Jeannie Seckinger — Direct/Cross/Redirect/Recross (Recall)
1,937 linesTUESDAY, FEBRUARY 7, 2023
(Court resumed at 9:39 a.m.)
JUDGE NEWMAN: Good morning.
(The gallery replied good morning)
JUDGE NEWMAN: Any further comment or argument regarding the witness from yesterday, the last -- Ms. Smith, Ms. Smith's testimony?
MR. GRIFFIN: Yes, Your Honor. We did get a transcript, an overnight transcript of her testimony of her testimony. It is very rough, but on my recross, if you will, at page 90 I asked her: Have you ever seen this rain jacket before? And the rain jacket, I had put a photograph into evidence, Defendant's Exhibit 87. And she says no. And then I said: Did Alex Murdaugh have that rain jacket with him when he came to Ms. Libby's home on the morning, I believe a few days after the funeral? She says no. Then I asked her: Have you ever been in this closet before -- pointing to the State's exhibit -- where they show something folded up? And she said says: No, I haven't. And then I asked her: So, you don't know what that is folded up there, do you? And she says: Correct. And then I asked her: If what's in that closet is this rain jacket, you've never seen Alex Murdaugh with this garment before, have you? And she says: No, I haven't. And that's the testimony that -- and that's on page 90 of the rough transcript that we got last night -- well, this morning we got it, Your Honor. Thank you.
JUDGE NEWMAN: All right. From the State?
MR. WATERS: Your Honor, again, it is fairly rough to try to read some of this, but as I go back and point to page 65 where the witness was asked to describe it. Again, she talked about observing Alex coming to the house at an unusual time a few days after the murders carrying a bundled up blue vinyl item, and then he -- she was shown a picture with it in that closet where it was recovered, and she said: Do you see the blue object in the center? Yes. Does it appear to look like the object you've described? Yes. You're saying yes. Is it the blue, blue vinyl? Yes. This appears to be the same thing you saw the defendant holding? It looks so, yes. Of course, then you had subsequent testimony from the crime scene investigator about recovering that very item that proved to be the raincoat, which, of course, if you hold it out is very, very large and very much like a tarp. So, I think many of these issues that the defense is raising are issues for jury argument and go to weight, not admissibility.
JUDGE NEWMAN: The witness testified on direct examination that the item in evidence appeared to be what Mr. Murdaugh brought into the house that night. She said it was -- he was carrying something. It was in his arm. She said it was blue something, that it looked something like a tarp, a blue something but she did not -- clearly she did not know what it was. It wasn't opened up and she could not clearly identify the item either as a tarp, as was shown by Mr. Griffin, or as a raincoat. She testified that the item presented was consistent with the -- consistent in appearance with what Mr. Murdaugh brought into the home that night and what was shown in the photograph that was taken. Certainly Mr. Griffin did, I would say, an effective job in cross-examination in raising questions as to the credibility of the witness.
That is the exact job that a jury has to do, that is to weigh the credibility of the witness to determine whether the testimony was consistent on the one hand or inconsistent on the other hand, and this witness was consistent on the one hand and inconsistent on the other hand, but that does not make the testimony inadmissible. It doesn't render the evidence inadmissible. Whether evidence can be made relevant and admissible through inference, the inferences can be drawn from the evidence. It is circumstantial evidence that is a part of this case, which suggests a fact by implication or inference. Could be the appearance at the scene of a crime, testimony that suggests a link to the crime, and if it can, facts can be proven through inference, the facts and circumstances through which the witness testified on direct and cross-examination. And taking the testimony as a whole, the testimony -- the item is in evidence.
I find that it is relevant, and that it creates through inference facts that are in dispute in this case, and I deny the motion to strike her testimony, if that's what the motion is. I deny the motion to declare her testimony as being irrelevant, and the latest motion was that it's prejudicial, or prejudicial, or the results of an examination of the item is prejudicial. Of course, we haven't had that testimony, but we have an item in evidence -- we have many items in evidence. We, have -- you know, the items are being placed in evidence as -- what number are we up to now? 400 or 500?
MR. WATERS: We're in the 400s, Your Honor.
JUDGE NEWMAN: 400 items of evidence. Witnesses have been questioned as to whether they walked the side of the roadway to see whether anything was along the roadway other than a cell phone. Witnesses have been questioned as to whether or not they looked down the drain pipe of a tub or shower, or just any number of questions have been posed with a witness -- to the witnesses as to -- as it relates to discovery of evidence. This evidence was obtained through a search warrant, it is in evidence, and it's there for the jury's consideration. Certainly once an item is in evidence and as long as a chain of custody has been established, there can be testimony as to what it is or of what significance is it, and that's the stage we are here in these proceedings, and I deny the motion to strike it, to find it for relevance purposes, or because it creates a -- or presents evidence favorable to the State, which automatically means it would be prejudicial to the defendant. Yes, sir.
MR. GRIFFIN: Your Honor, just to clarify, the motion that the defense made late yesterday afternoon was in advance of Megan Fletcher, SLED Agent Megan Fletcher's testimony that there's GSR on the blue rain jacket, and so the motion was to prevent her from testifying as to the GSR and the testing of the rain jacket under 403. I understand the Court's ruling. I don't think they're going to call Ms. Fletcher first, but when she does take the stand, we will for the record renew the objection.
JUDGE NEWMAN: Well, that's just the point. You say you object under 403 claiming it's more prejudicial than probative, and that's a fact finding issue; that's an issue to be weighed not by me but by the fact finder. I am to determine whether it's more prejudicial than probative. It is -- it's relevant. It's apparently important enough that the State seek to use it. All evidence adverse to the defendant can be considered to be prejudicial, but I do not find where the -- any prejudice substantially outweighs its probative value, so I deny that motion. I certainly respect your objection. The witness was sort of all over the place with her testimony and appeared to be confused. I'm not sure she -- she obviously was not of the same level of -- unable to articulate her thoughts through her emotions and through this setting of being examined and cross-examined in this case, but the testimony taken as a whole shows that she identified the item as being consistent with what she thought the defendant brought in. She said he had something in it, it was important enough for her to contact someone about it, and to -- that landed her here on the witness stand, among other things, other reasons. But everything is noted and protected for the record.
MR. GRIFFIN: Thank you, Your Honor.
JUDGE NEWMAN: Yes, sir. Are you ready for the jury?
MR. WATERS: The State is ready to proceed, Your Honor.
JUDGE NEWMAN: All right, regarding juror number 729, I spoke with him briefly. I spoke with -- I guess I have now said him. I broke with that juror briefly this morning and he is going to stay with us. He's going to -- he's made some arrangements, he thinks, with his job and he's going to stay with us. We have another juror, however, juror number 548, who made contact with the Court and says that he's at the emergency room this morning. There's no -- we don't know what his situation is. He is an alternate juror, and we will need to proceed without him, juror number 548. As time passes attrition kicks in, and we have done well thus far. This will be the first juror who will be excused. He's at the emergency room; we don't know how long he'll be there. We are not going to delay the trial until we find out, so we'll proceed without that juror. Yes, sir?
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: No objection, Your Honor.
MR. WATERS: No objection from the State, Your Honor.
JUDGE NEWMAN: All right. If you will bring the jury.
(The jury returned to the courtroom.)
COURT BAILIFF: The jury is present, sir.
JUDGE NEWMAN: Thank you. Good morning.
(The jury responded good morning.)
JUDGE NEWMAN: Day number -- is it day number twelve? Day number twelve. Eleven, day number eleven. Are you sure? Twelve. I said twelve, yeah, day number twelve, State's case. You may proceed with the State's case.
MR. WATERS: Thank you, Your Honor. May it please the Court? The State would call Jeannie Seckinger.
MR. GRIFFIN: Your Honor, for the record we renew our objection to this.
JUDGE NEWMAN: Yes, sir.
The witness, JEANNIE SECKINGER, was first duly sworn and testified as follows:
COURT CLERK: State your name again for the record when you take your seat, and spell your last name, please.
JEANNIE SECKINGER: My name is Jeannie Seckinger, S-e-c-k-i-n-g-e-r.
DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. WATERS:
MR. WATERS: Ms. Seckinger, how are you doing today?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: I'm good.
MR. WATERS: Awesome. Tell the jury a little bit about yourself, if you could. Just kind of introduce yourself. Where did you grow up, where did you go to school, if you would?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: I grew up in Hampton, South Carolina, graduated from Wade Hampton. Went to the University of South Carolina where I got any BS in accounting. After that I worked a number of years in public accounting, then I transferred into -- as a financial analyst with Westinghouse in Hampton. And after the birth of my second child, I stayed home and worked for my husband just a few years. And in 1999 I came to work with the firm on a part-time basis doing some special projects and have not left, and that job has grown since that time until I was over all of the business aspects and financial aspects of the law firm.
MR. WATERS: All right. Which law firm are you talking about?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: Peters, Murdaugh, Parker, Elzroth, Detrick.
MR. WATERS: Is that PMPED?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: That's correct.
MR. WATERS: Is that what the firm is currently known, or is it known by a different name?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: We are now a separate entity that we've reorganized as Parker -- Parker -- Parker Law Group, LLP.
MR. WATERS: All right, and do you know the defendant, Alex Murdaugh, over there?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: I do.
MR. WATERS: Do you see him in the courtroom?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: I do.
MR. WATERS: Can you identify him, please?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: He is in the blue jacket and white shirt sitting between Jim and Dick.
MR. WATERS: Your Honor, can the record reflect she's identified the defendant?
JUDGE NEWMAN: It does.
MR. WATERS: All right. Was he a partner in the law firm you're speaking of?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: He was.
MR. WATERS: Is he a partner anymore?
MR. WATERS: And we're going to talk about some of those things and the reasons for that here today. Is that correct?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: That's correct.
MR. WATERS: All right. So, I'm going to call it PMPED, what we're talking about. Is that fair?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: That's fair.
MR. WATERS: All right. Well, tell me. You talked a little bit about your role with PMPED. What would you consider your role, or how would you define your role particularly as we're moving into June of 2021?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: At that point, I would be CFO/COO basically over all office management and all financial affairs of the office, over hiring and firing, HR, just any -- like I said, any business aspect of the firm.
MR. WATERS: So CFO, that means what?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: Chief Financial Officer.
MR. WATERS: And COO, that means what?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: Chief Operating Officer, and so I've kind of combined those jobs.
MR. WATERS: All right. Are you a lawyer?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: I am not.
MR. WATERS: Are you an accountant?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: I am.
MR. WATERS: Do you have a CPA?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: I do.
MR. WATERS: All right. You said you started work at the firm when?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: August of '99.
MR. WATERS: And that when did -- was Alex working there at that time, the defendant?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: I think Alex came to work the year after me.
MR. WATERS: Okay. Did you know him prior to that?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: I did. I've known Alex since I was sixteen years old in high school.
MR. WATERS: Y'all went to high school together?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: We did. He was a few years behind me, but we were in the same school.
MR. WATERS: And you worked with Alex in the law firm up until September of 2021?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: I did.
MR. WATERS: Let's talk a little bit, if we could, about the law firm itself, and tell me a little bit about the financial structure of the law firm. How does it work that fees come into the law firm, and how do they get disbursed at the end of year? Can you explain that to the jury a little bit?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: Yes. So, every fee that any attorney makes is property of the law firm. It comes into the law firm and goes into the law firm's account, and it is sitting in kind of what we call a holding account that we just amass the money. We have another account called the operating account that we use to pay the daily bills of the law firm: wages, insurance, office supplies, et cetera. Each attorney in the law firm is also an employee of the law firm. They receive a paycheck just like most people do with W2, taxes taken out, and a W2 at the end of year. When we get to the end of year, we figure the net profit of the law firm, basically everything brought in and everything paid out to date, and we distribute that money based off a ratio of what that fee -- what that attorney brought in to total. So, if an attorney brought in 10 percent, he's going to get roughly 10 percent of the net income at the end of the year, and we do that in the form of a bonus one time at the end of the year.
MR. WATERS: All right. When is that bonus typically paid?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: That bonus is typically paid the last week of December every year.
MR. WATERS: And is that the -- for most cases and most of the partners, as we're going to call them, in the law firm, is that the vast majority of their compensation of year is getting it all in one sum -- lump sum at the end of year in December?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: That's correct. They receive a salary of 125 through the year that they're paid every two weeks, but the vast majority of their money comes in that one bonus check.
MR. WATERS: Now, you mentioned there was a salary. In looking back in June of 2021, what were the partners in the law firm, what were they getting as a salary?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: 125,000 a year.
MR. WATERS: All right, 125,000, and that was broken up into checks like people are used to.
JEANNIE SECKINGER: Twenty-six times a year, yes.
MR. WATERS: Okay, and then -- so that has to be accounted for the before bonuses are paid, correct?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: That's correct.
MR. WATERS: Salaries not only for the partners but also for all of the other employees.
JEANNIE SECKINGER: That's correct, all staff.
MR. WATERS: All right, and is there other overhead that has to be accounted for out of the fees before that bonus can be paid?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: Yes. All of the other overhead is the basic operating expenditures like I've discussed: rent for the building, insurance coverage, insurance coverage for the employees, office supplies, case costs that we advance for our clients if we paid things as we go during the case. We pay experts, record fees, all of that is a part of overhead. So, after everything that's paid -- everything brought in, after everything that's paid out is what we call that net income that we distribute.
MR. WATERS: Is there some sort of 7 and a half percent fund or offset that has to be accounted for as well before the bonus is paid?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: There is. We have what we call 7 and a half percent kind of a profit sharing, and everybody takes a -- their gross fees less their portion of overhead, we take overhead and divide it by the number of partners. And so you would take -- we're just going to use numbers. If your gross fees were $100,000 an hour and overhead was $50,000, you have a net of $50,000. And we take 7 and a half percent of that and put it in a pot and divide it back evenly in between everybody. And that purpose is meant to cover when somebody has a high year or a low year, it kind of helps people out and it helps account for differences in expenses between each attorney.
MR. WATERS: So, all of that has to be taken care of before the bonus is paid out to the partners at the end of the year. Is that correct?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: That's correct.
MR. WATERS: And then whatever money is left over is divided up based on the percentage of the fees that that particular partner brought in of the whole -- or for the year. Is that correct?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: That's correct.
MR. WATERS: So if you had a better year, you're going to get a little bit more than somebody who didn't have as good a year.
JEANNIE SECKINGER: Absolutely.
MR. WATERS: Over time, being the CFO, did Alex Murdaugh have a very lucrative practice?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: He did.
MR. WATERS: Were there times where his bonus was high six figures?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: Definitely.
MR. WATERS: Were there times his bonus was seven figures?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: There has been.
MR. WATERS: And was it typical for the vast majority of his compensation to be in that one time bonus at the end of the year as opposed to the $125,000 salary?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: Yes, his and everybody else's.
MR. WATERS: And that $125,000 salary for these individuals was a fairly small part of the compensation.
JEANNIE SECKINGER: Correct.
MR. WATERS: Now, one of the things that you mentioned is that -- at the very beginning is you said all fees belong to the firm. Is that right?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: That is right.
MR. WATERS: And I'm going to show you what's been marked as Exhibit 310 to your testimony real quick and see if you can recognize this particular document.
JEANNIE SECKINGER: I do. This is the employment agreement that each of the attorneys in the firm signed.
MR. WATERS: All right. I'll take that back real quick.
MR. WATERS: Can I have the ELMO, please?
(Break in proceedings.)
MR. WATERS: I would offer 310 at this time into evidence.
MR. GRIFFIN: No additional objection, Your Honor.
JUDGE NEWMAN: It's admitted.
(EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT MARKED AS STATE'S EXHIBIT NUMBER 310 WAS RECEIVED INTO EVIDENCE.)
MR. WATERS: Let me let this ELMO boot up real quick.
(Break in proceedings.)
MR. WATERS: All right. So, is this Exhibit 310. Is this the first page of that agreement?
MR. WATERS: All right, and on your little screen up there, can you read that all right?
MR. WATERS: Okay. If we look at it, it's talking about employer and employees. Now, we've been talking about the law firm partners, but in the agreement what are they referred to as?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: They're actually shareholders. So, we refer to them as partners in the fact that they all work together and support each other, but because of the tax entity, we are their shareholders. It's just a legal and accounting determination, but, in fact, you'll see them referred to as shareholders.
MR. WATERS: All right, but in this agreement they're called employees, correct?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: That's correct.
MR. WATERS: Now, just real quick, you're talking about paying out the bonus at the end of year and that's where the vast majority of compensation for the partners goes out. Is there a tax reason for that? Do y'all clear the books at the end of the year?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: We do clear the books at the end of the year. We function as a C-Corporation, which means any money that's left in that C-Corporation would pay a tax, too. So, to avoid double taxation, we pass that money down to the partners to the best of our ability.
MR. WATERS: All right, and so you try to zero out the books?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: We do.
MR. WATERS: All right, and that's to avoid taxing on anything that remained in the firm accounts.
JEANNIE SECKINGER: Correct.
MR. WATERS: So, let me ask you this. If the firm essentially zeroes out the books by paying these bonuses to all of the partners at the end of year, how do you operate in the few -- you know, January and February where we're at now before fees start to come in, what money do you use to do that?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: So, typically a group of the partners will go in and loan money back to the firm to cover our first couple of months of operating and expenses, and as we recover money through the year, we'll pay them back or pay them off. So, we're basically starting at an almost negative by borrowing that money.
MR. WATERS: All right, and so some of the partners will loan money to the firm to operate until there's enough fees that come in to generate enough money. Is that correct?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: That's correct.
MR. WATERS: Do the partners have to do that, or is that something they can do if they want?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: That's something that they can do if they want.
MR. WATERS: Was Alex one to ever do that?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: Alex never did that.
MR. WATERS: Okay. Before we go on back to this agreement, let me ask you a little bit as far as the firm account. You mentioned there's an operating account, correct?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: That's correct.
MR. WATERS: And then there is a client trust account, correct?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: That's correct.
MR. WATERS: Trust account.
JEANNIE SECKINGER: Trust account.
MR. WATERS: Tell me what the client trust account is, please.
JEANNIE SECKINGER: So, the trust account is a fiduciary account, meaning that we have the responsibility to maintain and safeguard that money. It's where the account, whenever a case settles, that the money that is paid from the insurance company or individual from the defendant is put into that client trust account. And that's also where the money is disbursed out to any clients or any lienholders or anything to do with that disbursement. It's also where we collect our fees and expenses from.
