Skip to content
Alex Murdaugh— Case Archive
2023 Murder Trialtrial-daytrial-dayCreighton WatersPhillip D. BarberJim GriffinDick HarpootlianDwight FalkofskeJan MalinowskiTony SatterfieldMark TinsleyChris WilsoncrossdirectprofferredirectrecrossDay 12 - February 9, 2023Vehicle evidence yielded no June 7 location data, while Chris Wilson described that evening's calls and a later $192,000 trust-account shortfall. The court admitted further financial evidence with limits on hearsay, propensity use, and unrelated-case detail.
← Day 112023 Murder TrialDay 13 →

Day 12 - February 9, 2023

Vehicle data limits, June 7 calls, and financial-evidence rulings

Judge Clifton B. Newman
14Proceedings
5Pages
5Witnesses
3,159Lines
Day 12 of 27
Appearing:
Creighton Waters Phillip D. Barber Jim Griffin Dick Harpootlian Dwight Falkofske Jan Malinowski Tony Satterfield Mark Tinsley Chris Wilson

Vehicle evidence yielded no June 7 location data, while Chris Wilson described that evening's calls and a later $192,000 trust-account shortfall. The court admitted further financial evidence with limits on hearsay, propensity use, and unrelated-case detail.

Full day summary

Automotive-data witness Dwight Falkofske said extracting the encrypted vehicle data required reverse engineering and about a year of analysis. He confirmed that no vehicle location data was recovered for June 7, and the court admitted a defense exhibit documenting vehicle device connections. Chris Wilson testified that Murdaugh directed him to issue $792,000 in legal fees directly to Murdaugh after representing that the arrangement involved annuities and had firm approval. Wilson also described calls with Murdaugh on the evening of June 7, saying Murdaugh sounded normal and reported traveling toward his mother's home and later Moselle. Wilson said Murdaugh subsequently returned only $600,000, requiring Wilson to place $192,000 of his own money into his trust account. He later recounted a September confrontation in which Murdaugh disclosed a longstanding opioid addiction and admitted stealing. On cross-examination, Wilson said he knew of no fee problem on June 7 and had noticed no outward signs of addiction. Outside the jury's presence, the court excluded Wilson's report that he heard Murdaugh had been shot beside the road, finding that portion hearsay and that Wilson was not the appropriate witness. Over defense objection, the court allowed Tony Satterfield's testimony under a limiting instruction restricting other-crime evidence to the State's motive theory. Satterfield said Murdaugh pursued an insurance claim after Gloria Satterfield's death but did not disclose the stated $505,000 and $3.8 million recoveries or pay him any part of them. He also testified that he had not accused Murdaugh before June 7 or threatened exposure before June 8. Bank CEO Jan Malinowski described an August inquiry followed by a $400,000 bank-funded deposit into an overdrawn account and the later creation of loan paperwork. Mark Tinsley then testified that he had demanded $10 million personally from Murdaugh in the Beach civil litigation and pursued financial discovery after being told Murdaugh was broke; the court limited references to an alleged cover-up and detailed questioning about another case.

Video thumbnail9:42:20
Watch →

1. Dwight Falkofske — Cross

Dwight Falkofske completed cross-examination on encrypted vehicle data and device connections before Defendant's Exhibit 90 was admitted without objection; the State conducted no redirect.

→
Cross
Dwight FalkofskePhillip D. Barber
73 lines

Dwight Falkofske explained the Suburban's automatic Bluetooth connections, confirmed that no location data was recovered for June 7, and authenticated a vehicle-event report admitted as Defendant's Exhibit 90.

Highlights

Dwight Falkofske - CrossadmissionFalkofske testified that no vehicle location data was recovered for June 7, while declining to confirm June 6 or June 8 without verification.Dwight Falkofske - Cross“There was no location data recovered on June 7th.”— Dwight FalkofskeThe statement identifies a direct limitation in the vehicle evidence for the date at issue.

2. Chris Wilson — Direct/Proffer/Cross/Redirect (Recall)

Chris Wilson testified about fees paid directly to Alex Murdaugh, their June 7 calls, and Murdaugh’s later admissions of theft and opioid addiction; the court also excluded proposed roadside-shooting testimony as hearsay before cross-examination and redirect.

