Mark Tinsley — Direct/Cross/Redirect (Recall, Continued)
224 linesFRIDAY, FEBRUARY 10, 2023
(Court resumed at 9:30 a.m.)
JUDGE NEWMAN: Good morning. You may 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: All right, ladies and gentlemen, welcome back to day number fifteen in the State's case. The last objection was sustained. And ladies and gentlemen, I want to remind you when I sustain an objection, that means you are to disregard the question and any response. You may proceed.
MR. WATERS: Yes, sir, Your Honor. May it please the Court?
The witness, MARK TINSLEY, remained under oath and continued testifying as follows:
CONTINUED DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. WATERS:
MR. WATERS: Mr. Tinsley, good morning.
MARK TINSLEY: Good morning.
MR. WATERS: Just to kind of reset the table from where we left off, you had testified about pursuing the case against the defendant over the boat wreck, correct?
MARK TINSLEY: Correct.
MR. WATERS: And you had communicated to the defense that the defendant was going to have to pay personally, correct?
MARK TINSLEY: Correct.
MR. WATERS: Not just the insurance, correct?
MARK TINSLEY: Correct.
MR. WATERS: And you had been told that the defendant was broke, correct?
MARK TINSLEY: That's correct.
MR. WATERS: And you had filed a motion to compel. Had you filed a motion to compel, State's 402, seeking to identify any bank accounts that he had?
MARK TINSLEY: In October of 2020.
MR. WATERS: Could I have the ELMO, please?
(Break in proceedings.)
MR. WATERS: All right. I think one of the things that you also had testified to is that generally Covid had kind of slowed things down in the court system?
MARK TINSLEY: Ultimately, yes.
MR. WATERS: And then you had had some health issues that you were dealing with as well. Is that correct?
MARK TINSLEY: At some point, yes.
MR. WATERS: All right. At some point in time, did a hearing in the boat case that would include a hearing on this motion to compel that's on the screen get scheduled?
MARK TINSLEY: It did.
MR. WATERS: And when did it initially get scheduled?
MARK TINSLEY: My recollection is it was set for May the 30th of 2021.
MR. WATERS: All right, and let me show you an exhibit real quick. I'm going to show you what has been marked as State's 404 and see if you recognize this document.
MARK TINSLEY: I do.
MR. WATERS: All right, and what is that?
MARK TINSLEY: That is a communication about the hearing. It's actually about a status conference about the hearing that's going to be on May the 30th.
MR. WATERS: Okay. All right, and what was the date of that status conference going to be?
MARK TINSLEY: May the 7th of 2021.
MR. WATERS: All right, and then look at the subject line on that and just take a look at that real quick.
MARK TINSLEY: Motions hearing May the 11th.
MR. WATERS: Yeah. Was that the date or was it May the 30th for the motions hearing to your recollection?
MARK TINSLEY: To my recollection it's May the 30th.
MR. WATERS: All right. But this email is related to that particular hearing. Is that correct?
MARK TINSLEY: It's related to the hearing on my motion to compel and some other hearings, yes.
MR. WATERS: All right.
MR. WATERS: At this point, Your Honor, I would move to admit State's 404, I believe, without additional objection.
MR. BARBER: No additional objection.
JUDGE NEWMAN: It's admitted.
(EMAIL MARKED AS STATE'S EXHIBIT NUMBER 404 WAS RECEIVED INTO EVIDENCE.)
MR. WATERS: And is that the particular email we were just discussing?
MARK TINSLEY: It is, and you are correct. The hearing was May the 11th.
MR. WATERS: May the 11th?
MARK TINSLEY: Yeah.
MR. WATERS: Okay. Having seen that, it kind of refreshes your recollection?
MARK TINSLEY: Yes.
MR. WATERS: I'm going to show you now what's been marked as State's 405, and I'll have you take a look at that and see if you recognize this.
MARK TINSLEY: I do.
MR. WATERS: All right, and tell me what this is, please.
MARK TINSLEY: It is an email from Judge Hall, who had been assigned the case, about the hearing. John Tiller, who is Alex's lawyer in the boat crash case, was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer about the same time just before I found out I had cancer. And so he had a chemotherapy treatment that was going to run long the day of the hearing. He didn't always know when his treatments would be, but about a week before he would know, and so the hearing needed to be rescheduled to accommodate John's treatment.
MR. WATERS: All right, and just initially when that request was made, what was the judge in that case's response?
MARK TINSLEY: The hearing would go forward as scheduled and one of Alex's other lawyers could attend.
MR. WATERS: All right. So, initially the judge denied that continuance request. Is that correct?
MARK TINSLEY: That's correct.
MR. WATERS: And what happened after that that ultimately resulted in it being continued?
