Tony Satterfield — Direct/Cross/Redirect (Recall)
516 linesJUDGE NEWMAN: Anything before the jury comes in? Yes, sir.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Please the Court, Your Honor? Mr. Waters has informed me that he is going to call a young man named Satterfield who was the one of the heirs of the Satterfield estate. The allegation is that Mr. Murdaugh converted those proceeds like all of the conversions we've heard about. The difference is in this case he is the victim and, you know, Mr. Waters used the term gilding the lily the other day, and he told us that it meant piling on. Under the 403 analysis -- and again this is being allowed for the limited purpose of motive -- we believe and we submit to the Court that this is more prejudicial than it is probative. They've got records they put in of millions of dollars of theft. And, you know, we would offer that if he had some summary chart we would, pursuant to our previous objections, stipulate to it as to the losses in this case for purposes of what Your Honor has already allowed with obviously that stipulation subject our previous objection rather than calling, you know, witnesses who are victims that add nothing to the evidence that Your Honor has allowed. We would under Rule 403, object to the prejudicial being more -- outweighing -- the prejudicial outweighs any probative value. Thank you, Your Honor.
JUDGE NEWMAN: All right. Yes, sir?
MR. WATERS: Your Honor, again, Mr. Satterfield testified in camera. There has already been testimony admitted, again, about him stealing through the fake Forge from his clients, stealing from his law firm. But this is something different. This is where -- a situation where he was actually a civil defendant and still managed to misappropriate that money as well. And additionally the amount of money is extremely significant. It's millions of dollars. And the other thing about this is, is that as you heard from Mr. Satterfield, the fact of this being out there was kind of percolating out in the world and he had conversations with Mr. Murdaugh as time was approaching, and Mr. Murdaugh is telling him, oh, everything is okay with the case and all of the rest of it when the money had long been misappropriated and spent by Mr. Murdaugh. So, this is a different type, and it also has a connection with the overriding situation that Mr. Murdaugh found himself in. And so we believe that it still is fair game and is not -- its probative value is not substantially outweighed by the danger any of unfair prejudice.
JUDGE NEWMAN: What is the timeline with regard to Satterfield?
MR. WATERS: So Mr. Satterfield, as far as the communications with the defendant, the money actually -- the first settlement, I believe, was misappropriated not long after the boat case in March of '19. There is actually another aspect that's going on as well. There's been testimony about how the boat case changed things, and it created some very significant difficulties for the defendant that was coming to a head at that time. The subsequent recovery, which is much larger, about, about $3.8 million was at some point after that. However, there are, in fact, communications, and you heard from Mr. Satterfield. There are communications, text messages which I provided to the defense in April of 2021, in which the defendant is assuring him that everything -- they're working hard on the case and everything is fine and all the rest of it. And so that is -- again, this is part and parcel of things that are in these hidden aspects of this whole other life that the defendant had that are percolating as everyone moves to June of 2021. Additionally, there are calls. I think Mr. Satterfield testified as to calls in June of 2021. The records reflect some calls on June 22nd between the two of them, but there still are text messages from the defendant. And, Your Honor, if I can have something marked at this time and pass it up if you would like to see it? These actually were identified after he testified last time, but the defendant reaches out to him and tells him, hey, just checking on you. Everything is fine. We're working on the case. It's a tough case. It's a complex case and, therefore, you know, don't worry about it when, again, the money had been longed misappropriated.
JUDGE NEWMAN: That's a pretty long answer but not to the question. I said what is the timeline, and perhaps the text messages have something to do with timeline. I recall his testimony, Satterfield's in-camera testimony. Something to the effect that in early June or at or around that time?
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: The money was diverted in May of 2019.
JUDGE NEWMAN: Yeah, but the discovery is what -- the discovery --
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: The discovery did not come until --
JUDGE NEWMAN: Satterfield testified that he heard reports at some point in time, and that's my question to you.
MR. WATERS: Yes, sir. He testified that as we move into late 2021, late 20 -- 2021 he is hearing reports, and there are reports out there that there had been a settlement in the case, and so ultimately there's discussions with Alex Murdaugh, which he'll testify he would, you know, talk with a few times a year about the case, and was assured even though, yes, Mr. Harpootlian is right, that money had been misappropriated a long time ago that everything was okay. He was working hard on the case. And so that -- the fact of -- the important point to this case is, is that that issue for the defendant is still out there. And he's got this young man as we move into the spring of 2021 believing that the case is still ongoing and he's still working on it, and that's the connection here as part and parcel of the overwhelming set of circumstances for the defendant.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Your Honor, just briefly. The money is misappropriated in 2019. That young man testified he didn't know when he learned about it, that there may have been a settlement. It could have been before June 7th or after June 7th. And the fact that he doesn't know when I think contributes to the fact that this calls for speculation that he knew something that in some way would have influenced Alex Murdaugh to murder his wife and son. And that's -- the only reason this testimony is coming in is to show with some immediacy. And, by the way, if you look at the phone records, the only calls between these folks began on June 22nd, two weeks after the murders. So, it's not temporal, and he can't say whether he had any knowledge of the misappropriation of the -- actually, all he knows about would be the settlement. And, you know, again there was nothing immediate about this on June 7th from this particular witness. Now, again, we would be more than willing to some sort of stipulation that that's the timeline, subject to our previous objections, rather than putting a witness up who is going to testify he doesn't know when he found out about it. It could have been before June 7th, it could have been after, and they have -- they don't even get any phone calls about it until June 22nd, and there's nothing that -- no action has begun. Nothing coming forward after -- or prior to June 22nd, and these emails all occur after June 7th. So, again, this is a prejudicial versus probative, and, you know, this is gilding the lily. This is piling on. This is just more trying to prejudice the jury into believing that somehow someone who steals a bunch of money in any way whatsoever would commit a murder. It's character evidence pure and simple.