MR. WATERS: And are there legal obligations and money in the client trust account to ensure that that money only goes to the legitimate places it's supposed to go?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: That's correct.
MR. WATERS: And if the law firm wins a case, whether by settlement or by trial, any recovery they get, does it go in that trust account first before the law firm gets paid?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: Everything does, yes.
MR. WATERS: Now, I'm going to go back to exhibits -- this -- the employment agreement, I believe, is Exhibit 310. And right here in line 3 right there, can you read that to the jury, please?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: Services for the benefit of employer. All professional services rendered by the employee shall be rendered as an employee of the employer, and all proceeds and remuneration received therefore shall enure to the employer's benefit.
MR. WATERS: All right, and this is the agreement signed by all of the partners, correct?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: Correct.
MR. WATERS: And back in 2021 it was signed by Alex Murdaugh, correct?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: Correct.
MR. WATERS: And all the years prior, correct?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: Correct.
MR. WATERS: And what does that provision mean? Explain that again for the jury.
JEANNIE SECKINGER: That means that any work they do providing legal services and any money earned by them belongs to the law firm, not the partner, to the law firm, and should run through the law firm's books and accounts.
MR. WATERS: It has to go through the law firm's books before it can --
JEANNIE SECKINGER: Correct.
MR. WATERS: And then they have to wait to the end of year for it to be accounted for after paying all of the overhead and the salary and the 7 and a half and all of the rest of it.
JEANNIE SECKINGER: That's correct.
MR. WATERS: If a law partner were to divert fees to himself personally and not send them to the law firm, what would that be?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: Stealing.
MR. WATERS: Stealing. Okay. Tell me a little bit, if you would, about the management structure of the law firm. How does that work? Just very quickly.
JEANNIE SECKINGER: So each attorney apparently -- they all -- I can't even speak -- they all have equal authority and equal choice. But basically we'll have a little committee each year that we can go to with day-to-day issues and make some basic decisions that are then gone on and voted by the whole firm. I report directly to each and every attorney. So, I would handle day-to-day obligations within certain authorities, and if I had an issue, then I would go to this committee or somebody who is present because a lot of times attorneys are out of the building traveling and hard -- and it would kind of go up the rank from there.
MR. WATERS: Okay. Was Alex very involved in the actual management of the firm?
MR. WATERS: Were other partners more involved in the management of the firm?
MR. WATERS: Tell me. What was your observation of Alex as a lawyer in the office? What was your observations and characterizations of him?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: Alex kept different hours than a lot of the rest of us. He came in and he would work late. Always loud, always busy, always in a rush. He had the gift of gab, but he always seemed last minute and hurried and frenetic.
MR. WATERS: All right. Always last minute and frenetic?
MR. WATERS: What about his cell phone use? How was he with a cell phone?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: Constantly on the phone.
MR. WATERS: Constantly on the phone. What were your observations of him as a lawyer?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: I think Alex was successful, more not from his work ethic but from his ability to establish relationships and to manipulate people into settlements and clients into liking him. So, he did it through the art of bullshit basically.
MR. WATERS: That can be an art.
JEANNIE SECKINGER: Uh-huh.
MR. WATERS: Did he, in your estimation and your judgment -- was he more of a technical type lawyer, or was he one that really understood how to use the emotion of a case?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: He would use the emotion of a case and the emotion of his clients.
MR. WATERS: Did he understand the emotional value that the sympathies of a case could have?
MR. GRIFFIN: Your Honor, I'm going to object. He's asked her to testify as to what he understands, what's in his mind, and I object.
JUDGE NEWMAN: I sustain the objection.
MR. WATERS: With Alex's -- your observations of Alex as a lawyer, what skills did you see in how he was able to value a case?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: I would think that he was able to read the client. It seemed to -- he always got higher settlements than it looks like they should appear, going back when we reviewed everything. So, I think that he used his personality more than technical skill. I think that -- you know, we looked back and we see things that were manipulated and set up, and I believe he did that a lot with his clients as well.
MR. WATERS: You mentioned that -- did Alex get good results? Did the defendant get good results?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: It appeared that they usually did, yes.
MR. WATERS: Were they very lucrative results?
MR. WATERS: Did you have any observations in working with Alex for twenty some odd years about his memory?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: I think that looking back where I thought he was chaotic and didn't remember things, or kind of got bored with details sometimes and wouldn't finish things off, I really think, looking back as we've gone back and pieced together a lot of this, that we saw where he would tell people one thing and another person another. So, my opinion looking back, I think he had almost a photographic memory to keep all of the balls in the air that we were -- we now saw were in the air. It appears that he would have to have a really strong memory.
MR. WATERS: Stand by for me real quick.
(Break in proceedings.)
MR. WATERS: You had mentioned before that for the firm to operate at the beginning of the year after it cleared its books that it would loan or take loans from partners at their option in order to sort of give some seed money until fees started to roll in. Is that correct?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: That is correct.
MR. WATERS: All right. I'm going to show you what's been marked as Exhibit 428 to your testimony and just have you take a look at that and ask you if you recognize those documents as it relates to a particular instance involving the defendant.
JEANNIE SECKINGER: I do.
MR. WATERS: All right, and tell -- tell me about this instance. What happened here, please?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: Okay. So, this is in 2017. A check for the payment got mistakenly written to R. Alexander Murdaugh instead of his brother, Randolph Murdaugh. So, the loan payoff was written to Alex.
MR. WATERS: All right. Let me slow you down. So, does his brother work for the law firm?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: His brother does work for the law firm.
MR. WATERS: What name does he go by?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: Randy. He goes by Randy Murdaugh; his legal name is Randolph Murdaugh, IV.
MR. WATERS: Okay. Had Randy Murdaugh loaned money to the law firm?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: He did.
MR. WATERS: Had Alex Murdaugh loaned money?
MR. WATERS: All right, and so what happened there?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: So as we said, we had the clerical error, and a few days later Alex came to our staff, and it's not quite clear which staff because our records don't show that, but a voided check -- he acted as if he'd lost this original check and had another check written. So, a replacement check was then written to Alex again, which was a mistake again.
MR. WATERS: Did that second check get cashed?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: The second check got cashed pretty much immediately, within a week or two, and then about a year later the first check got cashed as well, and that's when I caught in the system that he had cashed both checks. In looking back, I realized that the mistake had been made and that somebody had hit -- their names are right beside each other in the vendor list and they made a clerical mistake, and that he was paid money that he was not owed.
MR. WATERS: All right. Ultimately was -- did he get that money twice that he was not supposed to have received?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: He did.
MR. WATERS: And ultimately was it because he claimed that he had lost the first check?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: Correct.
MR. WATERS: Ultimately did he cash those checks?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: He did.
MR. WATERS: And cashed the original one a year later. Is that correct?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: Correct.
MR. WATERS: All right. Was he confronted about this back at that time when it was detected, I guess, in 2017? Is that right?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: He was.
MR. WATERS: And he was confronted at that time?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: He was. Not -- I don't remember that he was confronted by me. I know that Danny Henderson spoke with him about it, and Alex just claimed that he made a mistake and thought that he had made -- that he had loaned the money that year, and Danny chose to kind of let it go and sweep it under the rug.
MR. WATERS: Did he pay it back at that point?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: He did pay it back.
MR. WATERS: All right. So, that happened, and the explanation was given and then he was allowed to pay it back. Is that correct?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: That is correct.
MR. WATERS: And everybody moved on, right?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: That's correct. I have to point out that it was -- these attorneys worked as a brotherhood and were very -- family, and they trusted him and accepted this as the explanation.
MR. WATERS: What was that word you just used? You said it was a brotherhood?
MR. WATERS: So when the attorneys are dealing with one another, when the attorneys are dealing with you, how were y'all dealing with one another? What's the basis of that?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: Trust.
MR. WATERS: Trust?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: Trust.
MR. WATERS: So, over the years when Alex Murdaugh would tell you that -- do a transaction or anything like that, what were you relying on?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: His word and trust.
MR. WATERS: Are you generally familiar with what's been known as the boat case?
MR. WATERS: All right, and do you remember that occurring around February of 2019?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: I do.
MR. WATERS: All right, and again without going into the specifics of the boat case, what was your general understanding of the boat case? Well, let me ask you this. Was his son, Paul, charged with driving a boat in the boat case to your knowledge?
MR. WATERS: And was Alex Murdaugh sued civilly in the boat case because of the death of Mallory Beach?
MR. WATERS: After the boat case, did you notice any changes in Alex's behavior or his demeanor around the office?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: I can't say that I really did up until November/December of '20, late '20.
MR. WATERS: Okay, and what did you notice then?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: Didn't really notice it then. We can go back and notice it now. That's when he started making some disbursements that he was stealing from that started getting sloppy. So, the things that I noticed are more in hindsight.
MR. WATERS: I put this exhibit up on the screen. Let me -- I'm getting ahead of myself.
MR. WATERS: This is Exhibit 428, which I would offer into evidence. That was the checks.
MR. GRIFFIN: Yeah. No additional objection.
MR. WATERS: All right, and sorry about --
JUDGE NEWMAN: Admitted without objection.
(COPY OF CHECK MARKED AS STATE'S EXHIBIT NUMBER 428 WAS RECEIVED INTO EVIDENCE.)
MR. WATERS: I just want to go back real quick. 428, this the loan check you were talking about. Is that right?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: That's right.
MR. WATERS: This is where Alex erroneously received a check meant for his brother, Randy?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: That's right.
MR. WATERS: And ultimately managed to get the same amount twice. Is that correct?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: That's right.
MR. WATERS: And how much is that check for? I can bring it to you if you need to see it.
JEANNIE SECKINGER: You're going to have to.
MR. WATERS: Yeah, I'll bring it to you. The screen over here is bigger than that one.
JEANNIE SECKINGER: It was for $121,358.63.
MR. WATERS: $121,000, correct?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: That's correct.
MR. WATERS: When he received the check, did Alex say no, this isn't mine, this isn't my $121,000 check?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: No, he didn't.
MR. WATERS: Now, you mentioned -- you started to talk about some things you noticed in late of 2020, and let's just set the table a lit bit more before we do that. You mentioned disbursements. Tell the jury -- before we see some paperwork, tell the jury how disbursements go about. Is there certain paperwork that's done, and how do the lawyers interface with the finance stuff for that to be accomplished?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: Okay. So, a disbursement after a case is won, or what we call settled, the money comes into the client trust just like I talked about. A disbursement will recap how much money was won, how much attorney fees, how much expenses were withheld or earned for our firm in that, and then it will list any loans or liens that need to be paid off. And what I mean by that is like medical liens, medical bills, insurance companies getting their money back for items that they paid, and then it will show the balance that goes to the client.
MR. WATERS: And so then how do they interface with the finance staff? What does the finance staff do as opposed to when the attorneys prepare those disbursement forms?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: So, it comes over to our finance department. We have the supporting documentation with it, and we will process the checks based off the attorney's signature. Those then go back to the attorneys that handled the case or the paralegals that handled the case. They meet with the client and explain the disbursement to them and give them the funds.
MR. WATERS: Okay. Is the finance staff relying on what the lawyers are sending them to determine what checks should be cut?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: Yes, with support.
MR. WATERS: With support?
MR. WATERS: Ultimately are they trusting the attorneys to provide them correct information?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: We are.
MR. WATERS: All right. So, you mentioned that something had happened in late 2020 that was the first thing that you started to notice in the wake of the boating case that was a little different. Tell the jury what you were about to talk about.
JEANNIE SECKINGER: As I said, in late 2020 I really didn't notice it at that point, but some of these items that we're going to discuss started happening at that point. My discovery of things started coming to a head in May of '21.
MR. WATERS: In May of 2021?
MR. WATERS: All right, and tell me. What was the first thing that came to your attention?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: So, one thing that came to attention was a disbursement that the fees were made out and processed to Forge Consulting, and what that meant is that the fees weren't going into our personal account like they should have. They weren't going to the firm. Forge is a -- Forge Consulting is a true company that you can do structures of attorney fees, but the way that this was done was not correct. To do a correct structure you have --
MR. WATERS: Well, let me slow you down and -- so we can unpack this a little bit.
JEANNIE SECKINGER: Okay.
MR. WATERS: All right. Let's first talk about what is a structure? What is a structure? What does that mean?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: So, a structure means that you can set up a fee in the agreement with the insurance company that you can put that money into an annuity, that you'll get it out later. You can avoid taxes now and take them out when you're sixty- five or whatever year you determine. So, it's a way that they can defer income for retirement. If they're having a good year, they can do that.
MR. WATERS: So, maybe an explanation would be kind of like the lottery. You can either get your settlement in one lump sum or you can get it paid over time, correct?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: Correct.
MR. WATERS: All right, and so this is what a structure is is getting it paid over time.
JEANNIE SECKINGER: Correct.
MR. WATERS: And are there tax benefits associated with doing a structure?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: They would avoid taxes the year that they made the fee, and they would pay the taxes when they got it out, similar to your retirement 401(k).
MR. WATERS: And is it sometimes common for plaintiff's lawyers, lawyers who get recoveries for clients, to have their clients get the settlement in a structure as opposed to getting it all in one lump sum so that there's some security over time with that money?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: It is definitely a vehicle that can be used by plaintiff's lawyers. We don't do it very often in our firm and when it is done, it has to be -- every partner needs to know about it and it needs to be agreed upon because obviously that money is not coming into the firm to help with overhead and expenses. So, we have to agree on it, and we have to account for it in our allocations at the end of the year to determine bonuses that we're going to pay out.
MR. WATERS: Sure, but I'm talking about with clients right now. So, clients that receive a settlement, they can elect to either get it in one lump sum, or they can get a structured annuity over time where they get it, however much a year from however many years it goes, correct?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: Yeah, that's true, too.
MR. WATERS: All right. Kind of like the lottery. You have the whole big thing with taxes or you can get a bigger sum over time, correct?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: That's correct.
MR. WATERS: And so some clients might choose to get it over time so that their money is more secure over a longer time, correct?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: Correct, and you generally see that when it's a minor involved or somebody with special needs that has a disability of some sort.
MR. WATERS: And so what is Forge Consulting, the legitimate business Forge Consulting? What do they do?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: They set up structured annuities for clients like we're talking about. They do special-needs trusts for people who are injured and are going to need life care plans, and they handle that for them. They have a few other things that they do, but I'm not familiar as much with those services.
MR. WATERS: Have they provided services over the years -- the legitimate company, Forge Consulting -- legitimate services to the law firm and its clients over the years in helping them set up structured settlements?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: They do. We've used them 250 to 300 times.
MR. WATERS: And is there -- who's kind of like the main guy in Forge Consulting, the legitimate business?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: Michael Gunn.
MR. WATERS: All right. Now, you mentioned that we're not talking now about the clients structuring their settlements, but what if a lawyer wins a big case and wants to -- so he's going to get a huge fee. Let me ask you this first. Generally what is the legal fees for the firm when they win a case, whether by settlement or by trial?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: Generally they're 33 percent to 40 percent, and it depends on what stages the case was in or the work we had to do. So, if we settle a case before we have to start doing summons and complaints and depositions or going to trial, we take 33 and a third percent. If it goes further we do 40 percent, and it can go to 45 percent if it's on an appeal. But generally speaking it's between a third and 40 percent.
MR. WATERS: Okay. So, let's say that somebody is a partner and let's say they win a case at $10 million, and it was a 40 percent one. So, they're going to get the $4 million fee, correct?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: Correct.
MR. WATERS: All right. Let's say that they decided that instead of taking that fee, that $4 million fee, they want to structure that fee just like a client would. Can they do that?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: They can do that, and that's what I was referring to before with the authorization of the other partners in making sure that we have enough money to operate and enough money to account for it. If they do that, it's supposed to be done in the release, and the insurance company will send the money directly to Forge Consulting and not through us.
MR. WATERS: Okay, because it can't go through y'all directly or it doesn't work. Is that correct?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: Or you would not get the tax benefit of it.
MR. WATERS: And if an attorney still had to do that, they're going to have to work everything out with y'all to make sure everything is accounted for for the end-of-year bonuses and everything else, correct?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: That's correct.
MR. WATERS: Is that a common thing that people in the firm were doing?
MR. WATERS: All right. So, kind of setting all of that up, did you -- what came to your attention as it related to the defendant, Alex Murdaugh?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: So in May '17, there was a disbursement called Hershberger, that the fees were such -- I would have to look at the exact disbursement, but it said structured fees, Forge, and it had an amount.
MR. WATERS: Let me get something marked real quick.
JEANNIE SECKINGER: Yeah.
(Break in proceedings.)
MR. WATERS: All right. I'm going to show you what's been marked as Exhibit 429 of your testimony and have you just flip through that real quick, and tell me generally what that is.
JEANNIE SECKINGER: This is the disbursements to do with the money recovered in the Hershberger case, and this one had multiple disbursements.
MR. WATERS: All right. Well, let's just talk about the one you were just referring to. I'll show it to you.
JEANNIE SECKINGER: Okay. It's this page.
MR. WATERS: On the third page of this exhibit. Is that right?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: That's right.
MR. WATERS: All right. Pick up your story. What did you notice that came to your attention?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: So it says PMPED attorney fee, then in parenthesis it had Forge. The check had been made out payable to Forge. I knew this was incorrect, so I went and had a discussion with Alex about this. And the basics of discussion was is we needed to know about -- if they were going to do a structured annuity, we needed to do it. I also told him that the way he had done it was incorrect, that he would not be saving any tax consequences, that he needed to properly set it up with the insurance company on the front side.
MR. WATERS: All right, and why wasn't it done right? Why were you telling -- at least from what you knew at the time, why did you think it was not being done right?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: Basically because it should have gone from the insurance company directly to Forge. We would not write a check and send it to Forge for a structured fee.
MR. WATERS: Let me put this up on the screen just real quick.
MR. GRIFFIN: Your Honor, no other objections for 429.
MR. WATERS: All right. At this time I would move State's 429 into evidence, I believe, without additional objection.
JUDGE NEWMAN: It's admitted.
(DISBURSEMENT DOCUMENTS MARKED AS STATE'S EXHIBIT NUMBER 429 WERE RECEIVED INTO EVIDENCE.)