MARK TINSLEY: I sent an email. John Tiller was my friend and I didn't object to continuing it. And then the judge had a status conference, and at that point we continued the hearing until June the 10th.
MR. WATERS: In the course of this litigation, given that we were coming out of Covid, had the judge in that particular case been relatively aggressive in wanting to move this case forward, to your assessment?
MARK TINSLEY: The judge knew that I was in Florida receiving treatment and was accommodating that, so, no, he wasn't being aggressive at that time. It was when I was ready to, and so I was back and we were ready.
MR. WATERS: And that's what led to this initial hearing. Is that correct?
MARK TINSLEY: Correct.
MR. WATERS: But ultimately you agreed to let this thing be continued, correct?
MARK TINSLEY: I did.
MR. WATERS: All right.
MR. WATERS: Your Honor, at this time I would offer State's 405 into evidence.
MR. BARBER: No addiction objection, Your Honor.
JUDGE NEWMAN: It's admitted.
(EMAIL MARKED AS STATE'S EXHIBIT NUMBER 405 WAS RECEIVED INTO EVIDENCE.)
MR. WATERS: And down at the bottom of this email chain, what's the date on that? Can you read there on your screen or do I need to bring it back to you?
MARK TINSLEY: May 5, 2021.
MR. WATERS: And that's communication from whom?
MARK TINSLEY: That's from John Tiller to Judge Hall.
MR. WATERS: All right.
MARK TINSLEY: And that's relaying the need for the postponement for the chemotherapy treatment.
MR. WATERS: All right, and then there was communications from you relating to that. Is that correct? Well, let me go right here. This is the response right there, is that correct, from Judge Hall?
MARK TINSLEY: That's the initial response that he intended to go forward with the hearing as scheduled, and that Mr. Condon from the same firm could handle it.
MR. WATERS: I'll show you now what's been marked as State's 406 and see if you recognize this particular document.
MARK TINSLEY: I do.
MR. WATERS: All right, and what is this? Tell the jury what this is, please.
MARK TINSLEY: That's an email from John Tiller. So, after the email that's on the screen saying I intend to go forward, John Tiller sent another email explaining a little more detail what's going on and that he had -- I believe it says he had spoken to me and I had agreed. They were my motions. There was some other motions, but when it's your motion, you can agree to continue it if a party wants it continued and you don't object, and so that's what that's doing is it's trying to get the judge to not go forward with the May the 11th date.
MR. WATERS: All right.
MR. WATERS: Your Honor, at this time I would offer State's 406 into evidence.
MR. BARBER: No additional objection.
JUDGE NEWMAN: It's admitted.
(EMAIL MARKED AS STATE'S EXHIBIT NUMBER 406 WAS RECEIVED INTO EVIDENCE.)
MR. WATERS: All right, and the date on that particular email is?
MARK TINSLEY: May the 6th, 2021.
MR. WATERS: Did -- the judge ultimately, though, based on this series of emails, granted the continuance on this motions hearing, correct?
MARK TINSLEY: Well, he gave us a status conference in which I -- we did by video and ultimately agreed.
MR. WATERS: Okay, and what day was the motions hearing that included the motions to compel reschedule for?
MARK TINSLEY: June 10, 2021.
MR. WATERS: Going back to State's 402, one of the matters that was on the table to be heard would have been your attempt to get compelled responses to this interrogatory from the defendant, correct?
MARK TINSLEY: That's correct.
MR. WATERS: Seeking identification of his bank accounts.
MARK TINSLEY: That's correct.
MR. WATERS: Do you remember what day of the week June 10, 2021, would have been?
MARK TINSLEY: I believe it's a Thursday.
MR. WATERS: How did you hear about the murder of Maggie and Paul?
MARK TINSLEY: I got a phone call some time in the middle of the night. 11:30 is my recollection.
MR. WATERS: And that was on June 7, 2021?
MARK TINSLEY: That's right.
MR. WATERS: Into June 8, 2021?
MARK TINSLEY: I think I heard it -- it was still June 7th when I hear about it, but yes.
MR. WATERS: On June 8, 2021, did you have any conversations with any of the lawyers involved in the boat case or any communication?
MARK TINSLEY: I believe so. I think that it was more of there wasn't a whole lot of consideration to be given to the fact that the hearing wasn't going to go forward. It was sort of shock and horror of what had happened, and nobody really knew what to do in the moment.
MR. WATERS: Of course that hearing is not going forward after this, correct?
MARK TINSLEY: It did not.
MR. WATERS: I'm going to show you what has been marked as State's 407 and see if you recognize that particular document.
MARK TINSLEY: I do. This is an email from Judge Hall's law clerk -- you know Judge Hall is over the boat crash case -- to me and the lawyer for Parker's, as well as -- about the fact that the hearing is not going forward.