MR. WATERS: Your Honor, the -- actually the final misappropriation in the Satterfield case was in October of 2020, and, again, there were press articles out there. The texts -- he said these emails were after June 7th and they're not. They are in April. Mr. Satterfield testified in camera that he remembered having a conversation in June of 2022. After that, we actually looked and we found some phone records, which again are June 22nd of 2021, but we also found these text messages from April in which the defendant is reaching out to Mr. Satterfield and assuring him that he's working hard on the case and all of the rest of it. And, again, that's part and parcel of the things that were percolating out there, and part and parcel of the pressures that were on him that the State's theory is he could not solve here.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Your Honor, just one last point. This all began when this idea, argued very thoroughly by the Attorney General, that all of this financial crime stuff is to prove that on the night of June 7th, he knew because of that conversation in the office that he -- the jig was up, that he -- in a day or two in that hearing on Thursday everyone would know that he was a thief and everything had crashed down on him, and to distract from that and delay things, he went home and butchered his son and butchered his wife. And by the way, I might point out, that same day he learned his father was terminal and wouldn't live much longer and that would be, in my opinion, as much of, if not more -- well, enough of a distraction for --
MR. WATERS: I agree.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: You agree? That he didn't -- there's no rational way he would think that he would need to butcher his wife and son to distract, knows his father is getting ready to die, which would be distraction in that community and in that law firm. So, again, I think we need to get back to why we began this three or four or five -- I can't remember how many days we've been doing financials. I mean, this is a murder trial, not a financial fraud trial. And to the extent it goes to motive, again, we're more thank willing to stipulate that this amount of money disappeared, that the rightful heirs of it, receipt of it, didn't get it. But putting a child on the stand to talk about -- and again, he didn't know when he found out about it or when he began to raise those issues.
JUDGE NEWMAN: I believe he's an adult, isn't he?
MR. WATERS: He is an adult. He has an job in an emergency room as a tech.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: I apologize to the young man. He looks young to me. I'm sorry.
JUDGE NEWMAN: Anything further?
MR. WATERS: Your Honor, the only thing I would say is that the State's theory isn't as simple as that; it's broader than this. But, again, I think that this is a different category, and it's part and parcel of everything that was going on as we move to June 7th and, therefore, is relevant for the jury to understand very much as the pressures that can cause him to murder his wife and son, particularly in the face of the defense contention that he could never do such a thing.
JUDGE NEWMAN: Mr. Satterfield testified in camera that in June of 2021, he made a call to Mr. Murdaugh asking about the status of the case. He made that call, he testified to, because he had heard reports that there was some concern about the status of the case sufficient to cause him to call Mr. Murdaugh to ask about the status of it, and he testified that he could not remember if he called Mr. Murdaugh or if Mr. Murdaugh called him: But, yes, I talked to him in June of 2021. That is according to the rough draft of the transcript that has been provided to the Court. I find that this testimony is consistent with the State's theory of Mr. -- of the defendant being in a frantic state, seeking to avoid disclosure of these financial crimes and thefts, and that this testimony is consistent with the State's theory. The Court has granted the State's motion to allow evidence of other crimes, and this is additional evidence that is close in point in time and is admissible, and I deny the motion to exclude.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Your Honor, may I bring your attention to one factual issue? The Attorney General --
JUDGE NEWMAN: Of course I asked is there anything else, but go ahead.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: I apologize, Your Honor. I'm trying to hurry, if I can, because there may be an ending to this case some day. I'm not trying to delay it. The phone records the Attorney General is going to present through this witness indicate the only call, the only call between the two of them was on June 22nd, two weeks after the murders. So, if there's some phone call, there's no mystery about when the phone call came after June 7th, two weeks later. So, in terms of him making -- putting Mr. Murdaugh on alert that something imminent was going to happen, it's two weeks later.
JUDGE NEWMAN: Well, it's impossible for anyone to know what's on, on one's mind or state of mind at any given point in time. But the magnitude of this case almost morphs all the others in the amount and it is something that I would -- if one is being concerned and attempting to prevent disclosure and seeking to divert attention from the impending disclosure of information, and that disclosure would likely have taken place not only for some of the others that we've had testimony concerning but most definitely this particular one. So, I understand your objection. It's a fact at issue, but I find it's more probative than prejudicial for all of the reasons I previously explained. Yes, sir.
JUDGE NEWMAN: And I don't think whether it's June 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 20th, 21st, 25th is of any significance.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Well, Your Honor, you said this a moment ago, and if you would charge the jury with it maybe I'll sit down, which is no one knows what's going on somebody's mind, and maybe that's something you can tell the jury at the end of this case. Secondly --
JUDGE NEWMAN: There's a specific charge on that: intent.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Right. Moving on, we would ask -- two things. One, I would except your ruling. I'm not sure I have to do that but I'm in the old school that if you didn't preserve it, it was gone.