MR. WATERS: All right. So, is this the disbursement sheet you were talking about?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: Yes, sir.
MR. WATERS: And this is generally the first one that the jury has seen, but this is generally how disbursement sheets look that are prepared by the law firm?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: Yes. You generally see the caption and then our inside number, which is the matter ID. You'll see the recovery and who's paid out. Then the next section should be your fee and expenses.
MR. WATERS: All right. So, you've got the fee right there, correct?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: That's correct.
MR. WATERS: And then you have expenses. And what, generally, what are expenses?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: So, the expenses are the case costs that we pay going along: costs to get depositions and pay transcribers, medical records, expert opinions. Sometimes vehicles are involved that we store. So, it's anything that we pay on behalf of that case.
MR. WATERS: All right, and so they would have to come out of the recovery, too, correct?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: That's correct.
MR. WATERS: And that's separate from the attorney's fees, correct?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: Correct.
MR. WATERS: All right. So, when y'all settle a case, you're going to get your attorney's fees, but you're also going to get paid back any costs and expenses you had to litigate the case.
JEANNIE SECKINGER: That's correct.
MR. WATERS: Two separate amounts.
JEANNIE SECKINGER: Correct.
MR. WATERS: All right, and then we've got a lien. Explain to me what a lien is and what -- how these affect disbursements, if you would, please.
JEANNIE SECKINGER: So, a lien is -- it can be as simple as paying a doctor's bill that was guaranteed, or it can be paying back subrogation, which means -- subrogation just means if you had insurance that covered it personally, your Blue Cross/Blue Shield, and we recovered money, Blue Cross/Blue Shield or Medicare or Medicaid, if you had that, would then be seeking their money back. So, that would be a lien.
MR. WATERS: So, sometimes if somebody had got injured like in a car wreck or something might have medical bills, and there's a lien for that?
MR. WATERS: And sometimes funds might be withheld to satisfy the medical bills?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: That's correct, too.
MR. WATERS: Is it common for the law firm to then negotiate with the medical provider like a hospital or whatever and see if he can get that medical bill down to a number they'll settle for?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: That is correct.
MR. WATERS: And then if you save any money between what their bill was and what you get them to accept, is that additional money that should go back to the client?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: That's right.
MR. WATERS: And are those very common in those types of cases?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: Yes, and generally we will not hold up disbursing the money to the client waiting on that to happen because it can take awhile. So, we may have a disbursement that leaves some money in our account, the balance of those bills, while we're negotiating them, and then we'll do a second disbursement to pay those clients that money, or the provider the money.
MR. WATERS: All right. So, you pay them the big amount first, and then if you're lucky enough to settle for a lesser amount, then whatever is left over you'll send them later.
JEANNIE SECKINGER: Correct.
MR. WATERS: All right. So, then down here we have then the ultimate settlement -- disbursement to the beneficiaries, the clients. Is that correct?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: That's right, and if there's multiple, as this one, you would see the split between the two.
MR. WATERS: And just real quick, whose signature is that right there?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: That is Alex's.
MR. WATERS: And have you -- you've worked with him for how long, or did work with him for --
JEANNIE SECKINGER: Twenty-three years, twenty-two years.
MR. WATERS: All right, and so you got very familiar with his signature?
MR. WATERS: Do you recognize that as his signature?
MR. WATERS: All right. Going back here to this disbursement, we have PMPED attorney's fee, Forge, and then you have that amount. And then what is this next page of this exhibit?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: That's the canceled check payable to Forge for $83,333.33.
MR. WATERS: All right, and do you recognize that signature on there?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: That's Alex's.
MR. WATERS: Okay, and so when you were -- when we last left off, you were telling Alex that it had been done wrong because it had gone straight from the trust account direct to what you believed to be Forge at the time, correct?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: Correct.
MR. WATERS: And it can't go to a law firm or the tax benefits go away.
JEANNIE SECKINGER: That's right.
MR. WATERS: All right. So, you raised those issues with Alex. What did -- what was his response when you first talked to him about it?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: His response was that he was not worried so much about the tax ramifications and saving the taxes, but that he was trying to get money in Maggie's name due to the boat accident that had happened in February of 2019.
MR. WATERS: Go ahead.
JEANNIE SECKINGER: He also brought up the fact that he was friends with Michael Gunn and that -- was going to try to work with Michael Gunn putting up some fees during the year as a favor to Michael Gunn, and to help him accomplish putting money in Maggie's name.
MR. WATERS: Did he say anything -- and I apologize if you already said this. Did he say anything in response to your pointing out that this isn't going to work for the tax benefit?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: He said that's fine. He was not worried about the tax benefit so much as getting the money in Maggie's name.
MR. WATERS: Because of what?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: The boat wreck.
MR. WATERS: All right. Did that concern you at all?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: Yes, it.
MR. WATERS: And why did it concern you?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: Because that is hiding assets, and we're not going to be part of any hiding assets or any wrongdoing. So, we are very concerned that he was trying to do that, and we didn't want to be a part of it.
MR. WATERS: Okay. At that point in time, did you do anything about it, or did you kind of table the matter for the time being?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: We kind of tabled the matter for the time being. We -- I had to kind of set aside trying to figure out how I'm going to account for this in my books, and we were going to go back and talk to partners and kind of figure out what we were going to do.
MR. WATERS: Ultimately, when is the sort of the drop-dead deadline that you have to account for everything in the books?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: Usually I will do our final closing -- I balance all of the time, but usually we'll do that final accounting in December, so I really start drilling down and looking at everything and balancing out in December. But I knew I had until December to figure this out, and at that point I was more concerned about how we were going to put it on our books, and also letting the partners know what was going on so we could make sure that it didn't -- it was disclosed to his attorneys with the boat wreck stuff.
MR. WATERS: Tried to just put that aside and keep it in the back of your mind?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: Right.
MR. WATERS: This is in May of what year did this happen?
MR. WATERS: All right. Later on that month, did you receive a communication of any sort from Alex's paralegal?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: I did. On Monday, May --
MR. WATERS: Who is that real quick?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: That is Annette Griswold.
MR. WATERS: All right --
JEANNIE SECKINGER: She's one of his paralegals.
MR. WATERS: And what did Annette -- what communication did she have with you?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: So, I received an email. I was working in our Walterboro office that day, and I received an email from Annette that said she needed to talk to me in private, and could I please meet with her when I got back from the office. So, when I did get back in the office we met, and she came to me with another concern that -- in another file that we had.
MR. WATERS: All right, and tell me what file was that.
JEANNIE SECKINGER: So, this file was -- we refer to it as the Faris file, and it was a case with Faris v. Mack Truck that had a fairly significant settlement. And the concern was that we had only received the expenses on this -- this -- let me first say this case was handled by Chris Wilson's firm, and they were handling the disbursement. All the money went through their account and they drafted the disbursement and met with the client. So, if that happens, typically the associate attorney will mail us our fee and our expense check at the same time.
MR. WATERS: So, let me slow you down. So, this particular case, the Faris case, was Alex Murdaugh the only attorney on that case?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: In our firm I believe he was, but Chris Wilson was the associated attorney.
MR. WATERS: Was Chris Wilson in PMPED or was he in a different firm?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: No, he's in his own different firm.
MR. WATERS: And does that happen sometimes that two lawyers, one lawyer from your firm and one lawyer from another firm, will share a case?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: Yes, we have quite a lot of that.
MR. WATERS: All right, and then ultimately those fees have to be split whichever way they agreed to do that. Is that correct?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: That's correct.
MR. WATERS: And then sometimes if the settlement money or the trial money comes in to that other firm, then they have to disburse the fees and expenses to you.
JEANNIE SECKINGER: That's correct.
MR. WATERS: And tell the jury again what was Annette's concern? That she'd received part of it but not the other thing?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: Annette received only a check for the expenses.
MR. WATERS: But not the fees.
JEANNIE SECKINGER: Not the fee, which is unusual. So, she had already, unbeknownst to me, contacted my staff to make sure that we had not received that fee prior, and indeed we checked and it had not been. So, the conversation Annette had with me that day was her concern that we were missing the fee check. And she had had some conversations with Vickie Lyman, who is Chris Wilson's paralegal, and that led Annette to believe that Alex had already had the money paid to him.
MR. WATERS: And that's the concern that she reported to you?
MR. WATERS: All right. Hold on for me and I'm going to show you what's been marked as State's 312. Give me one second.
(Break in proceedings.)
MR. WATERS: Your Honor, I believe State's 312 is offered for admission with no additional objection.
MR. GRIFFIN: That's correct, Your Honor.
JUDGE NEWMAN: It's admitted.
(EXPENSE CHECK MARKED AS STATE'S EXHIBIT NUMBER 312 WAS RECEIVED INTO EVIDENCE.)
MR. WATERS: All right, I'm going to show you this packet of documents. I'm going to go to some emails that are within it. And first of all I'm going to show you this one right here and just see if you recognize that, please.
JEANNIE SECKINGER: I do.
MR. WATERS: All right. Tell me what that is.
JEANNIE SECKINGER: This is an email from Vickie Lyman, who's the paralegal for Chris Wilson, to Annette Griswold, who's the paralegal for Alex Murdaugh. And in it -- and in it Annette is questioning why did we get the expenses and no fee. Vickie replied back: Dear friend, it's only costs because your boss and mine got their fees once they were signed.
MR. WATERS: All right. So, that's what -- why Annette brought that concern to you, correct?
MR. WATERS: All right. Did you have any conversation with Annette about what to do?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: Well, Annette expressed concern about tattling on Alex and perhaps getting in trouble for -- for him, a retaliation from him. So, I told her we --
MR. WATERS: What's the concern? What's the concern about that?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: The concern is --
MR. GRIFFIN: Objection, Your Honor. Hearsay.
MR. WATERS: I just asked her what her concern was, Your Honor.
JEANNIE SECKINGER: The concern was that that money had been stolen.
JUDGE NEWMAN: Wait. When there's an objection wait. Yes, sir?
MR. GRIFFIN: He's asking her what Annette's concern was, and Annette needs to testify about her own concern.
JUDGE NEWMAN: State the question, please.
MR. WATERS: I'll restate the question. What was your concern?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: My concern was that he had stolen the fees and they were paid to him personally.
MR. WATERS: All right. Did you -- in this conversation with Annette, did you instruct her to do anything? Did you send an email?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: I sent an email to Annette asking for Annette to get copies of the complete disbursement from Chris Wilson's office, along with a copy of what we call the general ledger printout, which would show the deposit and the checks, and the supporting document to the disbursement. Often times we'll just get a copy of the disbursement. So, I asked for the full records like we would have in our office.
MR. WATERS: And what did you tell Annette to do once you sent that email to her?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: Annette forwarded that email to Vickie Lyman at Chris Wilson's office.
MR. WATERS: All right. I'm going to show you what's been -- what's part of Exhibit 312 and it's marked at 2374 at the bottom, and just kind of read that email going up. Is that the email that you sent to Annette?
MR. WATERS: And is that the one that you were asking her to forward on?
MR. WATERS: To request additional information from Chris Wilson's office to try to get to the bottom of it?
MR. WATERS: All right, and if we go to the prior page, is that where Annette forwarded that document on to Vickie Lyman at Chris Wilson's office?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: This is.
MR. WATERS: All right. All right, and just real quick, what was the date on that email when it was ultimately forwarded to Vickie Lyman at Chris Wilson's office?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: That email was sent on May 27th, but Vickie was out of the office on vacation, so Vickie replied to Annette on June 2nd upon her return.
MR. WATERS: Okay, and what was the reply?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: And the reply was just clarifying what documents that we needed. And at that point Vickie replies back to Annette that she's not privy to that information, but she will forward it on to Chris Wilson.
MR. WATERS: To her boss, Chris Wilson.
MR. WATERS: All right. So, y'all -- have y'all gotten an answer at this point?
MR. WATERS: All right. So, what's the next step? What happens after that?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: So, we're waiting for awhile. And Monday, May 7th, I went to Alex's office searching for him after lunch --
MR. WATERS: Let me slow you down just real quick. After you sent this email on June 2nd, did Alex ever reach out to you or talk to you about the inquiries that you were making about where these fees were?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: Yes, he actually came in the next day. The first thing -- Chris did not answer me, but Alex came in the first thing and said that money is Chris's trust. Why do you need all of this information? And I basically said we just need it for our records. It's what we have in ours and it's required for us to keep. He assured me that the money was over there and that he would get the records, and they would get everything that we needed.
MR. WATERS: And that was some point after June 2nd?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: I believe it was the next morning.
MR. WATERS: And did you seek him out or did he seek you out to say hey, no, that money is there the whole time?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: He seeked me out.
MR. WATERS: Okay, and that's what he told you?
MR. WATERS: All right. Did -- around this time, did anybody else -- did y'all -- did you have any other discussions with any of the other partners about what was going on with this?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: I did. I had initially gone to Lee Cope because he was one of the -- he's one of the partners that does a lot of the managing, and he happened to be the one that was in the office when this was going on that I could find and talk to. And he also helped me come up with a plan of how we were going to handle it so Alex would not think that Annette was questioning. Mark Ball also knew some about it, so --
MR. WATERS: Okay. Did -- was there any discussion about anyone contacting Chris Wilson?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: After we didn't get it -- that came later.
MR. WATERS: That came later?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: That came later.
MR. WATERS: All right. So, Alex comes to you and says all of that money is there. What's the next thing that happened that you did?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: So, the next thing that happened was on Monday, May -- June 7th, I went looking for Alex --
MR. WATERS: Let me slow you down. On Monday, June 7th?
MR. WATERS: What year?
MR. WATERS: June 7th of 2021, what happened?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: I went to look for Alex, and when I got upstairs he was standing outside of his office leaning on a file cabinet, and he looked at me with a pretty dirty look, one I had not seen before, and said what do you need now? Clearly disgusted with me, which kind of raised my hackles, so I said, well, let's go in your office and talk about it. When we went in his office, I said -- I told him, I said I have reason to believe that you received the Faris money directly to you, and you need to prove to me that you did not. And he assured me again that the money was in there. I told him I still needed to see the ledgers or proof that it was. Again, he told me the money was in there, that we could get it at any time, said he was trying to leave it in there to decide what to do as far as structuring some more money, or putting more money in Maggie's name.
MR. WATERS: All right. You asked him for proof. Is that correct?
MR. WATERS: Proof that he didn't have that money.
MR. WATERS: Did you -- were you able to complete that conversation on the morning of June 7, 2021?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: It was actually the afternoon of June 7th, but --
MR. WATERS: The afternoon.
JEANNIE SECKINGER: But, no, we were not able to complete it. During the middle of our conversation he took a phone call, and the call was saying that his father was in the hospital and that there was nothing more that could be done. He was terminal. So, at that point, you know, I've known Alex for -- since I was sixteen years old. Known the family forever. It turned into a personal conversation about how is your dad doing? How is everything going? You know, what's going on? And I basically thought he was leaving to go to the hospital to attend to his father, so I left the office at that time, and we did not discuss the money anymore.
MR. WATERS: You thought he was leaving to go --
JEANNIE SECKINGER: I thought he was going to go to see about his father.
MR. WATERS: He had gotten a phone call about his father June 7th of 2021. Is that right?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: That's correct.
MR. WATERS: Did you have a conversation with Alex later on that day?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: We did. Around 4:00 my phone rang, and I remember because I was surprised that he was still there, and Alex was asking me some information about his 401(k) balance.
MR. WATERS: And why was he doing that?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: He was doing that because he stated he had to get some documents and financials together for a hearing regarding the boat wreck later that week.
MR. WATERS: He needed his own financial information for a hearing for the boat case that week, correct?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: That's correct.
MR. WATERS: Do you know when the boat case was, the boat case hearing was?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: I believe it was June 10th.
MR. WATERS: June 10th?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: '21, within a few days.
MR. WATERS: Within a few days. Were you surprised to hear from him in the office?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: I was because I thought he was leaving.
MR. WATERS: Thought he was leaving because of the call from his -- about his grand -- his father?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: His father.
MR. WATERS: Did you go home at the end of work that day?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: I did.
MR. WATERS: You went back home and had a normal evening?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: Yes, until about 10:30.
MR. WATERS: And then what happened at 10:30?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: I got a call, or started getting texts from friends asking if I had heard if Maggie and Alex -- I mean, Maggie and Paul had been shot. I didn't know anything about it. They were hearing things on scanners. So, I sent texts to a couple of the attorneys and did not hear back until probably 2:00 in the night. Mark emailed me back -- or texted me back that they, in fact, had been shot and killed.
MR. WATERS: Was that shocking?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: It was very shocking.
MR. WATERS: Was everybody scared?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: Very scary. Nobody knew what was going on, so very scary.
MR. WATERS: Did the -- you said this law firm was like a brotherhood, correct?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: That's correct.
MR. WATERS: Did everyone rally to Alex's aide?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: We did. Nothing happened that week at work. Everybody spent time with Alex trying to support him, bringing the family meals, attending the funerals, so nothing happened all week.
MR. WATERS: After the murders happened, was anybody at all concerned about getting the proof for those missing fees after those murders happened at that point in time?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: We weren't because we were concerned about Alex. He wasn't working a whole lot; he was erratic. We knew he was taking pills. We were just worried about his sanity, so we weren't going to go in there and harass him about money when we were worried about his mental state, and the fact that his family had been killed. It just wasn't even on our mind at that point.
MR. WATERS: It wouldn't be on your mind, would it?
MR. WATERS: As a few weeks went on, did you ever receive any communication about those fees that kind of put the matter to bed at least a little bit?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: We did. Lee Cope, who was one of the partners, took over. You know, we decided we were not going to press Alex, but Lee made some contact with Chris Wilson during that time asking Chris for information. And I believe after that, Alex searched me out again and said hey, I've got that money. It wasn't until -- I believe it was July 19th I received an email that Chris had forwarded to Alex. Alex then forwarded the email to myself and Lee Cope, and in that email it said I am holding the fees for the Faris case, and he named the amounts and said they are available any time that you should need them. So, we're being told by outside counsel that the money is there.
MR. WATERS: Did you trust what you were being told?
MR. WATERS: When you got that email, did it at least for the time being look like the matter was put to bed?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: Yes. These are members of the bar who have taken a sworn oath that we are supposed to trust, and they're telling us that the money is there.
MR. WATERS: We're still on Exhibit 312. Let put this up on the screen. Do you recognize that?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: That is the email that I'm referring to.