MR. WATERS: Your Honor, at this time I would offer State's 407.
MR. BARBER: No additional objections.
JUDGE NEWMAN: It's admitted.
(EMAIL MARKED AS STATE'S EXHIBIT NUMBER 407 WAS RECEIVED INTO EVIDENCE.)
MR. WATERS: What's the date of that email?
MARK TINSLEY: June the 8th of 2021.
MR. WATERS: At what time?
MARK TINSLEY: 4:24 p.m. I think there's an email from John Tiller that precedes this one that morning, but --
MR. WATERS: Right, but ultimately there are communications the following day that obviously we're not going forward with this hearing on the motion to compel, correct?
MARK TINSLEY: Yeah, pretty much immediately.
MR. WATERS: And at that period of time, was there any date set in the wake of all of this for it to be reheard?
MARK TINSLEY: There was not.
MR. WATERS: In the wake of the murders, did you generally understand or have an idea of at least what had happened to Maggie and Paul, how they'd been killed --
MARK TINSLEY: I did.
MR. WATERS: -- just media reports and the rest of it?
MARK TINSLEY: That's right.
MR. WATERS: And did that have any affects, that tragedy of their deaths, did that have any affect on your assessment of the boat case and how everything fit together, if things were how they initially appeared?
MARK TINSLEY: It would have affected -- I mean, yes, it did, and it would have ended the case.
MR. WATERS: It would have ended the case against who?
MARK TINSLEY: Against Alex Murdaugh.
MR. WATERS: And explain that to the jury. Why? What had changed after this terrible tragedy?
MARK TINSLEY: Well, when you have a civil case, if you -- nice people get good verdicts, okay, just generally speaking.
JUDGE NEWMAN: If you could speak in the microphone.
MARK TINSLEY: Yes, sir.
MARK TINSLEY: Nice people get good verdicts. You really have to motivate a jury to want to help somebody in a civil case, and so if you compared say Atilla the Hun with some sweet grandmother, who gets a better result? It's the sweet grandmother. If Alex is the victim of a vigilante, nobody is going to hold him accountable. It doesn't make any difference what he did or how clearly what he did contributed, the case would be over against Alex. And so initially it was -- it could have been over, and it appeared that it was going to be over against Alex because I had other defendants. I had Parker's Convenience Store that had clearly violated its rules, and so you wouldn't want a very sympathetic person in your case when you have somebody who clearly violated the rules and caused this tragedy. So, I -- it would have been over against him.
MR. WATERS: The sympathies of the case had changed if Alex had truly been -- his family had been the victim of some vigilante or something like that?
MARK TINSLEY: The sympathies would have changed if that would have been true.
MR. WATERS: Okay, and assessing those sympathies and those emotions in a case like this is what you do as a plaintiff's lawyer. Is that correct?
MARK TINSLEY: It's what we try to do.
MR. WATERS: And it's one Alex Murdaugh used to do as well when he was a plaintiff's lawyer?
MARK TINSLEY: I think he was good at reading people and knowing what made them tick.
MR. WATERS: Thank you, Mr. Tinsley. Nothing further at this time. Please answer any questions that the defense may have for you.
MARK TINSLEY: Thank you.
JUDGE NEWMAN: Mr. Barber.
CROSS-EXAMINATION
BY MR. BARBER:
MR. BARBER: Good morning, Mr. Tinsley.
MARK TINSLEY: Good morning.
MR. BARBER: I'll just maybe just start asking a couple of questions that I think are just some things that we could agree on before maybe getting to some other things. Was there any life insurance for Maggie or Paul?
MARK TINSLEY: I don't believe there was any life insurance on anybody, including Alex.
MR. BARBER: And if this motion hearing, which was not just the motion to compel -- it was other motions, correct, on June the 10th?
MARK TINSLEY: Yeah, there were some other motions.
MR. BARBER: And if that hearing had gone forward, at least for the motion to compel, this would have been another step in the process, right? In other words, I believe it was your previous testimony: I think it's fair to say that there wouldn't have been an explosion on June the 10th. That this would have been another step, but it wasn't the end point.
MARK TINSLEY: So, what happens --
MR. BARBER: Is that correct, sir? Yes or no. Am I misstating your testimony, there wouldn't have been an explosion on June the 10th?
MARK TINSLEY: You're jumping around so it's hard for me to follow you.
MR. BARBER: I apologize.
MARK TINSLEY: If you'd let me finish.
MR. WATERS: Your Honor, I would like to ask that the witness be allowed to finish his answer to one of those questions, and I object --
JUDGE NEWMAN: Pose one question.
MR. BARBER: Yes, Your Honor.