JUDGE NEWMAN: Yes, sir, I understand.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Secondly, we would ask you to, and I know you said yesterday you weren't going to do this again, but this is, as he's just pointed out, a horse of a different color. It's a different character kind of witness. I would ask you to read your charge on this testimony once again. And hopefully I think we're close to the end of this financial testimony so it may be the last time I would ask you to read it.
JUDGE NEWMAN: Yes.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Thank you.
JUDGE NEWMAN: Yes, sir.
MR. WATERS: Obviously I would leave that to the Court's discretion.
JUDGE NEWMAN: Yes, I have it right here.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Thank you.
JUDGE NEWMAN: I'll give it one more time.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Thank you.
JUDGE NEWMAN: Let's bring the jury.
(The jury returned to the courtroom.)
COURT BAILIFF: The jury is present, Your Honor.
JUDGE NEWMAN: Yes, sir, thank you. Welcome back. Once again, ladies and gentlemen, the State's next witness is expected to give testimony -- further testimony regarding other crimes committed by the defendant, other alleged criminal activity by the defendant. And as I instructed you earlier, the fact that the defendant may or may not have been involved in other criminal activity is not evidence of or proof that he committed the offenses alleged in the indictments against him. This testimony is allowed for the limited purpose of assisting the State in proving the State's theory or allegations regarding motive. You may not consider it for the purposes of Mr. Murdaugh's character, or you cannot consider that for propensity to commit other crimes, or that it's more likely that he committed these other crimes which he's been charged but not convicted of, but it is being allowed based on the State's theory and representation that helps explain the defendant's motive to commit the crimes for which he is accused. And you may call your next witness.
MR. WATERS: May it please the Court, Your Honor? State calls Tony Satterfield.
The witness, MICHAEL SATTERFIELD, was first duly sworn and testified as follows:
COURT CLERK: State your name again for the record, spell your last name after you sit down, and pull your chair up so we can hear you.
TONY SATTERFIELD: My name is Michael Satterfield. My last name is spelled S-a-t-t-e-r-f-i-e-l-d.
DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. WATERS:
MR. WATERS: Mr. Satterfield, how are you doing today?
TONY SATTERFIELD: Good. How are you?
MR. WATERS: I'm good. Tell the jury just a little bit about yourself. Where did you grow up and, you know, what do you do for a living?
TONY SATTERFIELD: I grew up in Hampton. I live in Beaufort and I work at Beaufort Memorial Hospital.
MR. WATERS: Okay. Also, the court reporter is taking stuff down there. I'm really known for talking fast, too, but let's slow it down so they can get everything down. You grew up in Hampton you said?
TONY SATTERFIELD: Yes.
MR. WATERS: And you said -- where did you work?
TONY SATTERFIELD: Beaufort Memorial.
MR. WATERS: Okay, and what do you there?
TONY SATTERFIELD: I work in the ER.
MR. WATERS: How long have you been working there?
TONY SATTERFIELD: A little over five years.
MR. WATERS: Okay, and where -- did you work anywhere prior to that?
TONY SATTERFIELD: I did.
MR. WATERS: And where did you work?
TONY SATTERFIELD: The pharmacy.
MR. WATERS: The pharmacy? Okay. Who is your mom?
TONY SATTERFIELD: Gloria Satterfield.
MR. WATERS: Gloria Satterfield, and is your mom still with us?
TONY SATTERFIELD: She's not.
MR. WATERS: And when did she pass?
TONY SATTERFIELD: February 26, 2018.
MR. WATERS: And do you have a sibling?
TONY SATTERFIELD: I do.
MR. WATERS: And what's his name?
TONY SATTERFIELD: Brian.
MR. WATERS: Brian? All right. Where did your mom pass?
TONY SATTERFIELD: In the hospital.
MR. WATERS: Did something happen to her?
TONY SATTERFIELD: Yes.
MR. WATERS: Tell the jury what happened to her.
TONY SATTERFIELD: She had a trip and fall.
MR. WATERS: Where did that occur?
TONY SATTERFIELD: I'm not sure the exact date it occurred.
MR. WATERS: But where did it?
TONY SATTERFIELD: I'm sorry, at Moselle in Colleton County.
MR. WATERS: Okay. Was she working for the Murdaugh family?
TONY SATTERFIELD: She was.
MR. WATERS: What did she do for them?
TONY SATTERFIELD: She was their housekeeper, babysat for them, and anything else they needed.
MR. WATERS: Babysat, whatever they needed --
TONY SATTERFIELD: Yes.
MR. WATERS: -- housekeeper?
TONY SATTERFIELD: Yes.
MR. WATERS: How long did she work for them?
TONY SATTERFIELD: A little over twenty years. I'm not sure of the exact amount.
MR. WATERS: Twenty years. During that time, did you get to know the Murdaugh family?
TONY SATTERFIELD: I did.
MR. WATERS: Did you get to know the defendant, Alex Murdaugh?
TONY SATTERFIELD: I did.
MR. WATERS: Do you see him here in the courtroom today?
TONY SATTERFIELD: I do.
MR. WATERS: Can you point him out for the jury?
MR. WATERS: Can the record reflect he has identified the defendant?
JUDGE NEWMAN: Yes, sir.