MR. WATERS: And this email comes from who to who?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: It comes from Chris Wilson to Alex Murdaugh.
MR. WATERS: And then it gets sent to who?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: Myself and Lee Cope.
MR. WATERS: From who?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: From Alex Murdaugh.
MR. WATERS: And can you read to the jury that paragraph right there, what was forwarded to you that sort of put this matter to bed?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: Alex, as discussed, I am confirming that I'm holding in trust $600,000 in the Andral Faris case and 192,000 in the Denise Faris case, which represent attorney fees. I will continue to hold these monies in trust until I'm instructed by you and your firm regarding payment.
MR. WATERS: Did that lead you to believe that those monies have been there all of the while?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: Yes, with some hesitation on my part because I just -- it still seemed a little shaky to me, but I decided I would have to believe what was presented to me.
MR. WATERS: What is the date on this particular email?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: July 19th.
MR. WATERS: So, we're just after --
JEANNIE SECKINGER: Of 2021.
MR. WATERS: Just a little month after the murders. Is that correct?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: Yes, a little over.
MR. WATERS: Now, I'm going to take you forward a little bit. Well, let me ask you this. In that time period in July and August, going into early September, was Alex in the office much?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: He's not in the office very much, no.
MR. WATERS: And you had mentioned before the first thing that kind of came to your attention, and what case was that?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: Hershberger and Faris.
MR. WATERS: All right. At some point in time, does that Hershberger matter kind of come back to your attention to take a look at that?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: Yes. Like I said, I had it sitting there on my desktop right in front of me, but due to work and personal obligations and things that were happening that summer, I didn't start looking again until September. I decided to start combing through his fees for the year and just making sure that we had not missed anything else.
MR. WATERS: Before you go on with that, around that same time as you're doing that, does Annette Griswold come into your office?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: She did. Incidentally, during the day after I had found what I'm about to discuss with you, she walks into the office and had found a check on Alex's desk that was made payable to Richard Alexander Murdaugh, and it was from Chris Wilson's trust account, and the amount, I believe, was $225,000, and it was signed, and on the memo Faris fees.
MR. WATERS: I'm going to show you what's been marked as State's 313 and see if you recognize that.
JEANNIE SECKINGER: That's the check I'm just discussing.
MR. WATERS: All right.
MR. WATERS: Your Honor, at this time would move State's 313 into evidence.
MR. GRIFFIN: No additional objection.
JUDGE NEWMAN: It's admitted.
(CHECK MARKED AS STATE'S EXHIBIT NUMBER 313 WAS RECEIVED INTO EVIDENCE.)
MR. WATERS: And what it State's 313?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: That is a check from Chris Wilson's client trust account payable to Richard Alexander Murdaugh, Esquire, in the amount of $225,000 referencing Faris fees.
MR. WATERS: Is it made out to the law firm?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: No, it's made out to him.
MR. WATERS: Who is it made out to?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: It's made out to him personally, Richard Alexander Murdaugh.
MR. WATERS: When you see this check what, if anything, is your realization?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: That he stole the money, that he'd been lying.
MR. WATERS: And what's the date on that check?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: March 10, 2021.
MR. WATERS: All right. So, Annette brings you that check, and you're also looking at the Forge -- you said -- explain what you were doing as well when this is going on.
JEANNIE SECKINGER: So simultaneously that day, I decided to print out a listing of Forge payments to Forge Consulting, and as I was printing those out, I was printing supporting documents and canceled checks, and as the canceled checks hit the back of my printer, I could see Alex Murdaugh's signature on the back. It would say Alex Murdaugh, and a lot of them were Bank of America. And as every one come out, I started noticing it more and more, and I just had the sickest feeling you could feel in the world. I knew that he was stealing all of this money. At that point, William Barnes just happened to call over to my office and said what are you doing? How are you doing today? And I said I'm about to throw up. You need to come over here, and showed him the checks, at which point he verified that he thought that was Alex's signature as well. From there we called Mark Ball. Mark Ball came and looked over the information. We showed him the proof of the check of the 225,000, and Mark noticed that one of the cases -- that he definitely knew it could not have been going to Forge because it was a workers' comp case.
MR. WATERS: Whose case was that?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: That was Thomas Moore.
MR. WATERS: Keep going.
JEANNIE SECKINGER: So, he knew that that money couldn't have been sent no matter what. We also discussed this with Lee Cope. We were trying to decide how we were going to handle this, what are we going to do. Lee Cope -- it was decided that Lee Cope would contact Michael Gunn directly, and we named a few of the case. We got a few of the names. Lee contacted Michael Gunn, asked him if there had ever been -- to please verify if there had ever been any structures with that, and also asked Michael Gunn if they'd been banking at Bank of America. Michael's reply to Lee was they had not banked at Bank of America in a number of years, and that he was unable to verify that those were indeed such structured fees for those clients.
MR. WATERS: So, let me slow you down real quick. You researched what name in there?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: Forge Consulting and Forge.
MR. WATERS: So, you're researching your system Forge Consulting, correct?
MR. WATERS: To see any instances where it was an Alex Murdaugh case that went to Forge Consulting, correct?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: Correct.
MR. WATERS: And did you find a number of checks?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: We did.
MR. WATERS: Do you have access to the firm trust account checks on your system?
MR. WATERS: And when you saw those checks, what did you observe that caused that sickening feeling you just described?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: They were made to Forge instead of Forge Consulting, but also the fact that his signature was on the back and the endorsement on the back was Bank of America.
MR. WATERS: And what did that indicate to you about all of those checks when you saw his signature on them?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: That they were stolen fees and stolen money.
MR. WATERS: That's different from this, correct?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: That is correct.
MR. WATERS: What's being stolen -- what, if anything, is being stolen with Exhibit 313?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: The fee -- the check is being written directly to Richard Alexander Murdaugh, and in the other scheme it was written to a Forge account, which we realized was a bank -- Forge bank account. We found in the office a few days later bank statements that said Richard Alexander Murdaugh doing business as Forge.
MR. WATERS: All right. So, you say a few days later in Alex's office you found some bank statements?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: That's correct.
MR. WATERS: Do you remember what bank they were on?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: Bank of America.
MR. WATERS: And I'm going to show you what's been marked as Exhibit 335 and see if you represent -- recognize that just as an example?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: I do.
MR. WATERS: And what is that?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: This is a bank statement from Bank of America with the name Richard A. Murdaugh, sole prop, which means proprietor, doing business as Forge. And it has Alex's home address as the contact on the bank account.
MR. WATERS: And you found bank statements on this account in his office, correct?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: That's right.
MR. WATERS: Is this the legitimate Forge bank account?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: It is the fake Forge bank account.
MR. GRIFFIN: Your Honor, we don't have any additional objection.
MR. WATERS: I would offer 335 at this time, Your Honor.
JUDGE NEWMAN: It's admitted.
(FAKE FORGE ACCOUNT DOCUMENTS MARKED AS STATE'S EXHIBIT NUMBER 335 WERE RECEIVED INTO EVIDENCE.)
MR. WATERS: Is that the name that was on the account that you found?
MR. WATERS: You call it a fake Forge.
JEANNIE SECKINGER: Fake Forge.
MR. WATERS: And why do you call it fake Forge?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: Because there is a real Forge Consulting, but this was a fake company that he set up to mimic and look like and designed to look like Forge.
MR. WATERS: The real Forge, who's the main guy at the real Forge?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: Michael Gunn.
MR. WATERS: And does this account right here in Alex Murdaugh's name have anything to do with the real Forge?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: Absolutely none.
MR. WATERS: Going back to Exhibit 313, this check, the problem is who should this check had been made out to?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: That should have been made out to Peters, Murdaugh, Parker, Elzroth, and Detrick.
MR. WATERS: To the law firm, correct?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: That's right.
MR. WATERS: All right. So, who is not getting what they're supposed to get in this instance with this check?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: The law firm.
MR. WATERS: When we start talking about the fake Forge account, who is generally not getting what they're supposed to get? Is it the law firm or someone else?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: Generally the client. Sometimes the law firm, but generally the client.
MR. WATERS: All right. I'm going to show you what's been marked as State's 314 and see if you recognize this.
JEANNIE SECKINGER: Yes. This is a spreadsheet of all of the payments made to the fake Forge referencing each client and the amount that was stolen from each client.
MR. WATERS: And did you prepare that?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: I did.
MR. WATERS: All right, and is this based on an investigation that you had to do in the wake of all of this?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: Yes, we did. We also had forensic auditors come in and look at this. We had -- we hired former FBI to come in and look at this. And we have also self reported to the Office of Disciplinary Counsel which maintains licenses, and we've turned over ten years of information to them at least, provided them with all of this.
MR. WATERS: Let me see it real quick.
MR. WATERS: Your Honor, at this time we would move into evidence State's 314.
MR. GRIFFIN: Your Honor, we do not have any additional objection provided it's -- understand -- we understand it's being offered for the limited purpose for which Your Honor instructed the jury yesterday, that it's not character evidence. It's only to motive according to the State's theory.
JUDGE NEWMAN: Yes, sir. It's admitted.
(SPREADSHEET MARKED AS STATE'S EXHIBIT NUMBER 314 WAS RECEIVED INTO EVIDENCE.)
MR. WATERS: Thank you, Your Honor.
MR. WATERS: All right. We're going to pick up on your story in a little bit, but you were saying that when Annette Griswold, around the time she brought you that Chris Wilson check that had Alex's name on it, you also were bringing up and searching Forge in your system, and that's when you saw all of these quote fake Forge checks. Is that correct?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: That's correct.
MR. WATERS: And you mentioned that you went and talked to some partners about it and that sort of thing, correct?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: That's correct.
MR. WATERS: And we're going to talk about that in a minute, but just real quick, if you go to Exhibit 314, this is that spreadsheet that you prepared. Is that correct?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: That's correct.
MR. WATERS: And we have the -- what's this right here?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: That is the date of the check where the funds were stolen from.
MR. WATERS: Okay, and then right here?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: That's the client name.
MR. WATERS: All right, and then right here?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: That's what we call the civil action number that's been filed within the court.
MR. WATERS: And then the category?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: Is what type that he did. Most of them were Forge payments, or you see a couple other. Took insurance. He had a few methods.
MR. WATERS: All right, and then over here, is that when y'all had to pay the money back?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: Yes. So, for each one of these, the money that was stolen, all of the partners got together and had to put the money back into client trust, and we went through and corrected and met with every client and distributed money back to them. That's an ongoing basis, still going on.
MR. WATERS: So for all of these clients, you had to pay -- the law firm had to pay money back?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: The partners came up with money and paid all the -- all of the clients back.
MR. WATERS: And why did y'all have to pay all of that money back?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: Because Alex had stolen it.
MR. WATERS: And we're going to talk about these in a minute, but if you look at the bottom, at least for this category, what was the total that you have? At least for this category?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: $2,841,512.55.
MR. WATERS: And at least in this category, your earliest date that we have is roughly what year?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: 2015.
MR. WATERS: All right. Let's go back to early September. Do you remember what day it was that all of this was happening?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: September 2nd.
MR. WATERS: All right, and Annette brings you this check. You're finding these things. You say you talked to some of the partners about this?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: Correct.
MR. WATERS: And what happens after that? What do y'all do?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: We had a partner meeting at Lee Cope's house the morning of Friday, September 3rd.
MR. WATERS: Was the defendant there?
MR. WATERS: All right. Is Randy Murdaugh there?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: Randy is not there initially. Initially we showed all of the remaining partners what we had found and that he'd been stealing. The consensus was let's get Randy in here and let's show him so he wasn't blind-sided. Randy came in. We presented him the evidence, and he immediately hung his head and said he stole it. We've got to do something about this.
MR. WATERS: All right, and did anybody then go make contact with the defendant?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: So, Danny Henderson and Randy Murdaugh went to confront Alex about it.
MR. WATERS: And what was reported to you after that conversation?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: The report was that Alex had admitted that he stole the money and that we were forcing him to resign.
MR. WATERS: In the wake of all of that, you ultimately had to start doing this review. Is that correct?
MR. WATERS: And this spreadsheet we're about to go through reflects those various transactions. Is that correct?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: That's right.
MR. WATERS: All right. Let's do it.
JUDGE NEWMAN: Ladies and gentlemen, we'll take a break now, if you'll go to the jury room. Please do not discuss the case.
(The jury left the courtroom.)
JUDGE NEWMAN: We will be in recess for 15 minutes.
(A break was taken.)
JUDGE NEWMAN: If you will bring the jury.
(The jury returned to the courtroom.)
COURT BAILIFF: The jury is present, sir.
JUDGE NEWMAN: Thank you. You may proceed.
MR. WATERS: Thank you, Your Honor. May it please the Court?
JUDGE NEWMAN: Yes, sir.
BY MR. WATERS:
MR. WATERS: Ms. Seckinger, before the break, just to reset the table. You had gone in -- did you go into Alex's office on June 7th of 2021 for proof that he had not taken the Chris Wilson fees?
MR. WATERS: And then that conversation got delayed, correct?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: Yes, got disrupted and delayed.
MR. WATERS: The murders happened.
JEANNIE SECKINGER: Correct.
MR. WATERS: Did you receive an email in July leading you to believe that the Chris Wilson fees were in the account all along?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: We did.
MR. WATERS: And then we move to September when Annette Griswold, Alex's paralegal -- did she bring you a check showing you that, in fact, those checks had been written to Alex back in March of 2021?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: That's correct.
MR. WATERS: At the same time, you were going through the system and looking at payments to Forge, correct?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: Correct.
MR. WATERS: And the real Forge is headed by who? Who's the main guy there?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: Michael Gunn.
MR. WATERS: All right, and then ultimately, though, you determined these were going to what you called what?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: Fake Forge.
MR. WATERS: Fake Forge, which was an account set up to look like Forge but in the name of who?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: Richard Alexander Murdaugh.
MR. WATERS: The defendant?
MR. WATERS: And then once you uncovered that, that started to pull the thread in a series of things you're about to testify going back the preceding years. Is that correct?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: That's correct.
MR. WATERS: So, that's kind of where we left off?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: That's right.
MR. WATERS: All right. We go back and look at State's 314. We're just going to do these in order and I'll move as expeditiously as we can. All right, I'm going to show you what's been marked as State's 317 to your -- to this trial and see if you recognize that.
JEANNIE SECKINGER: I do. This is the disbursement statement for Adrianna Hagge.
MR. WATERS: Your Honor, at this time the State would offer State's 317 into evidence.
MR. GRIFFIN: No additional objection, Your Honor.
JUDGE NEWMAN: All right. It's admitted.
(DISBURSEMENT DOCUMENTS MARKED AS STATE'S EXHIBIT NUMBER 317 WERE RECEIVED INTO EVIDENCE.)
MR. WATERS: All right, and tell the jury what this is very quickly.
JEANNIE SECKINGER: So this one, there's a recovery of $247,500, there's attorney fees of $22,000, expenses of $426.54, and then the settlement proceeds to Forge Consulting for the client's amount of $225,073.46.
MR. WATERS: All right, and that's the disbursement sheet that was signed by who? Do you recognize the signature on there?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: Alex's.
MR. WATERS: All right, and let me put it up on the screen if we could. And was this record, was this found in the files of the law firm?
MR. WATERS: And whose signature is that right there?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: Alex's.
MR. WATERS: And what's the date on this?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: 12/20/2018.
MR. WATERS: And what's the first name of the client here, please?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: Adrianna.
MR. WATERS: All right, and we look at this particular disbursement, it's got a recovery amount. That's how much money came in. Is that correct?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: That's correct.
MR. WATERS: And then we have an attorney's fee?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: Yes, and that looks like that's a reduced fee.
MR. WATERS: All right. It's reduced fee in as much it is -- why did you say it's a reduced fee?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: It's not a third or either 40 percent of $247,500.
MR. WATERS: All right, and then we've got expenses. Is that correct?
MR. WATERS: And finally we have this line right here. What does that say again?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: Settlement proceeds to Forge Consulting, $225,073.46.
MR. WATERS: Did that go to the real Forge Consulting?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: That went to the fake Forge Consulting.
MR. WATERS: And who controls the fake Forge account?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: Alex Murdaugh.
MR. GRIFFIN: Your Honor, I object to him writing on the exhibits after they're in evidence.
JUDGE NEWMAN: Is it in evidence or not, this particular exhibit?
MR. GRIFFIN: Yes, Your Honor.
JUDGE NEWMAN: All right. You may proceed.
MR. WATERS: Thank you, Your Honor.
MR. WATERS: All right, and looking at the second page of this exhibit, what is this?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: This is the check made payable to Forge for the $225,073.46.
MR. WATERS: And that went to the fake Forge?
MR. WATERS: Did the law firm ultimately have to pay that money back?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: We did.
MR. WATERS: Why did you have to pay it back?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: Because Alex stole it.
MR. WATERS: Again, looking at these disbursement sheets, these are prepared by the attorneys and their staff. Is that correct?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: That's correct.
MR. WATERS: And then they're delivered to the finance staff?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: Correct.
MR. WATERS: And then the finance staff uses that to do what?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: To cut the checks and give them back to the attorney to disburse to the client.
MR. WATERS: So, this first sheet was delivered to your staff. Is that correct?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: Correct.
MR. WATERS: And then they did what?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: They wrote the checks as per the disbursement.
MR. WATERS: And why did they do what Alex Murdaugh requested them to?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: They trusted him, and he was their boss, and they -- that's what they thought they should do.
MR. WATERS: All right. Going to the next one, State's 318. All right, I'm going to show you what's been marked as State's 318 and see if you recognize this document.
JEANNIE SECKINGER: Yes. This is the disbursement statement for Barrett Boulware.
MR. WATERS: All right?.
MR. WATERS: Your Honor, at this time I would offer State's 318 into evidence.
MR. GRIFFIN: No additional objection, Your Honor.
JUDGE NEWMAN: It's admitted.
(DISBURSEMENT DOCUMENTS MARKED AS STATE'S EXHIBIT NUMBER 318 WERE RECEIVED INTO EVIDENCE.)
MR. WATERS: All right, I'm going to put it up on the screen. If you have a problems seeing, just let me know and I'll bring it back to you. Okay?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: Okay.
MR. WATERS: All right. Again, this is a disbursement statement for this particular case?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: That's correct.
