be available, correct?
MARK TINSLEY: That's right.
MR. WATERS: As this motion to compel gets filed, what, if anything, happened with the -- sort of the communications between your side and the defense side as we moved into the months following the filing of that motion to compel? We all already saw the one text. What else is going on as well?
MARK TINSLEY: Well, there's a lot of grumbling and sort of shock that I'm actually going to hold Alex personally responsible. Not so much with me, but like I mentioned, about a week after this, Danny Henderson contacts my partner. There were a number of times when Tabor Vaux was contacted, and so nobody says anything directly to me in terms of that regard, but that's, that's what was going on. It was said to them because they knew it would then be told to me.
MR. WATERS: When we look at the particular interrogatory right here that you had filed a motion to compel on, what are you trying to get? What information are you trying to get with that interrogatory?
MARK TINSLEY: Well, you know, the way to -- again, like I -- in my example of the Deal or No Deal, I mean, what I'm trying to do is put pressure. He doesn't want me to have access to his accounts. At the time I think it was because he'll see I'll see how much money he actually is making and how much he has. And so, again, that's what I'm trying to do is put pressure on him to force him into a settlement. You don't want it disclosed? Here are the keys to the jail. You enter into an agreement and let's go settle the case.
MR. WATERS: In the event, though, he doesn't settle in response to this, what information are you trying to get?
MARK TINSLEY: Well, it's certainly not a number; it's certainly not an estimation of what his net value is. I wanted the accounts because I knew that the only way that he could be broke is is that money had been hidden, and so I was going to look for and trace, or begin that process.
MR. WATERS: All right, and explain this to the Court. When you say that you knew that if he was, quote, broke, in your estimation money had been hidden and so, therefore, you were going to look for it and trace that information, what do you mean by that? Why did you think money had been hidden?
MARK TINSLEY: Well, they just -- there wasn't way he could be broke. I mean, I know he's actively settling cases. Some cases big cases, some cases small cases, but they stack up, lots of cases. He's handling a lot of cases, so there's just no possibility that he could be broke by anyone's definition.
MR. WATERS: If ultimately -- and we'll talk more about this in a minute. If ultimately you had been successful in getting a list of the defendant's accounts, what would have been your next step once proceeding?
MARK TINSLEY: Subpoenas.
MR. WATERS: Of those accounts?
MARK TINSLEY: To those institutions, yes.
MR. WATERS: Were you already aware that the defendant had an account with Bank of America?
MARK TINSLEY: I knew that he had a personal account with Bank of America; I knew he had an account with Palmetto State Bank. So, I'm looking for the balance of accounts in terms of the institutions and where else he had.
MR. WATERS: But you didn't know how many accounts or what those balances were or anything like that?
MARK TINSLEY: No, I had no idea. I had -- you know, I knew he had multiple business entities, he had different LLCs, so I imagine there could be any combination of accounts out there, and some which would not have even been in his name.
MR. WATERS: After the motion to compel is filed, I'm going to show you what's been marked as State's 403 and see if you recognize that document.
MARK TINSLEY: Yes.
MR. WATERS: Tell me what that is.
MARK TINSLEY: Again, it's a screen shot of a text messages between Tabor Vaux and myself.
MR. WATERS: All right. Let me put this up on the screen. All right. If you would, I've got this up on the screen, so can you tell me what's going on -- and again, this is in April of 2021. Is that correct?
MARK TINSLEY: It is.
MR. WATERS: And tell me what's going on with this conversation right here and how it relates to these issues.
MARK TINSLEY: Yeah. So in August of '20, I found out I had cancer, and by November I knew how bad it was. And so in January I went to -- I had stage IV cancer and I went to Florida from the end of January until April the 15th on my first round of treatment, so I had just come back. Shortly before I was diagnosed with cancer, John Tiller was also diagnosed with pancreatic cancer, and there's some degree of urgency between John Tiller and myself to finish this case. While I was in Florida -- I think I failed to mention that Greg Parker's Convenience Store was also a defendant in the first case, but Greg Parker had done a number of things. So before I leave, the issue is is Greg Parker has moved to transfer venue to Beaufort County, which is where I had done the mock jury. The focus group was in Beaufort County. And while I'm in Florida, things have changed in terms of what he's done that have changed my perspective because when I left, I intended to go to Beaufort. By the time I get back, I think I'm staying in Hampton. And so this conversation is for the first time I have said that I'm going to leave the case in Hampton, but if I -- if I think that Alex has fixed the jury, that he's done anything to affect the outcome of the trial, that I'm going to sue Paul and Maggie the next day in Beaufort.
MR. WATERS: And was that communicated to the defense?
MARK TINSLEY: Absolutely.
MR. WATERS: In the course of your investigation of this case, had you taken depositions of some of the officers who were involved in the investigation?
MARK TINSLEY: We did.
MR. WATERS: And at some point was that -- some issues arose that were communicated to the State Grand Jury?
MARK TINSLEY: You're the one that tells me everything happens there is secret, so you tell me, but --
MR. WATERS: I'm asking you today.
MARK TINSLEY: -- but yes.
MR. WATERS: Ultimately and while you were in Florida in March and April of 2021, to your understanding had the State Grand Jury reached out to you for information that you had uncovered in your investigation of the investigation into the boat crash?
MARK TINSLEY: Correct, and specifically the handling of the criminal investigation by law enforcement.
MR. WATERS: The investigation into the investigation?
MARK TINSLEY: Correct.
MR. WATERS: Court's indulgence one moment.
(EMAIL MARKED AS STATE'S EXHIBIT NUMBER 404 FOR IDENTIFICATION.)
(EMAIL MARKED AS STATE'S EXHIBIT NUMBER 405 FOR IDENTIFICATION.)