MR. WATERS: Your mom worked for this family for twenty years babysitting. She helped raise the children?
TONY SATTERFIELD: Yes.
MR. WATERS: Did you get to know Maggie?
TONY SATTERFIELD: A little bit, yes.
MR. WATERS: Did you get to know Paul or Buster at all?
TONY SATTERFIELD: A little bit, yes.
MR. WATERS: And you got to know Alex, right?
TONY SATTERFIELD: Yes.
MR. WATERS: You said your mom had a trip and fall at Moselle at their property?
TONY SATTERFIELD: Yes.
MR. WATERS: And did she go to the hospital?
TONY SATTERFIELD: Yes.
MR. WATERS: Was she ever able to tell you how she tripped or anything like that?
MR. WATERS: How long was she in the hospital before she passed away?
TONY SATTERFIELD: Give and take four, five weeks, somewhere up in there.
MR. WATERS: After she passed away, did you -- was there a funeral?
TONY SATTERFIELD: Yes.
MR. WATERS: And after the funeral, did people go to somebody else's house and visit like people do?
TONY SATTERFIELD: Yes.
MR. WATERS: At any point in time during that funeral or thereabouts, did you have a conversation with the defendant over there?
TONY SATTERFIELD: Yes.
MR. WATERS: And what --
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Please the Court, Your Honor? I'm objecting to questions by Mr. Waters that respond with a yes or no. Those are typically leading questions. Not that I'm concerned about these questions. I just don't want my lack of objection to lead to somebody's belief that you can ask questions that respond to a yes or no.
JUDGE NEWMAN: Mr. Waters?
MR. WATERS: I think my question did not suggest the answer. I said did you have a conversation, and my next question was what was that conversation.
JUDGE NEWMAN: All right. You can ask that question.
MR. WATERS: Thank you.
MR. WATERS: So, what was that question -- excuse me, what was that conversation you had with the defendant at the funeral or thereabouts?
TONY SATTERFIELD: If I remember correctly, I'm going to kind of take care of you boys and kind of, you know.
MR. WATERS: He's going to do what? I'm sorry?
TONY SATTERFIELD: Take care of you boys.
MR. WATERS: Did he say how he was going to do that?
TONY SATTERFIELD: Partially, yes.
MR. WATERS: What did he say?
TONY SATTERFIELD: He was going to file a claim against his insurance company.
MR. WATERS: He was going to what?
TONY SATTERFIELD: File a claim against his insurance company.
MR. WATERS: His insurance company?
TONY SATTERFIELD: Yes.
MR. WATERS: Did he say how much coverage there was?
TONY SATTERFIELD: Like 505,000, I believe.
MR. WATERS: 505,000?
TONY SATTERFIELD: Yes.
MR. WATERS: And did he say anything about how much money you may receive?
TONY SATTERFIELD: The goal was to get me and my brother, Brian, at least $100,000 apiece.
MR. WATERS: And did any other bills need to be taken care of?
TONY SATTERFIELD: The medical bills.
MR. WATERS: For who?
TONY SATTERFIELD: My mom.
MR. WATERS: When he told you that, did you agree to do that?
TONY SATTERFIELD: Yes.
MR. WATERS: Did you view the defendant as your lawyer?
TONY SATTERFIELD: Yes.
MR. WATERS: Did you go and meet with him about it?
TONY SATTERFIELD: Yes.
MR. WATERS: Did he tell you about what to do with any paperwork you may receive?
TONY SATTERFIELD: Any paperwork or bill or anything, just send them to him.
MR. WATERS: Can I have the ELMO, please?
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: No objection subject to our previous objection.
JUDGE NEWMAN: Is that something you're offering into evidence?
MR. WATERS: I'm going to show it to the witness, but yes, sir. Yeah. I'll offer State's 372 into evidence at this time.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: No objection to this evidence.
JUDGE NEWMAN: It's admitted without objection.
(COVERSHEET MARKED AS STATE'S EXHIBIT NUMBER 372 WAS RECEIVED INTO EVIDENCE.)
MR. WATERS: Let me ask you this. So, did you agree to let the defendant go forward with this claim?
TONY SATTERFIELD: Yes.
MR. WATERS: And I'm going to -- I had asked you whether or not -- what he told you to do about paperwork, and I'm going to show you what's been marked to Exhibit 372 to your testimony. Do you recognize that?
TONY SATTERFIELD: Yes.
MR. WATERS: Tell the jury what that is, please?
TONY SATTERFIELD: This is the coversheet that I sent him. I believe I had a hospital bill and some kind of other important paperwork.
MR. WATERS: Okay. So, you had received some paperwork in the mail?
TONY SATTERFIELD: Yes.
MR. WATERS: And did you handwrite this?
TONY SATTERFIELD: I did.
MR. WATERS: And who did you send this to?
TONY SATTERFIELD: Alex Murdaugh.
MR. WATERS: I'll put it up on the screen. Tell the jury quickly what this is about. Can you see it on the screen? I can bring it back to you.
TONY SATTERFIELD: Okay. So, this is a coversheet that I attached to the documents that I sent Alex.
MR. WATERS: And what kind of documents? Do you remember what kind they were?
TONY SATTERFIELD: One was a hospital bill, and one was from the trailer company, I believe. I don't recall exactly what it was.