MR. BARBER: Did you previously testify: I think that it's fair to say there wouldn't have been an explosion on June the 10th? Yes or no?
MARK TINSLEY: I'm sorry, you're looking down. I couldn't hear what you said.
MR. BARBER: I'm sorry. I was trying to -- I'm reading it: I think -- I think it's fair to say there wouldn't have been an explosion on June the 10th. Was that your -- did you testify -- did those words come from that stand when you previously testified? Yes or no.
MARK TINSLEY: I'm not trying to give you a hard time. You looked down again and I could not understand what you said. Was there an explosion?
MR. BARBER: I apologize for that. I'll hold it up. I'm just trying to read it accurately: I think it's fair to say that there wouldn't have been an explosion on June the 10th. Yes or no, was that your testimony previously? It is just yes or no, please.
MARK TINSLEY: It's possible. You're trying to turn it into something it's not, but I probably said words to that effect.
MR. BARBER: Okay.
MR. BARBER: No further questions, Your Honor.
JUDGE NEWMAN: Any redirect?
REDIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. WATERS:
MR. WATERS: You were asked about the motion to compel being another step in the process. Is that correct?
MARK TINSLEY: It was a way to put pressure on Alex.
MR. WATERS: But if after that hearing happened and an order granting the motion to compel had been issued, that starts a process that's going to run its course. Is that correct?
MR. BARBER: Objection. Leading.
MR. WATERS: If an order is --
MR. WATERS: I'm sorry. I'll rephrase.
MR. WATERS: If a order to compel is granted, tell us about the process that happens after that as it relates to your specific interrogatory we've talked about here today.
MARK TINSLEY: Sure. The process starts on Alex's side way before. If you look at those exhibits that they marked, the email, you'll see Danny Henderson -- again, Danny Henderson was his personal lawyer. Danny Henderson is also a shareholder in the firm. Danny Henderson is reviewing every single document, every single -- that's how meticulous Danny Henderson is. He reviews all of the account information before I get it, and nobody knows better what Alex is making than Danny Henderson. You'll see all of these checks going out and all of these payments being made, and Danny Henderson would have known. So, the explosion --
MR. BARBER: Your Honor, object. Your Honor, objection.
JUDGE NEWMAN: Basis for the objection?
MR. BARBER: Foundation.
JUDGE NEWMAN: Response?
MR. WATERS: Your Honor, he is speaking of --
JUDGE NEWMAN: I understand what he's speaking of. Response to the objection.
MR. WATERS: He has testified as to the fact of his interactions with that individual who actually brought him insurance documents to review. I think he has a basis to know --
JUDGE NEWMAN: The objection is foundation, and your response to the objection?
MR. WATERS: I believe he has sufficient foundation to address that from his personal knowledge, Your Honor.
JUDGE NEWMAN: All right. I overrule the objection. You may answer.
MARK TINSLEY: Thank you, Your Honor.
MARK TINSLEY: For instance, I had subpoenaed the phone records, not only Alex's, his fathers's, but we had also had John Marvin, Alex's brother's, phone records. Danny reviewed those records for a long time before I could get my hands on them. Danny was involved in everything. He was at every hearing; he was at every deposition. He was intimately involved in every aspect of the case.
MR. WATERS: If an order to compel is issued, what was going to be your next step if you had an identification of accounts by the defendant?
MARK TINSLEY: Subpoena those accounts.
MR. WATERS: All right, and if those accounts were subpoenaed, can potentially people move to quash those?
MARK TINSLEY: They could move to quash, but Danny Henderson would have looked at the documents in anticipation that I could get them.
MR. BARBER: Objection, Your Honor. Speculation.
JUDGE NEWMAN: I sustain the objection.
MR. WATERS: If motions to quash had been filed, though, you could have continued to seek that and there would have been further hearings. Is that correct?
MARK TINSLEY: I would have continued --
MR. BARBER: Objection, Your Honor. Leading.
JUDGE NEWMAN: The objection is sustained as to leading.
MR. WATERS: What would have happened if motions to quash were filed as to any subpoenas you issued to -- for the specific information about the defendant's accounts?
MARK TINSLEY: I would have continued to push, and we would have continued to argue about it.
MR. WATERS: All right. Would a process have been put in motion, though, that was going to conclusion if an order had been issued on June 10th of 2021?
MARK TINSLEY: Absolutely.
MR. WATERS: Thank you. Nothing further.
JUDGE NEWMAN: Anything further?
MR. BARBER: No, Your Honor.
JUDGE NEWMAN: You may step down.
MARK TINSLEY: Thank you.
(The witness exited the stand.)
JUDGE NEWMAN: You may call your next witness.
MR. MEADORS: May it please the Court?
JUDGE NEWMAN: Yes, sir.