→
Direct
Chris WilsonCreighton Waters
636 lines

Chris Wilson testified about $792,000 in legal fees directed to Alex Murdaugh, calls with him on June 7, and Wilson's later use of $192,000 of his own money to cover a trust-account shortfall.

Procedural
Roadside-Shooting Evidence Argument Before Proffer

The defense raised hearsay, improper-opinion, Rule 403, and scope objections to proposed testimony that Chris Wilson heard about Alex Murdaugh's roadside shooting, and the court requested a proffer before resolving admissibility.

proffer
Chris Wilson - ProfferCreighton Waters
42 lines

Chris Wilson proffered testimony about Alex Murdaugh's September 4 admissions and a later phone report that Murdaugh had been shot; the court excluded the phone report as hearsay.

Direct
Chris WilsonCreighton Waters
133 lines

Chris Wilson described confronting Alex Murdaugh about missing legal fees, recounted admissions of opioid addiction and theft, said his own $192,000 was never repaid, and revisited their final June 7 call.

Cross
Chris WilsonJim Griffin
525 lines

Chris Wilson said he knew of no Faris-fee crisis on June 7, observed ordinary demeanor during Murdaugh's late-evening calls, and viewed him as a family-oriented friend who appeared devastated after the killings.

Redirect
Chris WilsonCreighton Waters
98 lines

Chris Wilson clarified the timing of the $192,000 shortfall and June 7 calls, then explained how his trust in Alex Murdaugh contrasted with the unexpected September disclosures of opioid addiction and theft.

Highlights

Chris Wilson - Directtestimony highlightWilson testified that Murdaugh directed him to issue the $792,000 fee directly to Murdaugh for purported annuities, represented that his partners had approved the arrangement, and received Wilson's trust because of their longstanding relationship.Chris Wilson - Directtestimony highlightWilson used his phone log to place calls with Murdaugh at 9:11 and 9:20 p.m. on June 7, testifying that Murdaugh sounded normal and said he was nearing his mother's house.Chris Wilson - DirectadmissionWilson testified that Murdaugh returned only $600,000 of the $792,000 fee, requiring Wilson to deposit $192,000 of his own money before confirming that the full amount was held in trust.Chris Wilson - Direct“He asked me -- he told me he didn't have the $192,000. And, I mean, at that point I know that I've got a trust account for which I'm responsible for. I've got money that's supposed to have been in my trust account payable to his firm for fees, that's my responsibility, and so I had to put $192,000 of my own money in my trust to hold for the fees for his firm.”— Chris WilsonWilson testified that Murdaugh's shortfall forced him to cover $192,000 personally.Chris Wilson - ProfferrulingAfter Wilson described receiving a phone report that Murdaugh had been shot and transported by helicopter, the court sustained the defense objection to that portion as hearsay and found Wilson was not the appropriate witness for the issue.Chris Wilson - DirectadmissionWilson described confronting Murdaugh at the Almeda home on September 4. He testified that Murdaugh cried, disclosed a longstanding opioid addiction, admitted stealing from the firm and clients, and acknowledged harming Wilson and others financially.Chris Wilson - Cross“I didn't know about any issue with fees prior to June 7th or even after that.”— Chris WilsonWilson directly limited his knowledge of any financial pressure involving the Faris fees around June 7.

7. Tony Satterfield — Direct/Cross/Redirect (Recall)

The court allowed Tony Satterfield’s testimony about allegedly diverted settlement proceeds, then heard his direct, cross, and redirect examinations about Alex Murdaugh’s handling of the claim and Satterfield’s requests for updates.

→
Procedural
Satterfield Testimony Admissibility Argument

The court denied the defense's Rule 403 request to exclude Tony Satterfield's testimony, preserved the objection, and agreed to repeat its limiting instruction on financial evidence.

Direct
Tony SatterfieldCreighton Waters
377 lines

Tony Satterfield described trusting Alex Murdaugh to pursue insurance proceeds after Gloria Satterfield's death, receiving progress reports without disclosure of recoveries, and later obtaining a confession of judgment concerning the missing funds.