(EMAIL MARKED AS STATE'S EXHIBIT NUMBER 406 FOR IDENTIFICATION.)
MR. WATERS: Let me show you what's been marked as State's 404, 405, and 406 for this hearing and see if you recognize those, please, generally.
MARK TINSLEY: I do.
MR. WATERS: All right, and tell me what is going on here, please.
MARK TINSLEY: There were a number of motions pending in the boat crash case; they had been pending for some time. I mentioned one a moment ago, a motion to transfer venue. There were some motions to amend, and so Judge Hall had set those motions to be heard. My recollection is May the 10th, 2021. So, I'm back now. I've got a couple of weeks to sort of get my wits about what's going on, and the motions are scheduled to be heard.
MR. WATERS: And that's May 11th of 2021?
MARK TINSLEY: It's either the 10th or the -- my recollection is the 10th. I know the emails say something different, but in the week before -- I don't know that John Tiller always knew how many chemotherapy treatments he was going to get or how long they were going to last until almost immediately before. So, on or about May the 7th, John knew that the day of our hearing his chemotherapy was going to run long and he wouldn't be done, and he had asked the judge to continue the motions, including the motions to compel.
MR. WATERS: Okay, and looking at -- again, we're now looking at State's 405. What was the judge's initial response to Mr. Tiller's request to have that hearing continued based on his chemotherapy?
MARK TINSLEY: That we were going forward as scheduled and that -- it says Mr. Condon, but it meant Ms. Condon would be able to handle it.
MR. WATERS: All right. Looking at State's 406. What happened after that?
MARK TINSLEY: Ultimately what happened is -- my recollection is I sent another email to the judge expressing that I really didn't -- they were mainly my motions. They were -- Parker's had some motions, that I didn't have a problem with continuing to accommodate Mr. Tiller. And the judge finally set a status conference for -- maybe it was May 11th.
MR. WATERS: All right. You just said that initially Judge Hall did not want to continue the May 2021 hearing, saying that there was another lawyer on -- for Alex's side that could handle it, correct?
MARK TINSLEY: Correct.
MR. WATERS: And then you kind of interceded and said that this would work and so it was rescheduled. Is that correct?
MARK TINSLEY: After a status conference.
MR. WATERS: After the status conference? It was rescheduled at that status conference?
MARK TINSLEY: It was rescheduled until June 10th.
MR. WATERS: June 10th? All right.
(EMAIL MARKED AS STATE'S EXHIBIT NUMBER 407 FOR IDENTIFICATION.)
(EMAIL MARKED AS STATE'S EXHIBIT NUMBER 408 FOR IDENTIFICATION.) Q. I'm going to show you what's been marked as State's 407 and State's 408. And just quickly tell me if you generally recognize those documents.
MARK TINSLEY: I do. One is an email from John Tiller saying that the judge's law clerk said that the judge would be sending a message telling us that the hearing was going to be rescheduled to June 10th. The other is the email from the law clerk.
MR. WATERS: All right. So, the hearing that was initially in May that Judge Hall did not want to reschedule was rescheduled for June 10, 2021. Is that correct?
MARK TINSLEY: That is correct.
MR. WATERS: And ultimately that would be -- hear a number of things, but one of the most significant things would be your request for a list of all checking accounts from Alex, all -- identification of all accounts. Is that correct?
MARK TINSLEY: It is correct that that motion was going to be heard.
MR. WATERS: Okay, and ultimately when the murders happened -- I'm going to show you what has been marked as Exhibit 408 -- what happened to that particular hearing that was scheduled that particular week?
MARK TINSLEY: It was continued.
MR. WATERS: All right, and is that what's reflected in this email right here?
MARK TINSLEY: It is.
MR. WATERS: And on Exhibit 407?
MARK TINSLEY: It is.
MR. WATERS: After the murders happened, was -- let me ask you this. You've known Alex and have worked with him for a number of cases. Is that correct?
MARK TINSLEY: I had not worked with Alex in a number of cases but I have known him for a long time.
MR. WATERS: Okay, but you were generally familiar with him as a lawyer. Is that right?
MARK TINSLEY: I was.
MR. WATERS: What was your assessment of his skills as a plaintiff's lawyer? What was he particularly good at?
MARK TINSLEY: He was particularly good at reading people, making people feel like they were the most important person in the room, and capitalizing on surprise with the defense. You had a case with Alex. He hasn't done anything. It's Monday morning of the roster, maybe you expect it to be continued, and he says I'm ready for trial. And so he would -- he leveraged a lot of settlements that way.
MR. WATERS: All right. Was he good at understanding the emotional and sympathetic aspects of plaintiffs work and tort work that can be so crucial in defining what recoveries can be in these types of cases?
MARK TINSLEY: Yeah. I think he was particularly good at reading people and knowing what made people tick.
MR. WATERS: You've testified that you had made it very clear to the defense throughout this time period that you were seeking a substantial personal recovery from Alex and had been told that he's broke, which you then responded I don't believe that. Show me the books. Correct?
MARK TINSLEY: Correct.
MR. WATERS: And that was what was on the table for June 10, 2021, correct?
MARK TINSLEY: Among other things, but yes.
MR. WATERS: Among other things, but that's on the table, correct?
MARK TINSLEY: Correct.
MR. WATERS: After the murders happened, did that have any effect on your assessment of the case against Alex, and particularly as it relates to the sympathies and the emotion of the case which can be so important to recovery?
MARK TINSLEY: I mean, yes.
MR. WATERS: Explain that to the Court again, please.
MARK TINSLEY: Well, initially probably say the first week there was the shock and horror of what had happened, and nobody really thought about anything other than that. But pretty quickly I recognized that the case against Alex, if he were a victim of some vigilante, would, in fact, be over.