MR. WATERS: And who is the first name of the client, please?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: Barrett.
MR. WATERS: And looking here on this particular one we have, again, a recovery and then we have some expenses, and then ultimately we have this right here. Is that correct?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: That's correct.
MR. WATERS: And who is that disbursement -- what does it say on the disbursement sheet?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: Forge, but that's the fake Forge.
MR. WATERS: All right, and do you see a signature on there?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: I do. IT's Alex Murdaugh's.
MR. WATERS: All right, and going to the next page, do you recognize that?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: This is the check payable for $279,850 and I believe 85 cents, or 65 cents.
MR. WATERS: All right, and do you recognize that signature right here?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: That's Alex Murdaugh's.
MR. WATERS: And do you recognize this writing right there?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: That is his handwriting.
MR. WATERS: All right, and did this money go into the real Forge or go into the fake Forge?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: It went into his fake Forge account.
MR. WATERS: And did ultimately the law firm have to refund this money?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: Again, we refunded the money; each partner put up money and refunded the money to the client.
MR. WATERS: And why did the law firm have to refund it?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: Because he stole it.
MR. WATERS: Who stole it?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: Alex Murdaugh stole it.
MR. WATERS: And we go to the third page of this exhibit. Do you recognize this particular check right here?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: I do.
MR. WATERS: All right, and what is that?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: So, this is an insurance proceed payment from, I believe, Southern Fidelity Insurance in the amount of $75,193. That check never even came through our books. He stole it, endorsed it, and put it in his Bank of America account, and we found a copy of it on his desk later as we were investigating.
MR. WATERS: Did the law firm ultimately have to replace that money?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: We replaced that money as well.
MR. WATERS: I'm going to show you what's been, I believe, admitted into evidence as State's 429.
JEANNIE SECKINGER: Okay. This is the disbursement sheet for Hershberger.
MR. WATERS: All right, and on that particular one let me -- first of all, I'm going to put it up on the screen. And again, if you can see it -- if you have to -- if I need to bring it back to you, let me know. Okay?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: Okay.
MR. WATERS: All right. I'm going to go over to the third page of this exhibit, and this is a disbursement sheet for this matter. Is that correct?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: That's correct.
MR. WATERS: All right, and we look on this third line, and what does it say right there?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: The PMPED attorney fee Forge.
MR. WATERS: All right. What's the amount?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: $83,333.33, and that's the one we discussed earlier.
MR. WATERS: That's the one that first came to your attention?
MR. WATERS: All right. Ultimately let's go over to this next check. Do you recognize that?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: It's the corresponding check with payment to Forge for $83,333.33.
MR. WATERS: Do you recognize that signature?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: Alex Murdaugh's.
MR. WATERS: And do you recognize that writing right there on the endorsement?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: Alex Murdaugh's.
MR. WATERS: All right, and this is a check that you thought had gone to a legitimate structure?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: Correct.
MR. WATERS: And where did it actually go?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: It went to his fake Forge account, the one in his personal name.
MR. WATERS: I'm going to show you the second part -- page of this exhibit. Do you recognize this check?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: I do.
MR. WATERS: All right. Tell me what this check is.
JEANNIE SECKINGER: This is another check payable to Forge for 91,867.50 for the settlement proceeds due to the Estate of Jacob Hershberger.
MR. WATERS: All right, and just going back real quick, the first amount of 83,000 and change, those were actually representing what?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: Those were our fees that would be payable to the law firm.
MR. WATERS: And this money right here, thought, that represented what?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: Client money, client settlement money.
MR. WATERS: And did it go -- where did it go?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: It went to the fake Forge account in Alex's name.
MR. WATERS: And did the law firm ultimately have to repay that money?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: We repaid that as well.
MR. WATERS: So, we've got two transactions in this particular one. We've got the 833 and then we have 91,000. Is that correct?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: Yes, and I have to correct myself on that one. We're still in the process of paying that one.
MR. WATERS: And what's the date on that particular one?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: December 15, 2020.
MR. WATERS: And then the date on --
JEANNIE SECKINGER: May 12, 2021.
MR. WATERS: All right, and that's roughly around the time that that came to your attention that you previously testified?
MR. WATERS: I'm going to show you what's been marked as State's 319 and have you take a look at it.
JEANNIE SECKINGER: This is the disbursement sheet for Blondell Gary.
MR. WATERS: All right, and I'm going to put it on the screen, and if you need me to bring it to you, let me know.
JEANNIE SECKINGER: Okay.
MR. WATERS: And at this time, Your Honor, I would offer 319 into evidence.
MR. GRIFFIN: No additional objection.
JUDGE NEWMAN: It's admitted.
(DISBURSEMENT DOCUMENTS MARKED AS STATE'S EXHIBIT NUMBER 319 WERE RECEIVED INTO EVIDENCE.)
MR. WATERS: All right. Looking at this we have, let's see, a first name of the client here?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: Angel.
MR. WATERS: All right, and looking down we have a recovery amount, and then what's this third line right there?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: Forge structure in the amount of $112,500.
MR. WATERS: And going to the next page, what do we see?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: This is the check payable to Forge in the amount of $112,500.
MR. WATERS: And did that go to the real Forge or the fake Forge?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: It went to the fake Forge in Alex Murdaugh's name.
MR. WATERS: Okay, and whose signature is that?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: Alex Murdaugh's.
MR. WATERS: Going back to the original page, whose signature is that?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: Again, Alex Murdaugh's.
MR. WATERS: What's the date on that? I don't know if you can see it or not.
JEANNIE SECKINGER: It looks like 4/9/19.
MR. WATERS: Okay. Did y'all have to repay that money?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: We also repaid that money.
MR. WATERS: All right. Why did you have to repay that money?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: Because it was due to the client and Alex Murdaugh stole it.
MR. WATERS: I'm going to show you what's been marked as State's 320 and see if you recognize this document.
JEANNIE SECKINGER: This is the disbursement sheet on Christopher Anderson.
MR. WATERS: All right.
MR. WATERS: Your Honor, at this time I would offer State's 320 into evidence.
MR. GRIFFIN: No additional objection.
JUDGE NEWMAN: It's admitted.
(DISBURSEMENT DOCUMENTS MARKED AS STATE'S EXHIBIT NUMBER 320 WERE RECEIVED INTO EVIDENCE.)
MR. WATERS: All right. Again, we have a disbursement sheet. Is that correct?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: We do.
MR. WATERS: All right, and then we have a recovery. Is that correct?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: Yes, of 750,000.
MR. WATERS: And then how much on the disbursement sheet was written to Forge?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: 750,000.
MR. WATERS: Every -- every bit of it?
MR. WATERS: And whose signature is that?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: Alex Murdaugh's.
MR. WATERS: Second page.
JEANNIE SECKINGER: A check payable to Forge for $750,000.
MR. WATERS: What's the date on it?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: February 20, 2020.
MR. WATERS: Did this go to the real Forge or the fake Forge?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: It went to his fake Forge personal account.
MR. WATERS: In this particular case, were there multiple recoveries?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: There were multiple recoveries in this one.
MR. WATERS: So, some of the money -- did some of the money actually go to the client back when all of this happened?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: Some of the money did go to the client, and when meeting with the client to go over this, he told me that he was unaware of the second settlement.
MR. WATERS: And how much of the second settlement did Alex Murdaugh take?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: 100 percent of it, the entire 750,000.
MR. WATERS: What's the date on that?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: February 20, 2020.
MR. WATERS: Do you recognize that signature right there?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: That is Alex's.
MR. WATERS: I'm going to show you what's been marked as State's 321. Do you still recognize this document?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: This is a disbursement statement -- excuse me -- to Deon Martin.
MR. WATERS: All right.
MR. WATERS: Your Honor, at this time the State would offer State's 321 into evidence.
MR. GRIFFIN: No additional objection.
JUDGE NEWMAN: It's admitted.
(DISBURSEMENT DOCUMENTS MARKED AS STATE'S EXHIBIT NUMBER 321 WERE RECEIVED INTO EVIDENCE.)
MR. WATERS: All right. Looking at this particular one, what is the first name of the client here?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: Deon.
MR. WATERS: All right, and a couple of things. The first thing I want to ask about is is we have right here -- what's that third line right here? What does that say?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: It says structure for annuity directly to Michael Gunn in the amount --
MR. WATERS: And tell the jury who Michael Gunn is.
JEANNIE SECKINGER: He is the owner of the real Forge Consulting that we do structured annuities.
MR. WATERS: What's -- for that, was there any structured annuity directly to Michael Gunn?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: We were able to verify later that there was no structured annuity to Michael Gunn.
MR. WATERS: All right, and what was the effect of having that line in this disbursement sheet when it was prepared by the defendant and his staff?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: You can see a line where the payment, it says settlement proceeds structured annuity 500 out. So, basically what he did here was create a fake fee, or fake recovery, that he took a 40 percent fee on $200,000. That $200,000 should have been the client's money but he faked a fee. It's just phantom money.
MR. WATERS: So by putting this line in here, right here with that fake annuity then, 40 percent of that would be --
JEANNIE SECKINGER: It was counted in as fees under his column in our system.
MR. WATERS: And so just by that paperwork, poof, you have --
JEANNIE SECKINGER: Poof, phantom money.
MR. WATERS: Phantom money. Did y'all ultimately have to account for that?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: We did.
MR. WATERS: With the client?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: We did.
MR. WATERS: All right. Down here at the bottom, do you recognize that signature?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: Alex Murdaugh's.
MR. WATERS: Do you see a date?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: 8/20/2015.
MR. WATERS: All right, and then moving on to the next page in that -- you previously testified that there could be multiple disbursements in a case. Is that correct?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: That's correct.
MR. WATERS: And is this one such case?
MR. WATERS: All right. Right here I'm looking at the second disbursement, and down at the bottom, can you tell me the date on this?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: October 6, 2015.
MR. WATERS: All right, and down at the bottom right here, what does that say?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: Disbursement to Forge, $338,000 -- $338,056.14.
MR. WATERS: Did that go to the real Forge or the fake Forge?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: Went to the fake Forge.
MR. WATERS: Flipping to the next page, do you recognize that?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: That is the check payable to the fake Forge in the amount of $338,056.14 signed by Alex Murdaugh.
MR. WATERS: Did y'all ultimately have to pay that back to the client?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: We did. We paid that and the $200,000 back.
MR. WATERS: And why did you have to do that?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: Because Alex had stolen it.
MR. WATERS: Going to the next page, we have another disbursement in this case. Is that correct?
MR. WATERS: All right, and what does this line say right there?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: Structured to Forge marked $45,000.
MR. WATERS: Where did that $45,000 go?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: It went to the fake Forge account in Alex Murdaugh's name.
MR. WATERS: Going forward we see this check. Do you recognize that?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: That's the check payable to Forge in the amount of $45,000.
MR. WATERS: Do you recognize that signature?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: It's Alex Murdaugh's.
MR. WATERS: Do you recognize that writing right there?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: Alex Murdaugh's.
MR. WATERS: Where did that money go?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: To the fake Forge account in his Bank of America Richard Alexander Murdaugh name.
MR. WATERS: So, we have three things here. We have the phantom fee, correct?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: Correct.
MR. WATERS: We have the 338,000 and change?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: Correct.
MR. WATERS: We have the 45,000?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: Correct.
MR. WATERS: Did your law firm have to pay all of that back?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: We paid every cent of that back. The attorneys put it in --
MR. WATERS: Why did you?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: -- because Alex stole it.
MR. WATERS: I show you State's 315 and see if you recognize this.
JEANNIE SECKINGER: This is another disbursement for Elease Mallory.
MR. WATERS: Your Honor, at this time I offer State's 315 into evidence.
MR. GRIFFIN: No additional objection.
JUDGE NEWMAN: It's admitted.
(DISBURSEMENT DOCUMENTS MARKED AS STATE'S EXHIBIT NUMBER 315 WERE RECEIVED INTO EVIDENCE.)
MR. WATERS: All right, who is the client's name on this one, the first name, please?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: Elease.
MR. WATERS: All right, and in this particular one, what's the total recovery amount?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: $183,528.
MR. WATERS: And is there an attorney fee?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: There's an attorney fee of $30,000, but again that's reduced. And I'm able to tell that because it's not a third or either 40 percent.
MR. WATERS: And that $30,000 was ultimately cut to the firm?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: It ultimately was cut to PMPED.
MR. WATERS: And who was it credited to, on whose books?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: Alex Murdaugh's.
MR. WATERS: And then what is -- there's some fees for about 600 and change, correct?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: Yes, expenses.
MR. WATERS: Excuse me, expenses. And so what's the remainder?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: The remainder is $152,866 that was payable Forge, and that is the fake Forge account.
MR. WATERS: All right, and whose signature is that right there?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: Alex Murdaugh's.
MR. WATERS: Do you recognize the second page?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: That is the check that was payable to Forge.
MR. WATERS: Do you see the date on that?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: I can't really see that.
MR. WATERS: I'm going to hand you back State's 314, which is the spreadsheet you prepared. Is that correct?
MR. WATERS: Looking down at the bottom, can you remind the jury what the date is of that particular check?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: It was November 30, 2020.
MR. WATERS: November 30, 2020. Okay. Did any of the recovery in this case actually go to the client?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: In that one none of it went to the client.
MR. WATERS: It either went to Alex's fees or it went to where?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: To his fake Forge account that was doing business as Bank of -- doing business as Forge, the bank account with Bank of America.
MR. WATERS: Did you ever -- was there ever any conversation with Alex about this case as it related to those fees?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: There was. Later in the summer of 2021, his secretary called over to accounting and said that he wanted to disburse some money to Elease Mallory, and at that point we informed that the money had already been disbursed. So, then Alex said that he wanted to give a portion of his fee back to the client because she was just a sweet lady, that he thought she needed some funds given back to her. He would like to do her a favor.
MR. WATERS: Of the $30,000 in fees?
MR. WATERS: Was that after all of that $152,000, the bulk of that recovery for that case, had been instead disbursed to the fake Forge account?
MR. WATERS: Did y'all have to account for that and pay the client back?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: We did.
MR. WATERS: And why was that?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: Because he stole the money.
MR. WATERS: Going to 322. I show you was been marked as State's 322 and see if you recognize this.
JEANNIE SECKINGER: Yes. It's another disbursement that has actually several parts but it is Jamian Risher.
MR. WATERS: Okay.
MR. WATERS: Your Honor, at this time I would offer State's 322 into evidence.
MR. GRIFFIN: No additional objection.
JUDGE NEWMAN: It's admitted.
(DISBURSEMENT DOCUMENTS MARKED AS STATE'S EXHIBIT NUMBER 322 WERE RECEIVED INTO EVIDENCE.)
MR. WATERS: All right. What's the first name on the --
JEANNIE SECKINGER: Jamian.
MR. WATERS: And looking at this particular disbursement sheet, what is this amount right there?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: $90,000.
MR. WATERS: And who is it made payable to on the disbursement sheet?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: Forge.
MR. WATERS: We see a signature right there. It looks a little different. Do you recognize that signature at all?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: I still believe it's Alex's.
MR. WATERS: And going to the next page, what is that?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: This is the check payable to Forge in the amount of $90,000.
MR. WATERS: And what's the date on it?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: It cleared on 9/1/16. It was written sometime in August of 2016.
MR. WATERS: Where did that check go?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: It went to the fake Forge account with Bank of America that is in his personal name.
MR. WATERS: Going to this page of the exhibit, do you recognize that?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: Yes, I do.
MR. WATERS: And tell me what this is very quickly.
JEANNIE SECKINGER: These were some of those client case expenses that we would collect normally, and what you're seeing here is some costs for employee travel on the first line, but then costs paid to Austin Aviation for some airline services, and then some bills and travel within New York.
MR. WATERS: We have Austin Aviation. Is that, like, a private plane?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: That is a private plane.
MR. WATERS: Limousine service?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: That's a private limousine, yeah.
MR. WATERS: All right. Did y'all ultimately refund this money to the client?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: We did.
MR. WATERS: And why was that?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: We discovered that those were after the close of the case, and there was no way that they could have been done.
MR. WATERS: They had been billed to the client?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: They had been billed to the client and deducted from the client's disbursement, so we reimbursed those as well when we were giving our clients the money back.
MR. WATERS: I'm going to show you what's been marked as State's 323 to your testimony and see if you recognize that.
JEANNIE SECKINGER: This is a disbursement for Johnny Bush.
MR. WATERS: Okay.
MR. WATERS: Your Honor, at this time I would offer State's 323 into evidence.
MR. GRIFFIN: No additional objection.
JUDGE NEWMAN: It's admitted.
(DISBURSEMENT DOCUMENTS MARKED AS STATE'S EXHIBIT NUMBER 323 WERE RECEIVED INTO EVIDENCE.)
MR. WATERS: All right. Very quickly.
JEANNIE SECKINGER: Johnny.
MR. WATERS: Johnny. All right. Down here we've got -- what does that line say?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: Forge $95,000.
MR. WATERS: Where did that money go?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: To the fake Forge account that Alex held.
MR. WATERS: Is that the check?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: It's the corresponding check for the $90,000 with Alex's signature.
MR. WATERS: All right, and did y'all have to pay that money back?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: We did.
MR. WATERS: And why did you have to pay that money back?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: Because Alex stole it as well.
MR. WATERS: I show you State's 324 and see if you recognize that.
JEANNIE SECKINGER: Yes. This is a disbursement to Jordan Jinks.
MR. WATERS: All right.
MR. WATERS: Your Honor, at this time I would offer State's 324 into evidence.
MR. GRIFFIN: No additional objection, Your Honor.
JUDGE NEWMAN: It's admitted.
(DISBURSEMENT DOCUMENTS MARKED AS STATE'S EXHIBIT NUMBER 324 WERE RECEIVED INTO EVIDENCE.)
MR. WATERS: All right. Right here looking at this particular one, who's the first name of the client?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: Jordan.
MR. WATERS: Right here on this disbursement, what do we have right there?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: A payment to Forge in the amount of $85,000.
MR. WATERS: Okay, and whose signature is that at the bottom?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: Alex Murdaugh's.
MR. WATERS: What's is the date?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: August 1, 2018.
MR. WATERS: Looking at the second page, what is this right here?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: The check to -- payable to Forge for the $80,000.
MR. WATERS: All right, and where did that money go?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: To the fake Forge account.
