Day 14 - February 13, 2023
Two COVID-positive jurors were replaced, and the court addressed newly produced GM vehicle data. Forensic witnesses explained blood-screening and DNA findings and their limits, while Ellen Riemer described the fatal wounds and offered a qualified reconstruction of the shootings.
Full day summary
9:36:302. Ryan Kelly — Direct
Juror replacements and newly produced vehicle data were addressed before SLED agent Ryan Kelly authenticated buccal-swab evidence.
Highlights
Juror COVID Replacements and Evidentiary Issuesjury eventThe court reported that two jurors had confirmed positive COVID-19 tests, released them from service, and explained that the remaining jurors had tested negative and were advised to mask and test again Wednesday.Juror COVID Replacements and Evidentiary Issuesjury eventWith no objection from either side, the clerk selected alternates by lottery; Jurors 441 and 326 joined the regular panel, replacing excused Jurors 220 and 528.Juror COVID Replacements and Evidentiary Issuesevidence eventThe parties disclosed and debated the timing of newly produced GM vehicle data. The court characterized the associated authentication witness as unexpected, recognized the defense's need to prepare, and directed the State to proceed with other available witnesses until the issue arose.Juror COVID Replacements and Evidentiary Issues“Well, at its core it's an unexpected witness coming into the trial.”— Clifton NewmanThe court identified the central fairness concern created by the newly disclosed GM data and authentication witness.
3. Rachel Nguyen — Direct/Cross/Voir Dire
SLED forensic scientist Rachel Nguyen qualified as a forensic-serology expert, described blood screening and DNA-sample preparation for firearms, vehicles, clothing, and other evidence, and clarified on cross-examination the limits of presumptive testing and her role in the analysis.
Highlights
Rachel Nguyen - Directtestimony highlightNguyen reported that all 71 tested raincoat stains were negative for the possible presence of blood and that no hair was found during later ownership processing; the ownership swabs were admitted as State's Exhibit 462.Rachel Nguyen - Cross“So, a presumptive test is indicating the possible presence of a body fluid, in this case blood. It's not confirming the presence. It's just an indication so that we can further test that stain.”— Rachel NguyenClearly states the limited meaning of the positive presumptive blood findings explored on cross-examination.
4. Sara Zapata — Direct/Cross/Redirect/Recross/Voir Dire
DNA analyst Sara Zapata was qualified as an expert and testified through direct, cross, redirect, and recross about DNA comparisons, low-level fingernail evidence, and negative Hematrace results from white T-shirt cuttings.
Highlights
Sara Zapata - Directtestimony highlightZapata reported strong likelihood-ratio support for Margaret Murdaugh's DNA on the cartridge-case collection and for Paul Murdaugh's DNA on shotgun-shell and storage-room-door swabs.Sara Zapata - Directtestimony highlightAfter detailing mixed DNA profiles from the shirt cuttings, Zapata testified that confirmatory Hematrace testing identified no human blood on Items 19.2 through 19.13. She acknowledged possible interaction between LCV and Hematrace but maintained that her test results were negative.Sara Zapata - Direct“For items 19.2 through 19.13, the result was no human blood identified.”— Sara ZapataThe confirmatory blood-test result imposed an important limitation on the preceding DNA testimony about the shirt cuttings.Sara Zapata - Crosstestimony highlightZapata testified that Item 70 contained three low-level alleles foreign to Margaret Murdaugh, including an indication of a male contributor, and that Paul and Alex Murdaugh were excluded. She explained why the limited profile did not qualify for CODIS and why Y-chromosome testing would not distinguish related males.Sara Zapata - Cross“We can't really tell you how or when the DNA got there, but at any point in time between getting her nails done and arriving home, she could touch an object and potentially DNA from the object could be under her fingernails, or she can touch an individual and no DNA be under her fingernails in that way.”— Sara ZapataZapata emphasized that the low-level foreign DNA did not establish when, how, or through whom it was deposited.
5. Ellen Riemer — Direct/Voir Dire
Ellen Riemer was qualified as a forensic-pathology expert and described the wounds, autopsy findings, and causes and manners of death for Paul and Maggie Murdaugh before cross-examination was deferred.
Highlights
Ellen Riemer - Directtestimony highlightRiemer described Paul's second shotgun wound as traveling from the left shoulder through the neck and skull, producing an immediately fatal injury. She inferred from the wound path that his head was turned toward the direction from which the shotgun was fired.Ellen Riemer - Direct“Well, in my opinion, based on my education and experience, the first shotgun wound, the initial shot was to the chest, following which he remained standing and sustained the other gunshot wound to the top of the left shoulder and head.”— Ellen RiemerThis states Riemer's expert opinion about the order of the two shots to Paul.Ellen Riemer - Directtestimony highlightRiemer offered a qualified reconstruction in which Maggie was initially upright, then bent over or possibly lowered to her hands and knees before the upward fatal wound, and was on the ground before the final downward head wound. She said the wrist wound may have been part of another shot but could not say so with certainty.Ellen Riemer - Directtestimony highlightRiemer concluded that Paul died from shotgun wounds of the head and chest and Maggie from multiple gunshot wounds, classifying both manners of death as homicide. She also identified projectile fragments recovered from Maggie's autopsy.