MR. WATERS: Would be over?
MARK TINSLEY: Would be over.
MR. WATERS: And explain just quickly to the Court why that's the case.
MARK TINSLEY: Well, you know, when you're asking for a money judgment, people have to be motivated to give you that money judgment. If you represent Attila the Hun versus some sweet old grandmother, nobody is going to give Attila the Hun money. They would give money to some sweet grandmother. So, if Alex had been victimized by a vigilante, nobody would have brought a verdict against Alex. And I had other defendants in the case, so I would have ended the case against Alex.
MR. WATERS: You would have ended the case against Alex with just --
MARK TINSLEY: You know, I probably -- I mean, certainly there was $500,000 in insurance that was offered. I may have tried to see if he could cobble together the million dollars. But whatever the last offer would have been from Alex's side, that would have been the offer that we took.
MR. WATERS: You had mentioned before that you had advised the defense of some of the mock jury presentation that you had done and some of the results from that and how they were very favorable to your case. Is that correct?
MARK TINSLEY: The defense and some of Alex's partners, yes.
MR. WATERS: And it's fair to say, though, that, as you just stated, that if Alex had been the victim of some sort of vigilante, those sympathies would have entirely changed as it related to Alex and Paul as well. Is that correct?
MARK TINSLEY: Certainly.
MR. WATERS: And that led to what you -- your assessment then in the wake of these murders. Is that correct?
MARK TINSLEY: Correct.
MR. WATERS: At some point, did you receive any call or any communication from the Satterfields about the -- any recovery in the Gloria Satterfield death?
MARK TINSLEY: At some point -- my recollection is it's early September of '21 -- Eric came to my office about that. There are a number of articles in the paper, or the papers that are talking about this previous wrongful death case and wrongful death settlement, and he came to my office at that time.
MR. WATERS: All right, and did you send them to someone?
MARK TINSLEY: I sent him to Eric Bland.
MR. WATERS: Hold on for me one second.
(Break in proceedings.)
MR. WATERS: Nothing further at this time, Your Honor.
JUDGE NEWMAN: All right. By the defense.
(EMAIL MARKED AS DEFENDANT'S EXHIBIT NUMBER 80 FOR IDENTIFICATION.)
(MOTION TO COMPEL MARKED AS DEFENDANT'S EXHIBIT NUMBER 82 FOR IDENTIFICATION.)
CROSS-EXAMINATION
BY MR. BARBER:
MR. BARBER: Good morning, Mr. Tinsley.
MARK TINSLEY: How are you?
MR. BARBER: You testified at length to the State Grand Jury basically the -- similar testimony you've given here today. Is that correct?
MARK TINSLEY: The testimony I gave today is included in what I said to the State Grand Jury, yes.
MR. BARBER: Right, and it seems like the gist of this is that you were suing Alex Murdaugh, who you believed was underinsured for this incident, and you were going to go after his personal assets, and that that was going to put some financial pressure on him. Is that correct?
MARK TINSLEY: Probably not exactly. I mean, I don't mean to quibble with you over the words that you used, but I don't think it was financial pressure because I didn't -- I was holding him personally accountable. I was insisting that he pay. I didn't see how a payment plan on a settlement would put any pressure on Alex. It was sort of the deal that you couldn't turn down from where I sat.
MR. BARBER: But you were asking for money from him.
MARK TINSLEY: Oh sure, yeah.
MR. BARBER: And the inquiry here today is about money, his money, his finances, correct?
MARK TINSLEY: I don't think so, but it certainly concerns his money.
MR. BARBER: And you were anticipating you were going to go to trial. Is that correct?
MARK TINSLEY: Yes.
MR. BARBER: You were going to go to trial and get a verdict against Alex Murdaugh, correct? That's what you thought. That's where this was going.
MARK TINSLEY: No. I -- I mean, I didn't see how any reasonable person wouldn't settle the case, especially Alex. So, I expected the case to settle. 90 percent of cases settle, maybe 99. But if we had to try it, yes, we were going to try it.
MR. BARBER: If he were unable to offer more money then your expectation on, say, on June 7th, you know, before these murders, your expectation was if he doesn't offer more money, we're going to trial.
MARK TINSLEY: Any money. It was no money. No money had been offered.
MR. BARBER: So, your expectation, then, was we're going to trial?
MARK TINSLEY: If you offer me no money in a case that I'm pursuing against you, then the response is we're going to trial.
MR. BARBER: And you were pretty far from trial on June 7th of 2021, were you not?
MARK TINSLEY: No.
MR. BARBER: You believe you were close to taking it to trial?
MARK TINSLEY: I -- there was an urgency because John Tiller knew that he had about a year to live, and we were going to try that case. My expectation was early fall, late summer.
MR. BARBER: You expected to try the boat case in the summer of 2000 -- late summer of 2021?
MARK TINSLEY: August, September, October, some time in there.
MR. BARBER: You felt like you were only two or three months away from trial?
MARK TINSLEY: Sure.
MR. BARBER: Even though we had all of these pending motions that hadn't even been heard, including what venue to have?
MARK TINSLEY: I had tried the case two times with a Beaufort jury during Covid. I was ready to go to trial.
MR. BARBER: On that day on June 7th, you hadn't even yet asserted a negligent entrustment claim against Alex, had you?
MARK TINSLEY: Well, I had to John Tiller. John Tiller knew and had agreed to the amendment. There were a number of things that Alex's counsel had agreed to, including knowing there was substantial punitive evidence in the case.
MR. BARBER: And at that time, you hadn't even asserted that claim to the Court. That wasn't before the Court, was it? That was just a conversation with John Tiller.