MR. WATERS: The trailer company for who?
TONY SATTERFIELD: My mom.
MR. WATERS: Your mom, and the hospital bill for who?
TONY SATTERFIELD: Yes, my mom.
MR. WATERS: Your mom? And you sent these to him because they were relevant to the case?
TONY SATTERFIELD: Yes.
MR. WATERS: At any point in time, did you -- as this case was developing, did you go and meet with the defendant at his office?
TONY SATTERFIELD: Yes.
MR. WATERS: Did he have any paperwork for you?
TONY SATTERFIELD: Yes.
MR. WATERS: Did he get you to sign some paperwork?
TONY SATTERFIELD: Yes.
MR. WATERS: Did you become the personal representative of your mom's estate?
TONY SATTERFIELD: I did.
MR. WATERS: And who gave you the paperwork to sign for that?
TONY SATTERFIELD: Alex.
MR. WATERS: When you signed that paperwork, were you aware that there had already been --
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Objection, Your Honor. Leading.
JUDGE NEWMAN: You can't lead the witness.
MR. WATERS: I'll rephrase.
JUDGE NEWMAN: I sustain the objection.
MR. WATERS: At some point in time, did Alex say he wanted to involve another lawyer?
TONY SATTERFIELD: Yes.
MR. WATERS: And who was that?
TONY SATTERFIELD: Cory Fleming.
MR. WATERS: And what did he tell you about that?
TONY SATTERFIELD: If I understood it correctly, I'm going to send these to Cory Fleming, my friend, because I can't be the -- he says there was going to be a conflict of interest. That's how I understood it.
MR. WATERS: All right, and did you ultimately meet with Cory Fleming?
TONY SATTERFIELD: Yes.
MR. WATERS: How many times did you meet with him?
TONY SATTERFIELD: If I recall correctly, maybe once or twice.
MR. WATERS: Okay. Over the course of this case, if you had a question, who would you call?
TONY SATTERFIELD: Alex.
MR. WATERS: At some point the defendant, Alex, had a conversation with you about letting someone else be PR?
TONY SATTERFIELD: Yes.
MR. WATERS: And what was that conversation?
TONY SATTERFIELD: That I should let somebody else be PR because based on that he's a business man and it would be harder for the insurance to go up against somebody like that.
MR. WATERS: Okay, and who told you that?
TONY SATTERFIELD: Alex.
MR. WATERS: And what did you say to that?
TONY SATTERFIELD: Yes.
MR. WATERS: All right, and who was -- did somebody else get involved at this point?
TONY SATTERFIELD: Yes.
MR. WATERS: And who was that?
TONY SATTERFIELD: The PR, Chad Westendorf.
MR. WATERS: At that time, did you sign any paperwork for him to become PR, Chad?
TONY SATTERFIELD: I did.
MR. WATERS: All right, and who brought you that paperwork?
TONY SATTERFIELD: I believe I signed it at Alex's office, or either I went to the bank. I can't recall.
MR. WATERS: And at that point in time, were you aware of any recovery in the case?
MR. WATERS: Were you aware a recovery had already been received in the case?
MR. WATERS: Did anyone at that time tell you that there was already $505,000 that had been recovered?
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Objection, Your Honor.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: That's not in evidence. I mean, he's throwing these numbers and times out. There's nothing in the record to indicate when or who has received or how it was disbursed. I object.
MR. WATERS: I asked him -- Your Honor, I'm sorry. I asked him if he was aware of that. I think that's relevant.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Aware of something that no one has said happened? I mean, I would object.
JUDGE NEWMAN: Rephrase your question, please.
MR. WATERS: Did Alex tell you there had been a recovery of $505,000 already in the case at that time?
MR. WATERS: Did he ever tell you there had been a recovery of $505,000 at that time?
MR. WATERS: Was there a recovery at that time of $505,000 as you've come to find out?
TONY SATTERFIELD: Later on.
MR. WATERS: Later on you found out?
TONY SATTERFIELD: Yes.
MR. WATERS: And did he ever pay you one dime?
MR. WATERS: Who was the PR that the defendant talked to you about appointing instead of you?
TONY SATTERFIELD: Chad Westendorf.
MR. WATERS: Did you ever meet with him?
TONY SATTERFIELD: Yes, like once or twice.
MR. WATERS: Did he ever tell you about a $505,000 settlement that had already occurred?
MR. WATERS: Did the defendant ever tell you that he also had a $5 million umbrella policy?
MR. WATERS: Did he ever tell you that there had been recovery against that?
MR. WATERS: Did he tell you that there had been a recovery of $3.8 million against that?
MR. WATERS: Did he ever pay you one penny of $3.8 million?
MR. WATERS: As the months went on and moving into the early part of June 2021, would you periodically have conversations with Alex about the case?
TONY SATTERFIELD: Yes.
MR. WATERS: How often do you think you would talk to Alex?
TONY SATTERFIELD: Every three to four months give or take.
MR. WATERS: And do you recall what Alex would tell you about the case?
TONY SATTERFIELD: Yes. First of all, it was a hard case and it was making progress.
MR. WATERS: Say that again.
TONY SATTERFIELD: At first it would start off it was going to be a hard case, and then it turned into we're making progress.
MR. WATERS: You're making progress?
TONY SATTERFIELD: Yes.