Cross
Tony SatterfieldDick Harpootlian
65 lines

Tony Satterfield said he had not accused or threatened Alex Murdaugh over the missing settlement funds before June 8 and acknowledged a later civil recovery exceeding the stated loss.

Redirect
Tony SatterfieldCreighton Waters
29 lines

Tony Satterfield dated the case-related texts to April 2021, recalled Murdaugh's recurring status explanations, and reaffirmed that he considered Alex his lawyer and received no payment from him.

Highlights

Satterfield Testimony Admissibility ArgumentrulingThe court denied the motion to exclude, finding the testimony sufficiently connected to the State's theory and more probative than prejudicial; after the defense raised the June 22 phone-record date, the court maintained that the precise June date was not significant to its ruling.Tony Satterfield - Directprocedural actionThe court instructed the jury that testimony about alleged other criminal activity could be considered only for the State's motive theory, not as character or propensity evidence.Tony Satterfield - Directtestimony highlightSatterfield said Murdaugh did not disclose the stated $505,000 and $3.8 million recoveries or personally pay him any part of them.Tony Satterfield - CrossadmissionSatterfield testified that before June 8, 2021, he had not threatened Murdaugh with exposure over the missing money.

8. Jan Malinowski — Direct/Cross/Redirect/Recross (Recall)

Palmetto State Bank CEO Jan Malinowski testified about Murdaugh-related debt, bank advances, collateral, and later-discovered financial misconduct; the court also declined to strike Mark Tinsley’s testimony.

→
Direct
Jan MalinowskiCreighton Waters
535 lines

Bank CEO Jan Malinowski traced Murdaugh's multimillion-dollar debt, a $400,000 overdraft deposit and $350,000 wire, and loan documents he said were created after an August 2021 board inquiry.

Procedural
Motion Concerning Mark Tinsley’s Testimony

The court refused to exclude Mark Tinsley's testimony over a reported $1,000 donation to a witness fundraiser, allowed cross-examination on the issue, and reserved rulings on other proposed testimony.

Cross
Jan MalinowskiJim Griffin
180 lines

Jan Malinowski testified that Murdaugh historically had access to bank credit and substantial collateral, while qualifying that a $350,000 advance was documented later and one loan appeared unsecured.

Redirect
Jan MalinowskiCreighton Waters
25 lines

Jan Malinowski testified that undisclosed financial misconduct would have ended further lending and that the bank was left with uncollected loans, including $750,000.

Recross
Jan MalinowskiJim Griffin
9 lines

Jan Malinowski confirmed that the bank's mortgages on the previously reviewed properties remained in place.

Highlights

Jan Malinowski - Directtestimony highlightMalinowski testified that an August 9 inquiry into Murdaugh's banking relationship was followed by a bank-funded $400,000 deposit into an account that had been overdrawn by $347,784.67 on August 6; he said no loan application or supporting paperwork then existed.

11. Mark Tinsley — Direct (Recall)

Mark Tinsley described efforts to examine Alex Murdaugh’s finances in the Mallory Beach civil case. After the jury left, the court limited questioning about another civil case, and the parties discussed the prosecution’s expected timeline and defense-witness scheduling.

→
Direct
Mark TinsleyCreighton Waters
311 lines

Mark Tinsley described the boat-case insurance limits, a $10 million personal demand against Alex Murdaugh, the rejection of claims that Murdaugh was broke, and financial discovery that led to the admitted motion to compel.

Procedural
Evidence Objection and Defense-Witness Scheduling

The court sustained a defense relevance objection to detailed civil-case questioning, then discussed the State's estimated completion date and travel arrangements for out-of-state defense experts.

Highlights

Mark Tinsley - Directtestimony highlightTinsley said he demanded $10 million from Murdaugh personally, while Murdaugh's representatives responded that he was broke and might be able to assemble about $1 million.Mark Tinsley - Direct“And so I'm putting pressure where I can put pressure, and this is a place that I can put pressure.”— Mark TinsleyTinsley expressly characterized the financial discovery as a source of litigation pressure.
← Day 112023 Murder TrialDay 13 →