MARK TINSLEY: That's the conversation that mattered because John Tiller would be the one who would object to the late presentation of the evidence, the late presentation of an expert, and he'd agreed to all of those things.
MR. BARBER: But he had objected to the financial discovery you asked for.
MARK TINSLEY: Well, there was an objection posed, correct.
MR. BARBER: But he did object to that.
MARK TINSLEY: When that answer was given in October or September of '20, it was an objection.
MR. BARBER: Okay, and the hearing that was -- that this -- the motion to compel the financial detail, the testimony is that's just one of many motions that needed to be heard. Is that correct?
MARK TINSLEY: Correct.
MR. BARBER: There were many motions that had piled up and needed to be heard.
MARK TINSLEY: There were several.
MR. BARBER: There were several? Do you remember what they all were?
MARK TINSLEY: There was a motion to change venue. There was a motion to compel against Parker's. There was -- Parker's had one or two motions. Some of the motions got resolved, one of which was this motion to assert admiralty in the case, and with the agreement that I would amend to assert negligent entrustment claim to get in all of the evidence that they knew I had, that was resolved that way.
MR. BARBER: And you've had a lot of motions practice in this case with Parker's, haven't you?
MARK TINSLEY: More so since the murder.
MR. BARBER: But has that motions practice with Parker's been about the murders of Maggie and Paul?
MARK TINSLEY: Well, I mean, it's about it in the sense that it certainly created a lot of additional issues to deal with, but no, not specifically.
MR. BARBER: There was a lot of motion practice about allegations of leaking a video for mediation for example, correct?
MARK TINSLEY: I don't know about a lot, but I had filed a motion that I ultimately withdrew.
MR. BARBER: And you believed that you were going to drag Parker's to a trial within two or three months, late summer of June 7th, even though we have all of these fairly preliminary motions that haven't been heard, change of venue, asking to amend pleadings, motions to compel discovery?
MARK TINSLEY: Yeah. Maybe you've never tried a civil case. So, when Covid happened and everything was shut down for two months, I got my case together. My case is not dependent upon, if I'm forced to try it, the bank institutions where he has accounts. My case is not dependent on the leaked video. That's a separate matter and ended up being a separate lawsuit. So, the answer is yes, I was ready to try my case.
MR. BARBER: And you didn't need, for example, an answer on the motions to compel that was pending against Parker's; you didn't actually need any of that stuff to go to trial against Parker's. Is that what you're saying?
MARK TINSLEY: You're talking about the percentage of financials -- I mean, the percentage of sales that alcohol made up in his profits? No, I didn't need that.
MR. BARBER: Well, let's put that up.
MARK TINSLEY: I wanted it but I didn't need it.
MR. BARBER: I show you what's been marked as Defendant's Exhibit 82, if you recognize that.
MARK TINSLEY: It appears to be my motion to compel against Greg Parker's company.
MR. BARBER: And this is the document on screen that I've handed to you. So, we have -- it's not just a -- buried in here is some request for financial information, but you're requesting answers to request for production 3, request for production 11, request to production 16, request for production 17, which is financial information, request for production 18, request for production 19, request for production 20, request for production 22. Request for -- interrogatory number 5, interrogatory number 8, interrogatory number 9, interrogatory number 10, interrogatory number 12, interrogatory number 13, interrogatory number 15, interrogatory number 18. It seems like it's quite a bit of discovery you're demanding for Parker's in this motion.
MARK TINSLEY: Which I would have had the answer to on June 10th. Either I was getting it or I wasn't getting it, but my case wasn't dependent on these things. They may have helped my case, they may have put pressure on Parker's camp like I was trying to put pressure on Alex, but it wasn't -- the trial wasn't dependent on these things.
MR. BARBER: And turning to the motion to compel on Alex. First, do you, you believed that the -- that Judge Hall's initial request in May to go forward with the pending motion hearings was telegraphing a ruling on that specific motion, or do you believe that that was him looking at these motions piling up and wanting to get some movement?
MARK TINSLEY: Yeah, I think so. No. Nobody in the courtroom, maybe even including me, that wants the case resolved more than Judge Hall.
MR. BARBER: And when the late Mr. Tiller asked for a continuance, you don't believe that was any kind of stalling tactic, do you?
MARK TINSLEY: No.
MR. BARBER: That was a legitimate health-based concern.
MARK TINSLEY: And if you read my emails, you would see that I immediately agreed to it. John Tiller was my friend.
MR. BARBER: With regards to what you're asking for from Alex --
MR. BARBER: Let's maybe pull that up.
MR. BARBER: And I believe the State has already marked this as an exhibit, but this is the motion to compel.
MR. BARBER: Could we put up 80, please?
MR. BARBER: It has already been shown to you, but I'll show you one that's been marked as Defendant's 80 for your reference. So, this is asking for an order to compel production on interrogatories 9 and 10, and then a set of supplemental interrogatories and supplemental requests for production. Is that correct?
MARK TINSLEY: It is.
MR. BARBER: And if we turn to --
MARK TINSLEY: And 9 and 10 are important as well. We didn't cover that, but I'm happy to speak to 9 and 10. You know, 9 and 10 asked Alex about --
MR. BARBER: Sir, no one has asked you about 9 and 10. I mean, we'll get to it, but first let's turn to answers to first supplemental interrogatories, which is the first page of Exhibit B, so we can see what it is that's being asked for. Keep --
MARK TINSLEY: There's no D in mine, I'm sorry.
MARK TINSLEY: Oh, B?
MR. BARBER: It's the first page of what's Exhibit B in here. It's right there. That's it. It's the first page after the motions, so it would be page 9.
MARK TINSLEY: They're not numbered, but --
MR. BARBER: So, Mr. Waters asked you about this list of all checking, savings accounts, retirement accounts.