MR. WATERS: And what had the defendant told you about the most that you could recover? What did he tell you at least?
TONY SATTERFIELD: Nothing.
MR. WATERS: I'm going to show you what has been marked as State's Exhibit 463 to your testimony and see if you recognize that document.
TONY SATTERFIELD: Yes, I do.
MR. WATERS: What are those?
TONY SATTERFIELD: These are text messages between me and Alex.
MR. WATERS: Your Honor, at this time I would move State's 453 into evidence.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Subject to our previous objection, no objection.
JUDGE NEWMAN: It's admitted.
(TEXT MESSAGES MARKED AS STATE'S EXHIBIT NUMBER 453 WERE RECEIVED INTO EVIDENCE.)
MR. WATERS: All right. I'm going to put this up on the screen and kind of zoom it in. You've got a screen over there, but if you can't see it because the writing is kind of small, you let me know and I'll bring it to you, okay? Do you recognize that that's on the screen right now?
TONY SATTERFIELD: Yes.
MR. WATERS: And who is that text from?
TONY SATTERFIELD: Alex.
MR. WATERS: And who was it to?
MR. WATERS: And can you read to the jury what that text says?
TONY SATTERFIELD: It says: Hey, man, just checking in. Been working on case that made me think about you. Hope all is good. Call me any time I can help.
MR. WATERS: And what was the date of that text?
TONY SATTERFIELD: April 12, 2021, at 12:47.
MR. WATERS: All right. I'm going to go to this next one. Do you recognize that text?
TONY SATTERFIELD: Yes.
MR. WATERS: Who is that from?
TONY SATTERFIELD: That's from me to Alex responding to his text.
MR. WATERS: All right, and read that text to the jury, what you sent.
TONY SATTERFIELD: That text says: Hey, man, I'm doing good. By the way, how is the case going? Just curious, but how are you?
MR. WATERS: I'll show you this next text. Do you recognize that?
TONY SATTERFIELD: Yes.
MR. WATERS: Who is that from?
TONY SATTERFIELD: That is from Alex to me.
MR. WATERS: All right, and can you read that to the jury?
TONY SATTERFIELD: Finally getting some movement, still a ways to go. Doing good. Was just thinking about and thought I would check in. Hope to see you soon.
MR. WATERS: Still a ways to go is what he said?
TONY SATTERFIELD: Yes.
MR. WATERS: At that point in time, did he tell you there had already been two recoveries in the case?
MR. WATERS: Going to this last text. What is that? Who is that from?
TONY SATTERFIELD: That is from me back to Alex responding to his text.
MR. WATERS: All right, and what does it say?
TONY SATTERFIELD: Cool. Thanks.
MR. WATERS: Hold for me just one second.
(Break in proceedings.)
MR. WATERS: Your Honor, I believe without objection I'm going to strike out one of the phone numbers on here so it can't be viewed.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: That's correct, Your Honor.
JUDGE NEWMAN: All right.
(Break in proceedings.)
MR. WATERS: Around this point in time as we're in the spring, late spring of 2021, had you become aware of any media reporting about there actually being a settlement in your mother's case?
TONY SATTERFIELD: Yes. Somebody sent me a text or something saying that a legal document -- but I can't remember who sent it to me.
MR. WATERS: All right. You can't remember who sent it to you?
TONY SATTERFIELD: Yes, that's correct.
MR. WATERS: Did that cause you to reach out to the defendant and ask about the status of the case?
TONY SATTERFIELD: Yes.
MR. WATERS: And do you remember roughly when that was?
TONY SATTERFIELD: I believe in June.
MR. WATERS: And do you remember if that was before or after the murders in this particular case?
TONY SATTERFIELD: I believe that was after.
MR. WATERS: Okay, and have you seen some records since your -- since the previous time in talking about this?
TONY SATTERFIELD: Previous to the call, no.
MR. WATERS: Let me get something marked real quick.
(CELL PHONE RECORD MARKED AS STATE'S EXHIBIT NUMBER 454 FOR IDENTIFICATION.)
MR. WATERS: I'm going show you what's been marked as 454 to your testimony. Is that some records you've been provided?
TONY SATTERFIELD: Yes.
MR. WATERS: And are those just some records of phone calls between you and Alex on June 22nd?
TONY SATTERFIELD: Yes.
MR. WATERS: Did you have any -- would you periodically reach out to the defendant and get updates about the case?
TONY SATTERFIELD: Yes.
MR. WATERS: And you had family reach out and ask you to get updates because of reading things in the media. Is that correct?
TONY SATTERFIELD: That is correct.
MR. WATERS: And you had conversations with him in June of 2021?
TONY SATTERFIELD: Yes.
MR. WATERS: You don't remember if those were before or after the murders --
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Your Honor, he's already asked the question after June 7th. I would object to the leading question. I would object to the suggestion that he hadn't already answered that this occurred after June 7th of 2021. He's impeaching his own witness.
MR. WATERS: I'm not trying to impeach this witness. I think that I'm establishing a point that's not in dispute. His records say what they say.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: I'm talking -- I think he was prefacing that question you don't remember when you learned about it sometime in early June. If he's conceding the witness said he didn't learn about it until June 7th, we don't have an argument. He's already testified to that.
JUDGE NEWMAN: Final speaking response.