MR. WATERS: Do you recognize that signature?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: That's Alex's signature as well.
MR. WATERS: All right, and we go to the next page. What is this?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: This is a second disbursement with another check payable to Forge in the amount of $65,000.
MR. WATERS: Okay. Do you recognize that signature?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: Alex Murdaugh's.
MR. WATERS: All right, and what's the next page?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: Check payable to Forge in the amount of $65,000 with Alex Murdaugh's signature.
MR. WATERS: All right, and what date did that clear?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: October 4, 2018.
MR. WATERS: This $85,000, where did that go?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: To the fake Forge.
MR. WATERS: This $65,000, where did that go?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: To the fake Forge account.
MR. WATERS: Did your law firm have to account for that money?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: We accounted for and reimbursed the client due to the fact that Alex had stolen it.
MR. WATERS: I show you what's been marked as State's 325 to your testimony and see if you recognize this.
JEANNIE SECKINGER: This is another disbursement for Manuel Christiani.
MR. WATERS: All right.
MR. WATERS: Your Honor, at this time I would offer State's 325 into evidence.
MR. GRIFFIN: No additional objection.
JUDGE NEWMAN: Okay.
(DISBURSEMENT DOCUMENTS MARKED AS STATE'S EXHIBIT NUMBER 325 WERE RECEIVED INTO EVIDENCE.)
MR. WATERS: All right. First name?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: Manuel.
MR. WATERS: What does this say right here?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: Forge $70,000.
MR. WATERS: Going over to the next page, do you recognize that?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: That is the check payable to Forge for $70,000, signed by Alex Murdaugh.
MR. WATERS: What date did it clear to your trust account?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: August 16, 2016.
MR. WATERS: And where did this money go?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: It went to his fake Forge account.
MR. WATERS: Did you have to account for this money?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: We did.
MR. WATERS: And why did you have to account for it?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: This money was stolen. This money still has not been paid back. It's under a court order to be paid into the court because there's some dispute about who it belongs to.
MR. WATERS: But ultimately --
JEANNIE SECKINGER: But ultimately we funded it and it's paid into -- to the court, so it came out of our pockets again.
MR. WATERS: I show you what's been marked as State's 326 to your testimony and see if you recognize this.
JEANNIE SECKINGER: This is another disbursement for Mary Duncan.
MR. WATERS: Your Honor, at this time I would offer State's 326?.
MR. GRIFFIN: No other -- no additional objection, Your Honor.
JUDGE NEWMAN: It's admitted.
(DISBURSEMENT DOCUMENTS MARKED AS STATE'S EXHIBIT NUMBER 326 WERE RECEIVED INTO EVIDENCE.)
MR. WATERS: All right. First name of the client?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: Mary.
MR. WATERS: Looking down here, what is that line right there?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: Settlement proceeds to Forge in the amount of $19,500.
MR. WATERS: Do you see the date?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: October 3, 2018.
MR. WATERS: Do you recognize that at all?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: Alex Murdaugh's.
MR. WATERS: That's the signature you mean?
MR. WATERS: All right. What's this right here on the second page?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: This is the check payable to Forge for $19,500 referencing Mary Duncan settlement proceeds.
MR. WATERS: And what date did that clear?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: October 22, 2018.
MR. WATERS: How much?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: $19,500.
MR. WATERS: And where did this money go?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: To the fake Forge account.
MR. WATERS: Did your law firm have to account for that?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: We did, and we reimbursed the client for that.
MR. WATERS: And why did you have to do that?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: Because Alex stole it.
MR. WATERS: I show you what's been marked as State's 327 and see if you recognize this.
JEANNIE SECKINGER: This is a disbursement sheet for Randy Drawdy.
MR. WATERS: Your Honor, at this time I would offer State's 327 into evidence.
MR. GRIFFIN: No additional objection.
JUDGE NEWMAN: It's admitted.
(DISBURSEMENT DOCUMENTS MARKED AS STATE'S EXHIBIT NUMBER 327 WERE RECEIVED INTO EVIDENCE.)
MR. WATERS: The disbursement sheet, what line do we have right here?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: Forge $9,569.30.
MR. WATERS: Do you recognize that signature?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: Alex Murdaugh's.
MR. WATERS: Looking at the next page.
JEANNIE SECKINGER: It's the check payable to Forge for the $9,569.30.
MR. WATERS: And what's the date on it?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: It is dated October 3, 2017.
MR. WATERS: Do you recognize that signature?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: Alex Murdaugh's signature.
MR. WATERS: Did your law firm ultimately have to account for those funds?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: We did, and we reimbursed the client that money as well because it was stolen funds again.
MR. WATERS: And what -- where did these funds actually go to?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: They went to the fake Forge account that was under his control.
MR. WATERS: All right. I'm going to show you what's been marked as State's 328 and see if you recognize this.
JEANNIE SECKINGER: This is a disbursement for Thomas Moore.
MR. WATERS: Your Honor, at this time I would offer State's 328 into evidence.
MR. GRIFFIN: No additional objection, Your Honor.
JUDGE NEWMAN: It's admitted.
(DISBURSEMENT DOCUMENTS MARKED AS STATE'S EXHIBIT NUMBER 328 WERE RECEIVED INTO EVIDENCE.)
MR. WATERS: All right. Right here on the disbursement, what's the name, first name?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: Thomas.
MR. WATERS: All right, and what does the disbursement say?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: Forge $125,000.
MR. WATERS: Down here do you recognize that signature?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: That's Alex Murdaugh's on the left.
MR. WATERS: Whose handwriting does that like to you?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: It looks like Alex Murdaugh's as well. Tommy Moore confirmed with us that he did not sign that disbursement.
MR. WATERS: Going to the second page, what is this?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: This is the check payable to Forge in the amount of $125,000.
MR. WATERS: Did that go to the real Forge or the fake Forge?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: Fake Forge.
MR. WATERS: All right, and whose writing is that right there on the endorsement?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: That's Alex Murdaugh's.
MR. WATERS: Whose signature on the check?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: Alex Murdaugh's.
MR. WATERS: Did y'all have to account for that money to the client?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: We did. We reimbursed him as well.
MR. WATERS: And why did you have to account for that?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: Because it had been stolen by Alex.
MR. WATERS: The ones that you've been describing, this was after you started to pull the thread and all of that started to unravel. Is that correct?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: That's right.
MR. WATERS: Was the quote fake Forge as you call it, was that the only thing that you detected as you started to review the activities of Alex Murdaugh while he was a partner in the law firm?
MR. WATERS: I'm going to show you what's been marked as Exhibit 329 to your testimony, and just quickly tell me if you recognize that and what it is.
JEANNIE SECKINGER: I do recognize this. This is a list of payments that were stolen by being paid to Palmetto State Bank.
MR. WATERS: All right. Hold on for me real quick.
(Break in proceedings.)
MR. WATERS: All right. Going back to State's 329, again, did you prepare this spreadsheet?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: I did.
MR. WATERS: Is this based upon your role as the CFO and going back and reviewing various records and trying to figure all of this out?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: Yes, sir.
MR. WATERS: All right.
MR. WATERS: Your Honor, at this time the State would offer State's 329 into evidence.
MR. GRIFFIN: No additional objection, Your Honor, subject to the Court's prior limitations on its use.
JUDGE NEWMAN: All right. It's admitted.
(SPREADSHEET MARKED AS STATE'S EXHIBIT NUMBER 329 WAS RECEIVED INTO EVIDENCE.)
MR. WATERS: All right, putting this up on the screen. Can you see that all right or do I need --
JEANNIE SECKINGER: Yes, I can see it.
MR. WATERS: I see up at the top there's some writing on it. Can you tell the jury what that is real quick?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: That was a mistake when I made up the worksheet that we discovered when I got here. Those checks were written in the period of 2012 instead of the 75 that I had down, so we scratched through and I initialed my correction.
MR. WATERS: So, that says 2012 and then your initials. Is that correct?
MR. WATERS: And then over here, what is this right here?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: That's the client's name that the money was stolen from.
MR. WATERS: All right, and then what's that?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: The civil action court number.
MR. WATERS: All right, and then category?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: The method that he used to get away with this, and then this payment was Palmetto State Bank checks.
MR. WATERS: And this line right there?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: The date that we put money back into our trust account to be able to refund the clients.
MR. WATERS: And then finally the amount?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: $2,079,826.54.
MR. WATERS: Does this include what was in what we've already gone through in State's 314, the other spreadsheet, or is this different money?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: It's additional money.
MR. WATERS: State's 314, what was the amount, the total amount?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: $2,841,512.55.
MR. WATERS: And then the new one we're about to talk about?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: $2,079,826.54.
MR. WATERS: Now, you mentioned Palmetto State Bank. This is not the fake Forge. Is that correct?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: That's correct.
MR. WATERS: All right. Tell me just generally what you uncovered and how funds were allegedly misappropriated through this method by the defendant.
JEANNIE SECKINGER: Palmetto State Bank was the PR on some of these funds, and there was lines on these disbursements to be paid to Palmetto State Bank. On the surface they looked okay. When I called and asked the bank to give me information backing up the checks, what had happened to them once they were written to the bank, we discovered that the money had been used for paying things on Alex's behalf like loan payments, equipment purchases, paying back loans to people he had borrowed money from. Everything was for his use.
MR. WATERS: And in looking at that, was there an individual -- an official at the bank who was assisting Alex Murdaugh with these transactions?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: Russell Laffitte was the one helping convert those funds.
MR. WATERS: And is Russell Laffitte any relation to you?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: Russell Laffitte is my brother-in-law. He's married to -- my sister's husband.
MR. WATERS: I show you what's been marked as State's 330 -- homestretch -- State's 330 to this trial and see if you recognize that document.
JEANNIE SECKINGER: This is the Badger disbursement.
MR. WATERS: All right.
MR. WATERS: Your Honor, at this time I would offer State's 330 into evidence.
MR. GRIFFIN: No additional objection, Your Honor.
JUDGE NEWMAN: It's admitted.
(DISBURSEMENT DOCUMENTS MARKED AS STATE'S EXHIBIT NUMBER 330 WAS RECEIVED INTO EVIDENCE.)
MR. WATERS: And how much were the attorney's fees on this particular case?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: $1,240,000.
MR. WATERS: That's how much the attorney's fees were?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: That's the attorney fees.
MR. WATERS: And then if we scroll down to this disbursement, we have -- what's this number right here?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: $1,325,000.
MR. WATERS: And that's pursuant to -- this disbursement was supposed to be made out to who?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: Palmetto State Bank.
MR. WATERS: Okay, and that's completely separate from these attorney's fees in this case. Is that correct?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: That's correct. It's addition.
MR. WATERS: Did those attorney's fees actually get paid into the firm account?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: Those did, yes.
MR. WATERS: And they were legitimate, correct?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: Those were legitimate.
MR. WATERS: And they were credited to who?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: Alex Murdaugh.
MR. WATERS: And that's completely separate from this additional $1,325,000 below that. Is that correct?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: That's correct.
MR. WATERS: All right, and what happened to that $1,325,000?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: That $1,325,000 ended up being converted into payments on his behalf through the bank.
MR. WATERS: All right. Can you tell me the date on that?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: November 19, 2012.
MR. WATERS: Now, this particular amount right here on your -- I'm going to show you the page 3 of this exhibit. And is this the email that you found in the records of your law firm?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: We did.
MR. WATERS: All right, and who is this email from and who is it to?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: The email is from Russell Laffitte to Alex Murdaugh.
MR. WATERS: Okay. What does it say right there?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: It says: Alex, can you get Jeannie to recut check 43162 dated 11/19/12 as follows? And then it lists four different amounts, and it says: Thanks, Russell.
MR. WATERS: And then below that, the next page, is this another email that was found in the records of your law firm?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: It is.
MR. WATERS: And what's the date on this email?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: February 6, 2013.
MR. WATERS: And please, who's the email from?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: So, this email is from Alex Murdaugh to Russell Laffitte.
MR. WATERS: All right, and tell the jury what it says, please?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: It gives an amount of $388,687.50: Whatever the amount I owe on the Hannah loan, 75K, and whatever the balance would be on the $1,325,000 after these deductions.
MR. WATERS: And, again, remind the jury what -- the amount that was written to PSB.
JEANNIE SECKINGER: $1,325,000. And in that email the last line asked -- Alex asked Russell to: Email me and request that.
MR. WATERS: Okay, and did that actually happen?
MR. WATERS: So, had your staff already cut this check based on the disbursement for $1,325,000?
MR. WATERS: And based on this email chain, did you ultimately recut checks made out to Palmetto State Bank?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: Yes, sir.
MR. WATERS: In the amounts requested?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: In the amounts requested.
MR. WATERS: And those funds, what happened to those?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: They were used to pay personal loan payments on Alex's behalf. So, again, the funds that he stole and paid obligations that he owed.
MR. WATERS: Did you have to account to the client for this amount right here?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: We did.
MR. WATERS: And you had to do that because they were misappropriated by the defendant?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: That's right.
MR. WATERS: All right. Looking through these checks, are these the checks that were recut by your staff after the request by Alex?
MR. WATERS: To Russell and then from Russell to you?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: Correct, and incidentally this one we also reimbursed the client the PR fee because the PR had not done their job. So, we made sure that we reimbursed the client for that as well.
MR. WATERS: Who was the PR?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: Russell Laffitte.
MR. WATERS: Flipping through this exhibit, are these the various checks and how they were ultimately converted?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: That's information that I got back from Palmetto State Bank showing how they were converted.
MR. WATERS: And looking at this check right here, which is the fifth page of the exhibit, can you see the date on that?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: February 8, 2013.
MR. WATERS: This check right here, what's the date on that?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: September 13, 2013.
MR. WATERS: I show you what's been marked as State's 331 and see if you recognize this.
JEANNIE SECKINGER: This is the corrected disbursement for Arthur Badger that we reconstructed.
MR. WATERS: And that goes with the prior exhibit. Is that correct?
MR. WATERS: Your Honor, at this time I would offer State's 331.
MR. GRIFFIN: No additional objection Your Honor.
JUDGE NEWMAN: It's admitted.
(DISBURSEMENT DOCUMENTS MARKED AS STATE'S EXHIBIT NUMBER 331 WERE RECEIVED INTO EVIDENCE.)
MR. WATERS: And this just, again, reflects what you were just talking about and the payments of those monies. Is that correct?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: That's correct, where previously it had the 35,000. And so our total repayments to the client was $1,360,000, which is the 35 and the 1.325.
MR. WATERS: And the 35 is the --
JEANNIE SECKINGER: The PR fee.
MR. WATERS: -- fee of Russell Laffitte?
MR. WATERS: I'm going to show you State's 332 and 334. I'm going to show you 334 first and see if you recognize this document.
JEANNIE SECKINGER: This is a disbursement to Natasha Thomas.
MR. WATERS: All right.
MR. WATERS: Your Honor, at this time I would offer State's 334 into evidence.
MR. GRIFFIN: No additional objection.
JUDGE NEWMAN: It's admitted.
(DISBURSEMENT DOCUMENTS MARKED AS STATE'S EXHIBIT NUMBER 334 WAS RECEIVED INTO EVIDENCE.)
MR. WATERS: Thank you, Your Honor.
MR. WATERS: And while we're here, State's 332?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: This is the corrected disbursement that we drafted to return the money to Natasha Thomas.
MR. WATERS: Your Honor, I would offer State's 332 into evidence.
MR. GRIFFIN: No additional objection.
JUDGE NEWMAN: It's admitted.
(DISBURSEMENT DOCUMENTS MARKED AS STATE'S EXHIBIT NUMBER 332 WAS RECEIVED INTO EVIDENCE.)
MR. WATERS: All right. Looking at this particular disbursement, again, what's the first name of client?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: Natasha.
MR. WATERS: All right, and we have various recovery amounts here. Is that correct?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: That's correct.
MR. WATERS: And we have the actual legal fees received in this case, correct?
MR. WATERS: Who were those actually credited to?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: Well, 800 of that is to Alex Murdaugh, and then the other portion of the fee was the $15,000 fee payable to Russell Laffitte as conservator for this case.
MR. WATERS: And those fees were actually -- were credited to who?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: To Alex Murdaugh.
MR. WATERS: And on top of that, though, go down to the bottom and we have this last line. What's that right there?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: Natasha Thomas, Palmetto State Bank, $325,000.
MR. WATERS: That $325,000, where did it go?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: It went to Palmetto State Bank and was converted into funds for personal use, again paying loans, buying equipment, et cetera.
MR. WATERS: Personal expense for who?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: For Alex Murdaugh.
MR. WATERS: Did y'all ultimately have to account to the client for that money?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: We did.
MR. WATERS: And why did you have to do that?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: Alex stole that money.
MR. WATERS: Do you recognize that signature right there?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: Yes, that's Russell Laffitte.
MR. WATERS: What's that check right there? Do you recognize that?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: This is the check that we wrote to Palmetto State Bank.
MR. WATERS: And what's the date on that?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: 12/20/2011.
MR. WATERS: Real quick, I want to go back just to make sure on State's 330 -- this was Arthur. That's the page that you were just talking about a minute ago?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: That's correct.
MR. WATERS: The one with the 1.325 million?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: That's correct.
MR. WATERS: And on this disbursement sheet, what was the date?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: November 19, 2012.
MR. WATERS: All right, back to Natasha. Now, you mentioned it was often common for money to be held back for liens. Is that right?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: That's right.
MR. WATERS: And ultimately the idea is to settle those liens, like, to the hospital or something like that or Medicaid, and then ultimately pay the client any excess that you were able to settle with them. Is that correct?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: That's right.
MR. WATERS: In this case, were certain monies held back for liens?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: There was money held back, yes.
MR. WATERS: Okay, and ultimately was there an amount that was paid on those liens? In particular, I'm showing you this line right here that says ACA recoveries.
JEANNIE SECKINGER: Yes, there was.
MR. WATERS: Stand by for me real quick.
(Break in proceedings.)
MR. WATERS: After we're looking at that particular line, how much was that amount?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: $110,965.27.
MR. WATERS: And was ultimately Medicaid paid back some amount of money?
MR. WATERS: Was it less than their actual bill?
MR. WATERS: And so that meant that there was some money left over that should have gone to the client. Is that correct?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: Correct.
MR. WATERS: Did that money actually go to the client?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: No, it did not.