MR. BARBER: And then -- you don't have to highlight or expand the stuff.
MR. BARBER: All stock -- and then number 2, all stock certificates. Then we go to the next page, all property and interest of property of every kind whatsoever from February 24, 2019, forward. All life insurance policies. Number 4, 5, all personal financial statements submitted to any bank, et cetera, profit-sharing plans, pension plans, et cetera. This is -- doesn't this look like supplemental discovery after you get a judgment, supplemental proceedings?
MARK TINSLEY: I never have been involved in supplemental proceedings, so no, I don't think so. This is what my people needed answers to before they would agree to take anything that Alex would have offered.
MR. BARBER: In tort cases against individuals, you know, in this case a negligence and entrusting a boat and in an alcohol- related incident, before there's even motions for summary judgment, before there's any consideration of whether a case has been made for punitive damages, do you typically get this level of financial discovery of defendants?
MARK TINSLEY: I think so. I think the judge ultimately agreed to give it to me.
MR. BARBER: He agreed to give it to you?
MARK TINSLEY: Sure.
MR. BARBER: But I thought the hearing didn't happen.
MARK TINSLEY: Well, you thought wrong. There's a lot of paper, so maybe you got confused.
MR. BARBER: He granted this motion?
MARK TINSLEY: I think so. Do you want to see the order?
MR. BARBER: Yeah.
MARK TINSLEY: It's, for the record, October 7th of 2021.
MR. BARBER: And correct me if I'm wrong. What you've highlighted here that, Tiller, Mr. Tiller: Because of circumstances beyond his control, unable to gather and provide necessary information in answer to requested interrogatories, once the information is made available to Attorney Tiller, the Court will schedule a hearing.
MARK TINSLEY: If necessary. You forgot of the last part.
MR. BARBER: If necessary.
MARK TINSLEY: Yeah.
MR. BARBER: The Court will schedule a hearing if necessary.
MARK TINSLEY: Which means --
MR. BARBER: If Mr. Tiller, the attorney on the case, can from his own client get the information. This in no way says that the Court granted this motion, does it, sir?
MARK TINSLEY: Only to you, I think. I mean, it's clear that John said that Alex was unavailable because he was in rehab at the time. He couldn't get the material. He's going to get the material and the judge ordered get the material, and if we need to schedule a hearing because you don't have the answers that you want, Mr. Tinsley, then we'll reschedule the hearing.
MR. BARBER: This is an order that says the Court will schedule a hearing on this motion to compel if necessary. It's not granting the motion to compel, sir, is it?
MARK TINSLEY: Oh, I think so. I think if he was just going to deny it as you suggest, then it would have just said denied or it's, it's premature.
MR. BARBER: If it was granted, wouldn't it say granted?
MARK TINSLEY: I think that's what it says. As a practical matter, when parties have discovery motions, often times like Alex in his own statement said he was working on getting the answers. The reason is you give the answers because you don't want to face what could happen in the argument with the judge. So, this -- my point is is that if the judge were going to say it's premature, you're not going to get, it's denied, any of the things you've suggested, he would have said that and that's not what he did. That's not what happened.
MR. BARBER: I just want to get the date this order is, which is October 6th of 2021. You asked for financial information in the motion that was pending against Parker's that was also going to be heard on June 10th.
MARK TINSLEY: It was different and for different reasons.
MR. BARBER: You asked for alcohol sales, correct?
MARK TINSLEY: What I explained to Judge Hall was is, is that they say he's broke and --
MR. BARBER: Sir, no, sir. I'm asking what you asked for from Parker's. I'm pretty sure that wasn't they say he's broke. What were you asking for from Parker?
MARK TINSLEY: I'm asking for, among other things, the percent of alcohol sales that made up his net profit.
MR. BARBER: And this was like a dram shot action against Parker's, correct? They sold the alcohol.
MARK TINSLEY: Like a dram shot action, yes.
MR. BARBER: And did you get a ruling on that, that request for that financial information from Parker's that was going to be heard on that June 10th date just along with all these other motions that had piled up in a case that apparently wasn't moving very quickly?
MARK TINSLEY: I understand you don't want to acknowledge what I've handed you, but --
MR. BARBER: Sir, I asked you what the ruling was on the motion to compel from Parker's.
MARK TINSLEY: It was very limited, and as it related to the percent of sales of alcohol that made up this profit, it was premature. The judge ruled, unlike he did in that order that I handed you, that it was premature at the time.
MR. BARBER: Why was it premature?
MARK TINSLEY: Well, the difference between Parker's and Alex is that Alex had, and his lawyers had, twenty-five videos of alcohol. They had the punitive damages evidence. You didn't see that with Parker's. It was just a straight up transaction and sale. So, to the extent you're suggesting that there wasn't this evidence, there was these mere allegations of negligent parenting, that wasn't the case. That wasn't the argument --
MR. BARBER: Had you presented that evidence to the Court?
MARK TINSLEY: I didn't have to present it to the Court. That's what you don't understand. John Tiller knew about it; John Tiller is the one who is responding because John Tiller knows ultimately he's going to be in front of a judge.
MR. BARBER: Sir, you're saying the Court granting your motion -- though obviously it was saying there might be a hearing on the motion, and maybe at that hearing you would present some evidence in support, but --
MARK TINSLEY: I don't think that's what it says at all.
MR. BARBER: I mean, you asked for financial information from Parker's. It was deemed premature because it related to punitive damages, correct?
MARK TINSLEY: If it was different than the motion that related to Alex.
MR. BARBER: Because the law is how much money you have is a factor for punitive damages, correct?