MR. WATERS: Your Honor, this witness has testified he had a conversation in June. He's testified in the spring of 2021 that he became aware of media reports and reached out to him. We've already seen some texts and we have some calls. I'm just following up on the fact that he had repeated communications with the defendant asking him what is the status of my case and was told as we move in time to the murders, oh, everything is fine. I'm still working on it.
JUDGE NEWMAN: The objection is sustained as to leading the witness.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Thank you, Your Honor. And, Your Honor, I apologize to the Court for thanking you. It's just a habit I got in and can't seem to break it. And, by the way, if you ruled against me, I would still say thank you, as I learned to do. I apologize.
MR. WATERS: Thank you, Mr. Harpootlian.
JUDGE NEWMAN: All right.
MR. WATERS: Just to clear this up, how often would you talk to the defendant?
TONY SATTERFIELD: Three to four times a year, I believe. I can't recall. Every few months.
MR. WATERS: Would you talk by phone or would you talk by text or both?
TONY SATTERFIELD: Both.
MR. WATERS: And when you would talk to him, would you ask about the status of your case?
TONY SATTERFIELD: Yes.
MR. WATERS: Each time you talked to him, what did he say?
TONY SATTERFIELD: It was making progress.
MR. WATERS: Making progress. Did he say it was a hard case or not?
TONY SATTERFIELD: Yes.
MR. WATERS: Did he ever tell you about how much money he might be able to get for you?
TONY SATTERFIELD: The goal was to get 100,000 apiece for me and my brother.
MR. WATERS: At any time over the years, did he ever tell you that there had already been a recovery in the case?
MR. WATERS: At any time over the years, did he mention anything about having a $5 million umbrella policy?
MR. WATERS: At any time did he ever pay you one penny?
MR. WATERS: You testified earlier that you became the personal representative. Is that right?
TONY SATTERFIELD: That is correct.
MR. WATERS: Why were you the personal representative and not your brother?
TONY SATTERFIELD: Because my brother is a vulnerable adult and he has a disability.
JUDGE NEWMAN: Can you repeat those words for me?
TONY SATTERFIELD: That my brother, he's a vulnerable adult and he's not able to function as a normal human being to deal with stuff like that.
MR. WATERS: He's a vulnerable adult?
TONY SATTERFIELD: Yes.
MR. WATERS: After the murders happened, at some point after that, did you go see -- or did you and your family go seek additional representation about this matter?
TONY SATTERFIELD: Yes.
MR. WATERS: And who did y'all eventually go to?
TONY SATTERFIELD: We -- my aunt and my uncle went to Mark Tinsley, and then they sent us to Eric Bland.
MR. WATERS: And are you aware of there being a confession of judgment in your case against the defendant for those missing recoveries?
TONY SATTERFIELD: Yes.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: No additional objection to this document.
MR. WATERS: Your Honor, I would offer State's 352.
JUDGE NEWMAN: The witness can testify to it.
MR. WATERS: All right, and you're aware there's a confession of judgment in that case?
TONY SATTERFIELD: Yes.
MR. WATERS: Did you have to file a claim against the defendant for the two recoveries you never got in your mom's case?
TONY SATTERFIELD: Yes.
MR. WATERS: Let me show you 352. You're not a lawyer, are you?
MR. WATERS: And have you read all of that legal stuff in there?
TONY SATTERFIELD: Yes.
MR. WATERS: All right, but this has been something that you're aware that occurred in your case. Is that correct?
TONY SATTERFIELD: That is correct.
MR. WATERS: And ultimately there's a confession of judgment in the case. Do you know how much it is right there?
TONY SATTERFIELD: $4,305,000.
MR. WATERS: All right, and is that for $3.8 million for one of them?
TONY SATTERFIELD: Yes.
MR. WATERS: And for $505,000 for the other recovery?
TONY SATTERFIELD: Yes.
JUDGE NEWMAN: The exhibit is admitted.
MR. WATERS: Thank you, Your Honor.
(CONFESSION OF JUDGMENT MARKED AS STATE'S EXHIBIT NUMBER 352 WAS RECEIVED INTO EVIDENCE.)
MR. WATERS: When the defendant came to you around the time of your mom's funeral and said he was going to help you and file a claim on your behalf, why did you agree to that?
TONY SATTERFIELD: Because I trusted him.
MR. WATERS: Thank you. Nothing further.
JUDGE NEWMAN: Cross-examination?
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Please the Court, Your Honor?
JUDGE NEWMAN: Yes, sir.
CROSS-EXAMINATION
BY MR. HARPOOTLIAN:
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Your name is Tony?
TONY SATTERFIELD: Yes, sir.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: May I call you Tony rather than Mr. Satterfield?
TONY SATTERFIELD: Yes, sir.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: You can call me Dick instead of Mr. Harpootlian and then we'll make this a little quicker. With your name and my name, it might add a little bit to this cross. So, let me ask you a few questions about your mother's death, and I apologize if in any way this brings back bad memories. I apologize. Y'all filed a lawsuit or made a claim against -- I mean, basically Alex told you he would be the defendant. You would be suing him, right?
TONY SATTERFIELD: Yes.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Okay, and it was based on some dogs tripping your mom as she was going down the stairs. Is that right?
TONY SATTERFIELD: That's what they say, yes.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Okay, but the only person that, that represented dogs that tripped your mother going down the stairs was Alex, right?