MR. WATERS: All right. I'm going to flip towards the end of this exhibit and show you this check. It's actually the last page of the exhibit. Do you recognize that?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: Yes. That's the remaining funds that should have been made to Natasha after solving that lien, setting that lien, and it was in the amount of $25,245.08.
MR. WATERS: Can you see the date on that, or see when it cleared?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: It looks like it -- it looks like it was dated maybe 6/13/2012 or either 8, pardon my eyes, and it cleared the bank on the 8/29/2012.
MR. WATERS: All right. Do you recognize the signature on that check?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: Alex Murdaugh's.
MR. WATERS: And where did those funds go?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: Those went -- again were converted at Palmetto State Bank into things that benefitted him personally such as loan payoffs, money to them.
MR. WATERS: Did y'all ultimately have to account to the client for that money?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: We did.
MR. WATERS: And why did you have to do that?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: Because Alex Murdaugh stole it.
MR. WATERS: In looking through these documents that were attached here, what are these documents as I steadily flip through them?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: That's where the money went. So, there was payments made to Mr. Charlie Laffitte, there were boat payments paid, there was payments back to a loan from a conservatorship.
MR. WATERS: Is that a different case that the firm had?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: That is.
MR. WATERS: And who was the conservator on that case?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: Russell Laffitte.
MR. WATERS: And what's the name of that particular client?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: Plyler.
MR. WATERS: And there were multiple -- well, there were loans made from that?
MR. WATERS: Loans to who?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: There were loans made from that to Russell Laffitte and Alex Murdaugh.
MR. WATERS: So, money from this was used to pay back some of this money?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: Yes, sir.
MR. WATERS: Whose signature is that on this check, number 219721?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: That's Russell Laffitte's.
MR. WATERS: And who is that cashier's check made out to?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: Randolph Murdaugh, III.
MR. WATERS: Who is that cashier's check made out to?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: This is made out to R. Laffitte as conservator for Malik Williams.
MR. WATERS: Who is Malik Williams?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: Malik Williams was another client that Russell was a conservator for that Russell loaned money to Alex out of that conservatorship, and this is a payment back on that conservatorship loan.
MR. WATERS: When you say conservatorship, Russell was put in charge of dealing with --
JEANNIE SECKINGER: Investing it in --
MR. WATERS: -- client's money on your behalf?
MR. WATERS: And he was loaning money to himself and to Alex?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: He did out of Plyler. I'm not sure about Malik Williams, but he loaned Alex money out of Malik Williams.
MR. WATERS: And the money from some of these misappropriations you've identified was used to pay those loans back to the conservatorship?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: Correct.
MR. WATERS: All right. I'm going to show you State's 333. Do you recognize this?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: This is a disbursement for Russell Laffitte as conservator for Hakeem Pinckney.
MR. WATERS: All right.
MR. WATERS: Your Honor, at this time I would offer State's 333 into evidence.
MR. GRIFFIN: No additional objection, Your Honor.
JUDGE NEWMAN: It's admitted.
(DISBURSEMENT DOCUMENTS MARKED AS STATE'S EXHIBIT NUMBER 333 WERE RECEIVED INTO EVIDENCE.)
MR. WATERS: All right, a little bit ago we were looking at a case with a Natasha Thomas. Is this case related to that one?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: Yes. They're both in the same accident.
MR. WATERS: All right, and I'm going to show you the disbursement sheet on this particular one, and again we have a recovery here. Is that correct?
MR. WATERS: And right here we have legal fees. Is that correct?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: Correct.
MR. WATERS: How much were the legal fees for this particular one?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: For this one there was $4,098,000 that would have been credited to Alex that were payable to PMPED, and we also paid Russell Laffitte a $60,000 conservator fee.
MR. WATERS: So out of this particular one, there were legit fees earned by -- of how much again?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: Almost $4.1 million, $4,098,000.
MR. WATERS: Credited to who?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: Alex Murdaugh.
MR. WATERS: All right. On top of that, though, we scroll down and we have this entry right here. What does that say?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: Palmetto State Bank, $309,581.46.
MR. WATERS: All right. Where did that money go?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: Again, that went payable to Palmetto State Bank, and it was used with the other money from Natasha Thomas to pay off loans and for conservatorships and loans that he had made personally. So, for Alex's personal benefit.
MR. WATERS: And right there, do you recognize those signatures?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: Yes, I do.
MR. WATERS: Whose signature is that?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: Russell Laffitte.
MR. WATERS: Whose signature is that?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: Alex Murdaugh.
MR. WATERS: Right here, what is this, the third page of the exhibit?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: This is the check payable to Palmetto State Bank for $309,581.46 on behalf of the Hakeem Pinckney settlement.
MR. WATERS: Did you have to account for that with the client?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: We did.
MR. WATERS: And why did you have to do that?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: Because Alex stole that money as well.
MR. WATERS: As we go through this exhibit, are these some of the various documents?
MR. WATERS: Tell the Court and the jury what these are, please.
JEANNIE SECKINGER: That would be a loan payment on a boat loan that Alex held personally with the bank. Again, another loan payment for that same Murdaugh charter bank loan. Check payable back to Mr. Charles Laffitte for a personal loan.
MR. WATERS: And we don't have to go through every one, but that's generally these expenditures you've identified as personal for Alex?
MR. WATERS: Just a couple of more. I know we've been going for a long time. You had mentioned that -- that one instance in which there was the loan payment that should have gone to Randy Murdaugh that instead went to the defendant, correct?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: That's right.
MR. WATERS: And ultimately that happened twice, and then when it was detected he paid it back. Is that right?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: That's right.
MR. WATERS: And the matter kind of went away. Is that right?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: That's right.
MR. WATERS: Were there other instances in which Alex Murdaugh used the firms credit card for expenditures that were not business related?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: He did.
MR. WATERS: And in those instances what had happened?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: In the instances that he used it for personal, we would deduct it from his annual bonus at the end of the year and he would pay it back.
MR. WATERS: He would pay it back and the matter would be forgotten. Is that right?
MR. WATERS: When those things were happening at the law firm, were y'all aware of all of this?
MR. WATERS: And -- stand by for me real quick.
(Break in proceedings.)
MR. WATERS: All right. Sorry about that. Just real quick, when y'all allowed Alex to pay back the money in those sort of smaller instances, were you aware of all of this?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: No, sir.
MR. WATERS: When you or your staff received these disbursement funds from Alex and his staff, did they cut them in the manner in which they were instructed?
MR. WATERS: And why did they do that?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: Because they trusted him.
MR. WATERS: And in the majority of those instances that involved client money, did Alex Murdaugh also receive substantial legal fees in each one of those cases?
MR. WATERS: And in each one of those cases in which that happened, at least in the ones we've gone through according to your review, did he also misappropriate substantial money on top of that?
MR. WATERS: How long have you known Alex Murdaugh?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: Since I was sixteen, so about fifty -- no, forty years.
MR. WATERS: Worked with him closely for how long?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: Twenty-two, twenty-three years.
MR. WATERS: Did you really know Alex Murdaugh?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: I don't think I ever really knew him; I don't think anybody knows him.
MR. WATERS: Thank you. Nothing further.
JUDGE NEWMAN: Let's all stand for a moment.
(Break in proceedings.)
JUDGE NEWMAN: Okay. Cross-examination.
MR. GRIFFIN: Thank you, Your Honor. Your Honor, we would renew our request for a limiting instruction on the half a day hearing on these financial misdeeds, and I don't want the jury to be lost on what the purpose is.
JUDGE NEWMAN: Any comment, Mr. Waters?
MR. WATERS: No objection.
MR. GRIFFIN: Thank you, Your Honor.
JUDGE NEWMAN: Ladies and gentlemen, I gave this limiting instruction yesterday and I'll repeat it, that this evidence of these financial crimes and other crimes that you're now having -- receiving testimony on, it's regarding the contention that the defendant was involved in other criminal activity. That is not evidence or proof of the offenses charged in the indictment, those charges being for murder, two counts, and possession of a weapon during the commission of a crime, two counts. This testimony is being allowed for the limited purpose in assisting the State in proving motive. You may not consider it for purposes of character of Mr. Murdaugh, nor may you consider it as evidence that he has the propensity to commit other crimes, or that it is more likely that he committed the crimes with which he's currently charged. It's being allowed based on the State's representation that it helps explain the defendant's motives for which he is accused. And you may proceed.
MR. GRIFFIN: Thank you, Your Honor.
CROSS-EXAMINATION
BY MR. GRIFFIN:
MR. GRIFFIN: Good afternoon.
MR. GRIFFIN: Do you have -- let me show you Exhibit 314.
MR. GRIFFIN: Can you just put that up? Can you do that for me, Doug?
MR. GRIFFIN: This is a summary of -- it's a listing of clients of the firm who the law firm had to reimburse because of Alex's misconduct. Is that correct?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: That's correct.
MR. GRIFFIN: Now, you have been -- the law firm has been working with various law enforcement agencies since September of 2021, I suspect, sharing all of this information.
MR. GRIFFIN: And with regard to Exhibit 314, it would appear that the law firm, just for all of these clients, has paid out over $2.8 million. Is that right?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: That's right.
MR. GRIFFIN: And in a real way the law firm is the victim of this conduct.
JEANNIE SECKINGER: Correct.
MR. GRIFFIN: And for each one of these client transactions that the law firm had -- had to repay, I mean, you're aware that Alex has pending criminal charges in every single one of them.
JEANNIE SECKINGER: I'm aware of that.
MR. GRIFFIN: And the same with the Palmetto State Bank matters that you talked about.
JEANNIE SECKINGER: Correct.
MR. GRIFFIN: He has pending criminal charges for every single one of them.
MR. GRIFFIN: And we're not here today to try those charges on the financial crimes. We're here -- you understand you're testifying because he's been charged with the murder of his wife, Maggie, and his son, Paul, correct?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: I do.
MR. GRIFFIN: And they were murdered on June 7th of 2021.
JEANNIE SECKINGER: Yes, sir.
MR. GRIFFIN: Now, some of these -- it looks like, according to your testimony, that this misconduct has been going on since -- as early as 2011?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: Unfortunately when we found that out.
MR. GRIFFIN: Right. That's some ten years before the murders of Maggie and Paul, correct?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: That's correct. He managed to fool a lot of people, myself included.
MR. GRIFFIN: I understand, and I understand you have the right to be very hurt and angry about that, and are you hurt and angry about that?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: Oh, yes. I take it very personally. It haunts me that I let this -- or that this happened.
MR. GRIFFIN: Do you feel like it happened on your watch and --
JEANNIE SECKINGER: I think anybody would feel normal feeling like that. It's a big betrayal of trust.
MR. GRIFFIN: And, Ms. Seckinger, when I'm asking you these questions, I'm not in any way diminishing your feelings and your anger. I'm just trying to flesh out how these relate to the murder of Maggie and Paul.
JEANNIE SECKINGER: I understand that.
MR. GRIFFIN: But it would appear that it's been going on for years and years and years.
JEANNIE SECKINGER: Unfortunately, yes, it appears.
MR. GRIFFIN: And it has cost the law firm in 2021 and still, you know, over 4, almost $5 million it's paid out.
JEANNIE SECKINGER: That is correct.
MR. GRIFFIN: And when we're talking about the law firm, we're really talking about lawyers in the firm. His brother, Randy, correct?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: That's right.
MR. GRIFFIN: Johnny Parker, who now the firm is named after.
JEANNIE SECKINGER: Right.
MR. GRIFFIN: Ronnie Crosby.
JEANNIE SECKINGER: Right.
MR. GRIFFIN: Lee Cope.
JEANNIE SECKINGER: Correct.
MR. GRIFFIN: Mark Ball.
JEANNIE SECKINGER: Correct.
MR. GRIFFIN: And others that have come out of their pocket to reimburse clients.
JEANNIE SECKINGER: Yes, they did.
MR. GRIFFIN: Now, the Forge -- well, let me strike that. On June 7, 2021, the day Maggie and Paul were murdered, you went to Alex's office some time in the early afternoon or midafternoon and -- to try to get to the bottom of where is the fee that Chris Wilson's office said they wrote to you for the Faris case.
JEANNIE SECKINGER: Correct.
MR. GRIFFIN: And he looked at you and he said what do you want now, right?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: Yes, he did, when I was coming up the steps.
MR. GRIFFIN: And you said I wouldn't be doing my job if I wasn't up here asking you about this.
JEANNIE SECKINGER: That's correct.
MR. GRIFFIN: And I think you said he kind of had an angry look, didn't you?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: He did. When I walked up the steps, he gave me a very disgusted look and said what do you need now?
MR. GRIFFIN: But then once you got in his office, his demeanor changed and --
JEANNIE SECKINGER: It --
MR. GRIFFIN: -- and he assured you that the check was -- the funds were still in Chris Wilson's trust account?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: He did.
MR. GRIFFIN: And then sort of fast forward. On September 3rd, I believe it was 2021, Annette Griswold, from your firm, found a canceled check written from Alex -- excuse me, Chris Wilson's firm directly to Alex Murdaugh, right?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: Yes, sir.
MR. GRIFFIN: And that check wasn't written to Forge Consulting.
JEANNIE SECKINGER: No. It was written to Richard Alexander Murdaugh, Esquire.
MR. GRIFFIN: And all of these papers that you have been -- have been introduced in part of your investigation, that's the only time that, using these documents that you brought to court, where Alex has gotten a check directly -- personally from another law firm and it didn't go to the PMPED.
JEANNIE SECKINGER: We discovered during the investigation that there had been another time that that had happened, but that was not discovered by myself.
MR. GRIFFIN: And that was with Chris Wilson's firm also?
MR. GRIFFIN: All of the other stuff that you've brought here and talked about since 9:30 or so this morning involved this fake Forge account, correct?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: Correct.
MR. GRIFFIN: And then there's some stuff involving Palmetto State Bank going back to 2011, '12, '13, early on?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: Correct.
MR. GRIFFIN: With regard to the events of June 7th, when you went and talked to Alex when you were asking him about where is the fee money, you had previously spoken to, I guess, Lee Cope or someone in the firm?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: Lee Cope.
MR. GRIFFIN: And wasn't the concern at the time that Alex was trying to shield income from disclosure in this lawsuit that -- where he was a defendant that -- where he was being sued following the boating crash where Mallory Beach lost her life tragically?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: Yes. At that point we thought he was trying to shelter money, or move money into his wife's name, or reduce his income for the year by not claiming -- by not collecting a fee.
MR. GRIFFIN: Right, and it really -- and one of the reasons you thought that is because you had talked to him about what looked to be an odd way to structure an attorney's fee with the Hershberger case.
JEANNIE SECKINGER: Correct.
MR. GRIFFIN: And he explained that he didn't care about the tax consequences. He was just trying to get money into Maggie's name and not his name because of the boating accident.
JEANNIE SECKINGER: That's correct.
MR. GRIFFIN: And that was the concern and alarm within the firm is that we're not going participate in any way to shield, hide income from civil disclosure in a court proceeding.
JEANNIE SECKINGER: That's correct.
MR. GRIFFIN: Because that goes against the ethics and standards of the law firm and lawyers in that firm.
JEANNIE SECKINGER: That's correct.
MR. GRIFFIN: And no one at the time was thinking that Alex was stealing money from the firm, right?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: I had my suspicions on whether it was really in there, but we were not pursuing it as stolen money.
MR. GRIFFIN: Okay, and you had seen that -- and I think it was May of 2021 or May 12th or something that -- a disbursement sheet where attorney's fees went to Forge on the Hershberger settlement.
JEANNIE SECKINGER: Correct.
MR. GRIFFIN: Now, it's not the first time that lawyers -- well, lawyers in the firm had previously structured attorney's fees in big settlement cases, haven't they?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: Once.
MR. GRIFFIN: One time? And the way that works is the money goes from the defendant insurance company, or defendant company, or the source of payment, it goes not to the law firm and then to the lawyer. It goes to some financial entity, whether it's an insurance company or something, and then that money is then paid out in an annuity over the years to the lawyer.
JEANNIE SECKINGER: That would be the correct way.
MR. GRIFFIN: And that's -- and you delay taxes by not taking the money, right?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: Correct.
MR. GRIFFIN: And that's how it was done in the past.
JEANNIE SECKINGER: Right.
MR. GRIFFIN: The one time it was done.
JEANNIE SECKINGER: Right.
MR. GRIFFIN: And your concern here was that's not how you do it because it looked like the money came into the firm, and then it was written out to Forge, and Forge structured a payment, according to Alex.
JEANNIE SECKINGER: Correct. It would not have been the way -- the way it came in, it would not have been credited to his account. It would have just looked like it was going out as an item, so it would not have been accounted for correctly. And he also did not discuss it with anybody in the firm or have permission to do that.
MR. GRIFFIN: And the one time that it happened previously, I don't know what the amount of the fee was, but the point of the matter is that money never came into the firm, but all of the partners knew about it, you knew about it, and you were able to include it in your calculations.
MR. GRIFFIN: Including the 7 and a half percent that the lawyer is responsible for paying into the -- I guess to the --
JEANNIE SECKINGER: To the kitty, yeah.
MR. GRIFFIN: -- the distribution fund or whatever it is?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: Yeah.
MR. GRIFFIN: That's sort of a leveling account that helps lawyers who haven't had a good year. It brings them up and it just sort of smooths out --
JEANNIE SECKINGER: It kind of smooths out overhead, the different offices having different costs and --
MR. GRIFFIN: Okay, but when Alex had given you that explanation and you said there's no -- that's not proper, you're going to get taxed, and he said that I don't care, I'm trying to get money in Maggie's name and help Michael Gunn out, you never talked to Alex about the Hershberger fee again, did you?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: Not to my recollection, no, sir, not since after the murders happened. We did not discuss any of that.
MR. GRIFFIN: The -- and the Chris Wilson issue was there's a settlement in the Faris v. Mack Trucks case, the law firm received an expense check to reimburse the firm for their expenses, but where is the fee? Where is the fee? And that's what started the questions being asked.
JEANNIE SECKINGER: That's right.
MR. GRIFFIN: And you went in on June 7th to ask Alex about that. You know, you got to show me proof it's in his trust account. Is that right?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: Right. I told him we had reason to believe that he had received the money, and I needed proof that he had not.
MR. GRIFFIN: And during that meeting, he received a call that his father was being put back in the hospital.