MARK TINSLEY: Well, and you're -- you're making statements of law. I'm telling you what was happening, and what was happening was is that Alex's lawyers knew what the evidence was, they knew what the amendment was going to be and the allegations, and he knew ultimately he was going to be back in front of Judge Hall making some ridiculous argument that it appears you're suggesting now.
MR. BARBER: And, again, the gist of this is that there was perhaps going to be this judgment day I think is the term the State has used, but that was going to be trial, right? That was going to be the verdict. That was going to be judgment day, not this motion hearing where there was a pile of motions that have piled up, and we saw the one that asked for financial information was deemed premature.
MARK TINSLEY: Not at all. You know, what was going on, as I've said a number of times, Danny Henderson was very involved. Danny Henderson was a shareholder. Before I would have gotten the bank account information, before I would have seen the records, Danny Henderson would have seen those records. And I've seen the records. I've seen all of the bank statements. Now, it would have been apparent to Danny Henderson, and I believe it would have been apparent to me, what Alex had been doing. So, that's the judgment day is the discovery. And there were a lot of threads that were being pulled and it was subject to unraveling at any moment, and if those records were disclosed, if Danny Henderson reviewed those records, he would have known there's no way that Alex is getting these checks. There's no way these checks are going to Forge. There's no way that this money should be transferred.
MR. BARBER: And even if hypothetically you had this hearing on the 10th and you got a different ruling regarding Alex Murdaugh than you got against Parker's -- for some reason it's not premature to him -- isn't it true all you would have been able -- all you could have gotten would have been a net worth statement, financial statement?
MARK TINSLEY: Not even remotely close.
MR. BARBER: Is that the -- in your opinion, there's no case law out there saying that's what you get, you know, for -- that's the motion for punitive damages net worth. There's no such case in your opinion as an attorney.
MARK TINSLEY: I had seven circuit court orders where the circuit court had ruled that you don't bifurcate discovery, that -- it wouldn't be proper to have denied the motion and then what are we going to do? We're going to try the case and suddenly we're going to stop the trial and go and do the discovery? No. And so I had seven circuit court orders that I handed up to Judge Hall that supported our position. I think that's what Judge Hall did in his order. And again, the issue is not that complicated. It's does he have the ability to pay. Is he broke such that these people should accept this pitiful offer if he can cobble it together.
MR. BARBER: But, sir, that's not what you get on a motion to compel, is it, right? You just said ability to pay so your client can make a decision on whether to accept the settlement offer, but that is not what the motion to compel was about, is it? It's about evidence for trial. That's the legal standard, is it not?
MARK TINSLEY: No. The motion was compel was about putting pressure on Alex. I didn't really give two cents whether or not he ultimately had money because I knew he had money. I didn't need those things. The fact that he didn't want me to have them is the reason that I'm pushing them. I just didn't know why he didn't want me to have them at the time. I do now.
MR. BARBER: So, the motion to compel was to put pressure on Alex. It wasn't about an expectation the judge was actually going to give you this stuff on June 10th?
MARK TINSLEY: If you're a good plaintiff's lawyer, everything you do in a case is to put pressure on the other side.
MR. BARBER: But the expectation of the outcome of a hearing on June 10th was not that you're going to get to launch a full scale forensic audit because you had a conversation with someone who said -- whose lawyer said, oh, he's broke, and you didn't believe it, not at that stage of the litigation, sir, is it? That's not what's going to happen, is it?
MARK TINSLEY: I don't think you need a full scale forensic audit for something a five year old could see, so no.
MR. BARBER: You wanted pretrial ability-to-pay discovery to inform whether or not to accept a potential -- compulsive discovery compelled so that your client could decide whether or not to take a settlement offer?
MARK TINSLEY: I know you don't like the answer, but I'm telling you I did not care about the answer. What I cared about was putting pressure on Alex. I think that your assessment of the law is wrong, and I didn't really care whether I got it at the end of day. I knew he didn't want me to have it, and so that's what I was doing was putting pressure on him. It would have suited me fine not to have ever gotten anything and to have leveraged it into a settlement and gone on about my way. That's not what happened.
MR. BARBER: So, it was -- the motion was not about obtaining information that may have been relevant at trial. It was about getting information to inform whether or not you want -- your client would take a settlement offer.
MARK TINSLEY: What I told Judge Hall was they say he's broke. My people have lived in Hampton their entire lives. They do not believe he's broke. If he's broke, we need to open the books and let them see it so that they can then form an informed opinion about what they should do. It didn't have anything to do with the trial; it had to do with the case and resolving the case.
MR. BARBER: Okay, and then I think we briefly touched on Satterfield. Just to be clear, they came to you. The first time they came into your office was September of '21?
MARK TINSLEY: It's either late August or early September, but -- very early September. And since -- now I'm thinking that since the roadside shooting, whatever that ridiculousness was, was the 4th, it could have been August.
MR. BARBER: Okay, but it was after -- well after June 7th.
MARK TINSLEY: It was after June 7th.
MR. BARBER: Beg the Court's indulgence, please.
(Break in proceedings.)
MR. BARBER: If the hearing had gone forward on June 10th -- this was Thursday. What outcome did you expect?
MARK TINSLEY: The same one that we got when it went forward. The judge hadn't seen --
MR. BARBER: The outcome wouldn't have been the Court will schedule a hearing. I mean, if the hearing had gone forward, what outcome do you -- would you have expected?
MARK TINSLEY: Well, you know, now I know that Alex was working on Monday to get the information together. If the objection was sufficient, there's no reason he would be getting the information together on Monday. So, I could have gotten the information, but since that didn't happen, if we had argued it, I think I would have had the same outcome because he --
MR. BARBER: Let me just make it a littler simpler. Would the Court have issued an order, right? Some order would have issued on the motion.
MARK TINSLEY: Yeah. I would expect an order to issue.