TONY SATTERFIELD: Yes.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Okay. So, without his assertion -- I mean, if she's just fell down the stairs, there would be no lawsuit, right?
TONY SATTERFIELD: I guess that's correct.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Okay. I'm sorry. You're not a lawyer. You would accept my representation if she just fell down the stairs on her own, there would be no one to blame for that, right?
TONY SATTERFIELD: Repeat the question, please, because I don't understand the question.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: That's okay. Strike it, withdraw it. It's going down a rabbit hole and don't need to do that. So, let me ask you this. During this process, your lawyer for the record he told you was Cory Fleming, right?
TONY SATTERFIELD: Yes.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: And that was your lawyer?
TONY SATTERFIELD: Well, it was Alex Murdaugh. They were all a team.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: They were a team. The person being sued -- and again, you're not sophisticated on this -- was part of the team to get you a recovery?
TONY SATTERFIELD: Yes.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Okay. Now, there's a guy named Chad Westendorf. He was with the bank, right?
TONY SATTERFIELD: Yes.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: And he was actually the PR, he took over, and it was his job it make sure y'all got your money, right?
TONY SATTERFIELD: Yes.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Did you ever meet with him?
TONY SATTERFIELD: Yes.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: And what did he say?
TONY SATTERFIELD: Like one time and it was just to sign paperwork for him to be PR.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Right, and did you ever call him and say what's going on with my case?
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Did you ever call Cory Fleming and ask what's going on with my case?
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: And let me make sure I understand your testimony. You got some notice or something in the paper, and at some point after June the 7th you had either a phone call or a text or an email with Alex Murdaugh asking him what's going on, right?
TONY SATTERFIELD: Yes.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Now -- and again, we see a series of phone calls on June 22nd --
TONY SATTERFIELD: Yes.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: -- right?
TONY SATTERFIELD: Yes.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Where y'all were talking about this?
TONY SATTERFIELD: Yes.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: But was there anything on June 7th or prior to June 7th where you accused him of anything?
TONY SATTERFIELD: Prior to June 7th, no.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Okay. Now, after you became aware of -- well, we saw just a moment ago a confession of judgment where Alex Murdaugh admitted that he owed you 3 million -- $4,305,000. Is that right?
TONY SATTERFIELD: That's the judgment, yes.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Okay, but you hired a lawyer, Eric Bland, who's a very fine lawyer, and he actually sued Mr. Murdaugh's firm and some other folks and got you $6.5 million, right?
TONY SATTERFIELD: Yes. Not that I'm aware of.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Pardon me?
TONY SATTERFIELD: Not that I'm aware of. The only thing I'm aware of is the judgment.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: So, Mr. Bland didn't tell you about the 6.5 million?
TONY SATTERFIELD: Yes.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Okay. I'm sorry, I just wanted to make sure history is not repeating itself here. And so you actually recovered 6.5 million, which would be a couple of million dollars more than you would have gotten had you received the money that Alex took, right?
TONY SATTERFIELD: Yes.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Okay. So, you've been made more than whole for that loss.
TONY SATTERFIELD: Yes.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: 2 million more than you would have gotten had he not taken your money, right?
TONY SATTERFIELD: Yes.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: All right. Now, sort of the last question that I think I have, let me check with cocounsel before I -- well, one last question is this. On June 7th -- prior to June 7th, prior to June 8th, had you ever threatened Alex Murdaugh with exposure?
TONY SATTERFIELD: Could you repeat that again?
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Prior to June 8, 2021, did you ever threaten Alex Murdaugh, saying I know you stole my money? Where is my money? You know, I know you've got the money. Did you threaten him in any way?
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Okay. Thank you. I have no further questions.
JUDGE NEWMAN: Yes, sir.
MR. WATERS: Thank you.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. WATERS:
MR. WATERS: Going back to the exhibit, State's 453, these were texts that you had about the case. Is that right?
TONY SATTERFIELD: Yes.
MR. WATERS: And when did those occur?
TONY SATTERFIELD: These occurred in the spring in April of 2021.
MR. WATERS: April of 2021, and there had been media reporting about there being a settlement in this particular case even though you hadn't received any money?
TONY SATTERFIELD: Yes.
MR. WATERS: Did you have periodic conversations with the defendant over the course of time?
TONY SATTERFIELD: Yes.
MR. WATERS: Would you ask him about the case?
TONY SATTERFIELD: Yes.
MR. WATERS: And he would tell you what?
TONY SATTERFIELD: It's a hard case or it was a work in progress.
MR. WATERS: All right. After all of this happened, have you come to find out that the defendant took all of your money?
TONY SATTERFIELD: Yes.
MR. WATERS: And that's what led to that confession of judgment?
TONY SATTERFIELD: Yes.
MR. WATERS: Did he, though, ever pay you one cent?
MR. WATERS: You were asked about Cory Fleming, and I think you said they were all a team. Is that right?
TONY SATTERFIELD: Yes.
MR. WATERS: At its core, who did you consider was your lawyer for your mom's case?
TONY SATTERFIELD: Alex.
MR. WATERS: Thank you, Mr. Satterfield. Nothing further. He may have one more question.
JUDGE NEWMAN: Anything further?
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: No. Thank you.
JUDGE NEWMAN: You may step down. Thank you.
(The witness exited the stand.)