JEANNIE SECKINGER: Well, he was in the hospital and was terminal, that they had decided that there was nothing else they could do for him and he would be terminal.
MR. GRIFFIN: And you took off your CPA hat and your CFO hat and you befriended him.
JEANNIE SECKINGER: Correct.
MR. GRIFFIN: Because you knew how close he was to his father. Is that right?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: I do.
MR. GRIFFIN: And you knew -- and his father was a well known lawyer and was a legacy name in that law firm.
JEANNIE SECKINGER: Well, that didn't mean anything to me. I had just known him since I was fifteen or sixteen years old; I didn't think of him in terms of that. I thought of him in terms of a friend and my friend's father.
MR. GRIFFIN: Right, and that Alex was close to his father?
MR. GRIFFIN: And his mother?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: As far as I know.
MR. GRIFFIN: And his family, he was close to his family.
JEANNIE SECKINGER: As far as I know. I had not spent any time with him around his family in over seventeen years.
MR. GRIFFIN: But after you learned that his father was going back in the hospital, or was in the hospital and was terminal -- let's fast forward. This was the 7th of June, correct?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: Yeah, the Monday the 7th.
MR. GRIFFIN: And on the 10th Mr. Murdaugh died, did he not?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: I believe that was the date, yes.
MR. GRIFFIN: Okay. Just a few days after this he died.
MR. GRIFFIN: Of natural causes.
MR. GRIFFIN: And so when you learned on the 7th that his father was terminal, or going back in the hospital, you became his friend and you didn't continue your inquiry anymore that day, correct?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: No, because I had told him what I needed and he knew what I was expecting to get back, and I was under the impression he was leaving to go care for his father. You know, in our firm we're very family oriented and any time there's an emergency or something we need to do, we grant the person the time off, and I made the assumption he was going to go take care of that.
MR. GRIFFIN: Right, and then you learned that night that Maggie and Paul were murdered.
JEANNIE SECKINGER: Right.
MR. GRIFFIN: What was your -- I think you said in your testimony that your initial reaction, you were scared, you were afraid. What were you scared of?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: Well, when this happened, there was a lot of rumors rolling around. Nothing this violent had ever happened. We didn't know who had gone after his family, if somebody was going to come after him, if somebody was going to come to the office and come after him. There was just a lot of dis-settlement (sic) within the office and constantly having to -- employees were scared.
MR. GRIFFIN: But your mind didn't go to gosh, I bet he killed his wife and son because I asked him about the Faris fees, right?
MR. GRIFFIN: And then after that you didn't continue investigating the Faris fees, you let Lee Cope deal directly with Chris Wilson.
JEANNIE SECKINGER: Lee Cope advised me that he would take over.
MR. GRIFFIN: But the inquiry in the Faris fee didn't stop because Maggie and Paul were murdered, did it?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: It did as far as talking to Alex.
MR. GRIFFIN: Well, I mean, Alex told you what he told you, and then the inquiry was is he telling the truth, and let's deal directly with Chris Wilson, right?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: Correct.
MR. GRIFFIN: So, the inquiry didn't stop with Maggie and Paul's murder, did it?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: It stopped for a period of time.
MR. GRIFFIN: How long?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: Couple of weeks.
MR. GRIFFIN: Couple of weeks.
JEANNIE SECKINGER: Maybe a month.
MR. GRIFFIN: Maybe a month. The death of his wife and son got him thirty days' reprieve on your investigation into the Faris matter. Is that what happened?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: Well, it did, and then we received word from Chris. At that point we still did not receive the documentation, so it did delay receiving the documentation.
MR. GRIFFIN: Now let's be clear. When you're looking into the Faris matter and you go in on June 7th, it wasn't reported to you by Maggie Murdaugh that, hey, I think Alex is stealing money. You didn't have any conversation with Maggie about that, did you?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: I never had conversations with Maggie.
MR. GRIFFIN: Or Paul. He wasn't involved in any way with the Faris fee to your knowledge, was he?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: I never had a conversation with Paul.
MR. GRIFFIN: And then you go and Lee Cope is dealing with Chris Wilson's office, and then it turns out -- it turns out that Chris Wilson sends an email to Alex saying the money is in my trust account, and Alex forwards it on to you and Lee Cope. Is that right?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: Correct.
MR. GRIFFIN: And once that happened, there was no rush to grab the money out of Chris Wilson's trust account, was there, in July of 2021?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: We did not make the rush at that point because we had enough operating money and we were going to come back to it. Typically the attorney dealing with that case would handle it, and Alex was not in the office very much.
MR. GRIFFIN: So the money -- the firm had plenty of money to operate, and you just needed to get the money into the firm by the end of the year when you did the bonuses. Is that pretty much how things were being looked at in July of 2021?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: I don't know that we would have waited until December, but we just were not doing it at that point in that summer. It was actually just an irregular summer, but personally and professionally keeping up with other obligations and timeframe to get it.
MR. GRIFFIN: And so in September of 2021, you're doing your CFO job. You decide to -- when you had this Hershberger thing on your desk -- I mean, you said it was on your desk. Was it on your desktop or a sheet of paper?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: Well, it was kind of where my important stuff is that I need to get back to, so it's sitting right under a monitor right in front of my face.
MR. GRIFFIN: And you talked about you had a number of commitments and personal issue, I think you said, and I don't know want to know about your personal issues, but what I do want to establish is Maggie and Paul's murder did not cause you to delay in following up on the Hershberger matter, did it?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: In some ways, yes, because it -- the shock of it and the delay, and the things going around the office did. But the true delay came in me having the time to do it.
MR. GRIFFIN: And you had a lot of other things going on.
MR. GRIFFIN: And what you decided to do is to see if there was some other kind of structured fees that Alex had done in 2021 to -- sort of like he did in the Hershberger case because you needed to know what his gross collections were and how much he owed to the firm, and that's why you looked in September of 2021, right?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: Correct, and I'm also still suspicious, you know, in my own mind. I wanted to make sure that he had accounted for everything and that we had indeed collected everything.
MR. GRIFFIN: Right, and so you ran a report at the law firm of clients with settlements. Tell us what you did.
JEANNIE SECKINGER: Well, I started running a report of all of the fees that he had collected and started looking through those disbursements. And then it came to me that I could probably shortcut this a little just by printing off the payments to Forge, and then I have started focusing on those first, and that's when I found the checks and the information that I found.
MR. GRIFFIN: And that -- well, let's -- do you remember about what his fee collections were about September of 2021?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: I've got so many numbers in my head, but there were over a million, probably between a million and 2 million.
MR. GRIFFIN: 2 to 3 million that he --
JEANNIE SECKINGER: A million to 2 million.
MR. GRIFFIN: Oh, a million to 2 million of fee income that he had collected --
JEANNIE SECKINGER: Correct.
MR. GRIFFIN: -- when you ran this report?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: Correct.
MR. GRIFFIN: And did that include or not include the 792 and the Faris case?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: It did not.
MR. GRIFFIN: So if you add the Faris case, it would have been over 2 million?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: I guess. I can't swear to what his number was. I look at numbers all day long, but that's the recollection of the range he would have been in.
MR. GRIFFIN: And after this, after you learned about this fake Forge account, Alex didn't -- I mean, he was forced to resign from the firm.
JEANNIE SECKINGER: That's correct.
MR. GRIFFIN: That day or the next day, correct?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: The next day.
MR. GRIFFIN: And so that money that came into the firm was used by the firm to pay off some of these victims, right?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: We have done some of that, yes.
MR. GRIFFIN: Now, the discovery of the fake Forge account when you were sort of -- when you ran the report on Forge -- and that shocked you, didn't it?
MR. GRIFFIN: That information had been in the systems of the law firm going back to, I guess, 2015 when that fake Forge account was first opened?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: I don't know when it -- I don't think it was opened that far back. But I had no reason to suspect anything was going on. We had no clients complaining about money missing, trusted him. We had no reason to look.
MR. GRIFFIN: Right.
JEANNIE SECKINGER: He fooled a lot of people like I said, myself and us included.
MR. GRIFFIN: And that's a good point. Clients weren't calling up complaining around June 7th that, hey, y'all need to be looking at Alex because, you know, something is amiss here. That wasn't happening around June 7th, was it?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: No, and shamefully when we did talk to the clients, they talked about how much they trusted Alex and how much he thought of them, and how that they were shocked and confused by the fact that he had manipulated them and confused them all of those years.
MR. GRIFFIN: And so it sounds to me like on June 7th, you didn't observe some pressure cooker going off within the firm as to how Alex was handling his business.
JEANNIE SECKINGER: I don't know about anybody else's pressure cooker. I know I was putting pressure on him to get the answers to the Faris fees.
MR. GRIFFIN: And it was a brotherhood of lawyers, that in the past that they've -- caught with getting more than what they were entitled to, they would pay it back and you let bygones be bygones. That's how it's operated in the past, right?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: On trust, yes.
MR. GRIFFIN: Right, and now the -- so, you ran a report on information that had been in the systems for years. Is that correct?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: Correct.
MR. GRIFFIN: And the tragic murders of Maggie and Paul didn't do anything to affect what was in your systems, right?
MR. GRIFFIN: And you just started looking because you had had a conversation with Alex back in May about the Hershberger fee going to Forge and not in an appropriate structured manner --
JEANNIE SECKINGER: Right.
MR. GRIFFIN: -- and that was in early May. And you never had another conversation with him about that, right?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: Well, May and June, in between -- it was late May and June. The conversations about both were kind of in tandem because every time we would talk about Hersh -- Faris, he would bring up I'm going to structure fees, but he never specifically readdressed the fact that Hershberger -- it did address the fact that he should not be doing this again, and that if he should, he needed to let somebody know. I believe Alex, meanwhile, was going around complaining to my partners about why I was on his case.
MR. GRIFFIN: To his partners?
MR. GRIFFIN: And just to be clear, the Faris fee money was -- I mean, it didn't show up on any of these reports and it was all paid into the law firm, was it not?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: It was after -- some time after September.
MR. GRIFFIN: So, here you are on September the 3rd and you are running a report. You see a lot of Forge checks on Alex's client files and you start printing off the checks.
JEANNIE SECKINGER: That's correct.
MR. GRIFFIN: And that's how you discovered it. I mean, it was that Alex, not only is he signing checks to Forge, he's endorsing the checks and putting them into the bank.
JEANNIE SECKINGER: Correct, and at -- the same day is when Annette found the check in his office that had been payable to him for the Faris fees.
MR. GRIFFIN: Yeah, I was going to get to that. So, it just -- that was pure coincidence.
JEANNIE SECKINGER: Yes. The timing of that is pure coincidence, yes.
MR. GRIFFIN: And Alex, as you understood, was confronted perhaps the next day or the --
JEANNIE SECKINGER: On Friday morning. I believe that was Friday the 3rd.
MR. GRIFFIN: Was it the same day that you --
JEANNIE SECKINGER: I did mine on Thursday the 2nd.
MR. GRIFFIN: So, the 2nd you did yours.
MR. GRIFFIN: Now, on the 7th in the afternoon, Alex called you and asked you what his balance was in his law firm retirement plan?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: Yes, sir.
MR. GRIFFIN: And he told you he was working on the financial disclosure for the boating accident case?
MR. GRIFFIN: And he had called you on other occasions to get that balance because he was filling out financial statements for one thing or another, right?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: He had before, yes.
MR. GRIFFIN: And then let me -- do you know -- well, you know he didn't have any life insurance on Maggie or Paul. Do you know that?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: I have no awareness of that.
MR. GRIFFIN: One second, Your Honor.
(Break in proceedings.)
MR. GRIFFIN: Your Honor, that's all of the questions I have.
JUDGE NEWMAN: Redirect?
MR. WATERS: Very briefly, Your Honor.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. WATERS:
MR. WATERS: You were asked some questions about when you had the conversation about the Faris fees, and what was your concern then with just the Faris fees back at that point in time on June 7th?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: That he was trying to shelter money from the boat wreck, or move assets out of his name, or either delay collecting fees. So, trying to hide income from the boat wreck.
MR. WATERS: At that point in time, did you have any idea about any of these events?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: I did not.
MR. WATERS: You were asked about the prior instances in which there had been, like, the loan -- the double loan payment and the credit cards, and Alex paid that back, right?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: That's right.
MR. WATERS: And he paid that back and everything was forgotten. Is that correct?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: That's right.
MR. WATERS: You were asked about whether or not all of this was in your systems.
JEANNIE SECKINGER: That's correct.
MR. WATERS: And it was in your systems, wasn't it?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: It was.
MR. WATERS: Since 2011, correct?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: That's right.
MR. WATERS: And he'd gotten away with it all of that time.
JEANNIE SECKINGER: He did.
MR. WATERS: I believe you testified that on June 7, 2021, when you went in to talk to Alex Murdaugh that you had your suspicions, correct?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: I did.
MR. WATERS: And you demanded what? What did you demand from him?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: I demanded proof that the money was actually in the account; I wanted the legers showing the transactions.
MR. WATERS: And did you tell him what you believed? Did you tell him why you wanted that proof?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: I told him I believed -- I had reason to believe that he had received the fee payable to him.
MR. WATERS: You were asked a little bit about the law firm, and his father was in the law firm or had been?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: He had been, yes.
MR. WATERS: Was his grandfather in the law firm?
MR. WATERS: Was there a long history of that family name in this law firm?
MR. WATERS: Was it the most prominent law firm in the area?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: I believe so, yes.
MR. WATERS: A very prominent family name?
MR. WATERS: All of this had been in your system since 2011?
MR. WATERS: Once the murders happened, it didn't seem right to be raising those issues with the defendant then, did it?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: No, it didn't.
MR. GRIFFIN: Objection to the leading.
JUDGE NEWMAN: Don't lead the witness.
MR. WATERS: After the murders happened, did it seem right to you to raise those issues to the defendant?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: No. As I stated earlier, we were concerned about the welfare of Alex and the feelings of himself. He was not at work, and we were trying to make sure that he was emotionally okay and able to deal with things before we pressured him about anything.
MR. WATERS: And then just a few weeks later and still in -- I mean, just in July, are you still in shock from all of these murders?
MR. WATERS: And did ultimately you get an email from Chris Wilson?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: I did, on July 19th.
MR. WATERS: And what did that email say?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: Chris said that he had the money in the trust available to us.
MR. WATERS: He's got the money so no big deal, correct?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: Correct.
MR. WATERS: Did you still, though, in the back of your mind have some suspicions going back for awhile?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: I had suspicions that I didn't really believe that because I had yet to see the ledger or the proof, and it seemed like there's no reason not to send that to me if something wasn't going on.
MR. WATERS: But ultimately you turned back to these issues and that Chris Wilson check was found. Did that result in the uncovering of all this?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: It did.
MR. WATERS: Did that result in him losing his job at the law firm?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: It did.
MR. WATERS: Where his family name had been a fixture there for decades.
JEANNIE SECKINGER: Correct.
MR. WATERS: And that later resulted in him losing his license to practice law.
JEANNIE SECKINGER: It did.
MR. WATERS: And the defense asked you that. Did that result in him facing a ton of criminal charges based on all of that?
MR. WATERS: All of that was on the cusp of being uncovered, was it not?
MR. GRIFFIN: Objection. Leading.
MR. WATERS: Was that on the cusp of being uncovered?
MR. GRIFFIN: Same objection.
JUDGE NEWMAN: The question has been answered.
MR. WATERS: Nothing further, Your Honor.
JUDGE NEWMAN: Any further exam?
MR. GRIFFIN: Just very briefly.
RECROSS-EXAMINATION
BY MR. GRIFFIN:
MR. GRIFFIN: Ms. Seckinger, and the finding of the Chris Wilson check was coincidental to your work on the Forge account research, correct?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: Yes, but as we uncovered the Forge, we knew we had a problem.
MR. GRIFFIN: I understand, and it was the Forge issue that led to all of this.
JEANNIE SECKINGER: It would have eventually been the issue if we had requested Chris Wilson -- regrettably that we did not. In July we would not have received the money because the money was not in there. We found that out later.
MR. GRIFFIN: We'll find out about that. But -- so, the Chris Wilson issue is a one-off compared to all of these other transactions that you brought here today, right?
JEANNIE SECKINGER: That's right.
MR. GRIFFIN: All right. Thank you.
JUDGE NEWMAN: You may step down.
JEANNIE SECKINGER: Thank you.
(The witness exited the stand.)
JUDGE NEWMAN: And we will break for lunch and resume at 2:40. 2:40.
(The jury left the courtroom.)
(A lunch break was taken.)
JUDGE NEWMAN: Mr. Harpootlian, you mentioned this morning how bad the rough draft was.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: I'm sorry, how bad what?
JUDGE NEWMAN: How bad the rough draft was that you received.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: That we paid $450 for? Yes, sir.
JUDGE NEWMAN: Okay. Okay. I wanted the record to be clear that those rough drafts were not provided by the South Carolina court reporters, South Carolina judicial reporters.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: I want to make it clear that if I said that, I never implied that our South Carolina court reporters would produce such a deficit product.
JUDGE NEWMAN: Yes.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: That was made clear to me by Court Administration that it is by -- what's the name of the company?
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: FTR.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: FDR?
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: FTR.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: FTR.
JUDGE NEWMAN: A private company. I don't know the name either, so.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Apparently has not perfected its software because we paid $450 for something that was, as you saw, not of much use. I want to make the record clear it was not our South Carolina reporters. It was some northern company.
JUDGE NEWMAN: Because certainly Ms. Harris and I have been working together for probably a decade, and I have worked with Mike as well, and they are excellent court reporters. Okay, are you ready for the jury?
MR. WATERS: The State is, Your Honor.
MR. GRIFFIN: The defense is, Your Honor.
JUDGE NEWMAN: You may bring them in.
MR. WATERS: Your Honor, I'm sorry, just real quick. One of the things that I had discussed with the defense and we had mentioned to Your Honor before is, you know, there's some issues that surround the side of the road. And we're not, you know, plowing that ground currently with the understanding with the defense that if this becomes an issue as the trial goes forward, that there won't be an objection to recalling a witness for that limited purpose, and I just want to put that on the record before we go forward.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: 100 percent in agreement, Your Honor.
JUDGE NEWMAN: All right. Very good. Thank you. You can bring the jury.
(The jury returned to the courtroom.)
COURT BAILIFF: The jury is present, sir.