MR. BARBER: Just break it down. An order would have issued at some point later, and what -- if it were granting your motion, what would that order say?
MARK TINSLEY: I think it would say the same thing as --
MR. BARBER: Well, sir, that says a motion hearing will be scheduled if necessary. It obviously didn't say that, so what would the order granting the motion say?
MARK TINSLEY: Again, what it says is is that once Mr. Tiller gets the information from Alex, gives it to me, if necessary, if I deem it insufficient, then we'll have another hearing and we'll argue about it. So, that's what I expect --
MR. BARBER: So, it's a voluntary disclosure, and then if you deem that insufficient, we go have a motion to compel hearing?
MARK TINSLEY: That's the way motions to compel go every single day.
MR. BARBER: So if you deemed it insufficient, if the Court actually had to issue an order on your motion, you would have gotten every -- you would have gotten his -- would the law firm's books have been opened to you?
MARK TINSLEY: I don't know that I'm asking for the law firm books. I'm asking for Alex's accounts.
MR. BARBER: Right. Would you got gotten, what, a financial statement?
MARK TINSLEY: No.
MR. BARBER: The Court would have ordered every account detail listed to you, all of his personal accounts, just because you asked for it to inform a settlement decision?
MARK TINSLEY: I was asking for the names of the institutions where he had accounts; I've told you that a couple of times now.
MR. BARBER: Right, to subpoena --
MARK TINSLEY: Sure, but that's different than if it would have been --
MR. BARBER: But that would have been resisted and there would have been further litigation. This process would have taken some time, wouldn't it, if it was resisted, right?
MARK TINSLEY: I'm not sure -- if what was resisted?
MR. BARBER: If you got the names of the banks and issued subpoenas, there would be motions to quash the subpoenas.
MARK TINSLEY: Well, you know, you're speculating the same as you're asking me to speculate. I'm trying to talk to you about what the judge actually did and what was actually in front of the judge. I get you don't want to talk about that, but -- and we can speculate any number of things could have happened.
MR. BARBER: That at some point in the future, you would maybe get a voluntary disclosure and if you didn't like it, then the motion would be heard, the motion to compel. That's what you say it says, right?
MARK TINSLEY: Well, if we had shown up and they had made the argument that you're advancing here, then maybe in this imaginary world of things that didn't happen the judge would have actually ruled on it. We would have -- we would have a ruling on whether or not it was relevant, whether or not I was entitled to it.
MR. BARBER: And it would have been relevant for Alex but not for Parker's.
MARK TINSLEY: There are different things that are being asked here. And to your point if it were the same, why didn't the judge sign the same order that you say he would have done? That's not what he did. At the same time we argued the Parker's motion, we argued the motion for Alex, and so he came to two different conclusions on those issues. One is he said it's premature. The other is is that Mr. Tiller is going to get the information, give it to the plaintiffs, and if it's not sufficient, we'll have another hearing. I don't know how you can be any clearer than that.
MR. BARBER: Beg the Court's indulgence.
(Break in proceedings.)
MR. BARBER: So, just maybe we can agree on this. If the hearing had gone forward June 10th, that day would not have been some sort of judgment day when everything unravels, correct? There would have been further activity, maybe a voluntary disclosure analysis by you whether it's adequate, another hearing if you thought it wasn't, maybe some subpoenas would go out. There was going to be some time after that. Is that fair?
MARK TINSLEY: I think it's fair that -- to say that there wouldn't have been an explosion on June the 10th, but the fuse was lit the moment that that information became available in the case. Not as much to me, but certainly to Danny Henderson, who would have, like the phone records, like some of the other materials, reviewed it before I got it, and Alex would have known that.
MR. BARBER: I mean, in that analogy isn't -- aren't you really saying that the fuse was lit when the -- you were going after his assets, and that fuse was going to go down until trial because you're going to go to trial against him and that's when the fuse would burn down?
MARK TINSLEY: I think the fuse was lit when he started stealing money, yeah.
MR. BARBER: So, it wasn't lit on -- it wasn't going to be lit on June the 10th?
MARK TINSLEY: It's certainly getting a lot more oxygen.
MR. BARBER: Right, but it was lit way before and it was going to keep burning well after June 10th.
MARK TINSLEY: I don't know about well after, but it wouldn't have been judgment day on June the 10th, but he would have known it was beginning to unravel.
MR. BARBER: Not judgment day on June 10th, though.
MR. BARBER: No further questions, Your Honor.
JUDGE NEWMAN: Yes, sir.
MR. WATERS: Very briefly, Your Honor.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. WATERS:
MR. WATERS: And that's really the point, isn't it, though? That had that hearing taken place on June 10, 2021, it could potentially set in motion, or it was going to set in motion a process that ultimately would not have ended until there was either a settlement or disclosure of that information, correct?
MARK TINSLEY: I believe so.
MR. WATERS: And so just the fact of that hearing taking place and whether it's an order or representations by the defense or whatever it is, that process, if it occurs, starts and it has an inevitable conclusion, correct?
MR. BARBER: Objection, Your Honor. Leading.
JUDGE NEWMAN: Don't lead the witness.
MR. WATERS: If the hearing takes place on June 10, 2021, what is the net effect of what could happen at that point?
MARK TINSLEY: The discovery of everything he's done.
MR. WATERS: Whether it happens that day or some point in time.
MARK TINSLEY: Correct.
MR. WATERS: You had filed this motion to compel -- or had you filed this motion to compel because you had been advised supposedly that Alex was broke and you didn't believe it?
MARK TINSLEY: Exclusively for that reason.
MR. WATERS: And you believed that if he was broke, he had to be hiding assets?
MARK TINSLEY: And if he were hiding assets, he didn't want me to discover it, which would be the pressure point.
MR. WATERS: Were you merely asking for a financial declaration at this June 10, '21, hearing?
MARK TINSLEY: No. I was -- it's broader than that, but I wanted the institutions because I knew I couldn't trust the number I would have gotten.
MR. WATERS: From Alex?
MARK TINSLEY: From Alex.
MR. WATERS: You were asked a little bit about having not pled certain theories yet at this point in time such as negligent entrustment. Can you explain a little bit about why that was -- if that was still out there?
MARK TINSLEY: It was only out there in the sense of the pleadings that were on file. I mean, we -- John Tiller had already agreed to the amendment. It was already coming, and by showing him the videos a long time before that of alcohol, the Facebook social media likes of Paul consuming alcohol, having alcohol -- so, only in the documents that were filed.
MR. WATERS: So, were those issues that were in play in your conversations with the defense?
MARK TINSLEY: I'm sorry?
MR. WATERS: Were those issues already in play in your conversations with the defense?
MARK TINSLEY: I'm not quite following you. Which issue?
MR. WATERS: Additional theories of liability that might not have been filed.
MARK TINSLEY: Oh, absolutely. No. I mean, those were -- all I'm saying is is that the black ink wasn't on the white paper, but John Tiller knew. We had discussed these are the issues.
MR. WATERS: I'm going to hand this back to you. I would show you what has been marked as State's 407 and see if you can recognize that.
MARK TINSLEY: Yes. This is the order that I handed whatever that lawyer's name was.
MR. WATERS: Mr. Barber?
MARK TINSLEY: Yes.
MR. WATERS: And that's from October of 2021. Is that correct?
MARK TINSLEY: It is.
MR. WATERS: You had previously testified that $1 million, you know, was not really -- was not going to be enough at least prior to the murders. Is that correct?
MARK TINSLEY: Correct.
MR. WATERS: Had you come up with a number that had been conveyed that was far, far in excess of that?
MARK TINSLEY: A demand to Alex?
MR. WATERS: Yes.
MARK TINSLEY: Yes.
MR. WATERS: And that also included signing over Moselle and Edisto?
MARK TINSLEY: It was an option.
MR. WATERS: As well as a payment plan?
MARK TINSLEY: Payment plan was an option. It was you pay this amount, you can sign over these properties, work out a payment plan on the balance. I didn't care how we got it done; it was just a matter of him doing it.
MR. WATERS: Was the payment plan an option because you believed that he still would have a lucrative law practice from which he could generate money to pay your clients?
MARK TINSLEY: Yes.
MR. WATERS: Thank you, Your Honor. Nothing further.
JUDGE NEWMAN: Anything further?
MR. BARBER: Nothing, Your Honor.
JUDGE NEWMAN: Thank you. You can step down.
MARK TINSLEY: Thank you, Your Honor.
(The witness exited the stand.)
JUDGE NEWMAN: Next witness.
MR. WATERS: Your Honor, a couple of things. Our next witness would be Ronnie Crosby. Just to let the Court know, the Court indicated Friday that we kind of already established as far as clear and convincing evidence on the law firm issues. Mr. Crosby would be here about that meeting I referenced to Your Honor just to establish the circumstances of that. I don't plan at this time to get into testimony that he may offer about the circumstances of the fake Forge and all of that based on Your Honor saying that you had heard sufficient evidence regarding that, so I just wanted to make sure that that was acceptable to the Court. I didn't want to cross the bridge, though, with this meeting on June the 10th as to the circumstances of it again, and thus -- that if there was no attorney/client privilege to that because of the presence of third parties then I, you know, at that time -- we don't have to do it on the stand but, you know, I would make myself prep in the evening or whatever privy to that particular conversation.
JUDGE NEWMAN: Any other comment about the attorney/client privilege issue, Mr. Griffin?
MR. GRIFFIN: Your Honor, I'm still at a loss as to what he's attempting to accomplish through this.
JUDGE NEWMAN: He wants to call the -- some of the folks as witnesses who were there when you were there along with Mr. Murdaugh.
MR. GRIFFIN: Right, and so if the question -- these witnesses are going to testify as to what Alex and I were talking about -- but we've had attorney/client privilege conversations every day in this courtroom and there are 250 people in this room. Does that mean that the conversations are not privileged? I don't think so. And so it really is more nuance than is someone else in the room, and I don't know if they overheard anything that I talked to Mr. Murdaugh about and that's where this is going. Or if the question is Mr. Murdaugh talking to Mr. Crosby and is that privileged, or Mr. Murdaugh talking to Mr. Lee Cope and is that privileged. I don't -- you know, I'm at a loss here.
JUDGE NEWMAN: I don't know either, but I would say as far as the law is concerned that Mr. Griffin is not the lawyer for Mr. Crosby or any other party. Mr. Griffin was solely the lawyer for Mr. Murdaugh. So, there is no attorney/client privilege involving people Mr. Griffin doesn't represent.
MR. WATERS: Sure. And I guess what -- I'm actually trying out of an abundance of caution to protect his attorney/client privilege. I mean, Mr. Griffin says he's at a loss when I've been bending over backwards to make sure I'm not privy to something that Your Honor might --
JUDGE NEWMAN: Well, he doesn't know what you're seeking; I don't know what you're seeking. There is no client -- attorney/client privilege involving people that Mr. Griffin does not represent. If you have them as witnesses and you're going to call them as witnesses, if they are necessary witnesses in this hearing, you may proceed.
MR. WATERS: Thank you, Your Honor. We would call Ronnie Crosby to the stand.
(ORDER MARKED AS MARKED AS STATE'S EXHIBIT NUMBER 409 FOR IDENTIFICATION.)
JUDGE NEWMAN: You may proceed.