Richard Harvey — Direct/Cross/Redirect
233 linesJUDGE NEWMAN: From the State?
MR. WATERS: Your Honor, as discussed, we request a very brief recess for housekeeping matters.
JUDGE NEWMAN: All right, the housekeeping matters are noted. Any further witnesses by the State?
MR. WATERS: Not at this time, Your Honor.
JUDGE NEWMAN: The State rests but for the housekeeping matters?
MR. WATERS: The housekeeping matters, and then, yes, at that point the State would formally rest, yes, sir.
JUDGE NEWMAN: All right, ladies and gentlemen, I'll have you go to the jury room for another break. Please do not discuss the case.
(The jury left the courtroom.)
JUDGE NEWMAN: All right, everyone be seated. What type of housekeeping matter do you have?
MR. WATERS: I just wanted to do, as my practice, is just one final exhibit check and make sure that there was nothing missed. It will just take a moment, Your Honor.
JUDGE NEWMAN: All right.
MR. GRIFFIN: Your Honor, we do have a Rule 19 that we can make, but perhaps we can do it while the jury is out, but they need to formally --
JUDGE NEWMAN: Well, that's why I did it in the manner in which I did. Let's -- we'll do it that way.
MR. GRIFFIN: Okay. Thank you.
(Break in proceedings.)
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Your Honor, briefly an administrative clock issue, if he rests in the next 10 minutes, we'll say 20 minutes to argue --
JUDGE NEWMAN: The next 3 minutes.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Well, whatever. It looks like -- we have a witness. I believe, he's here, 4:00, and we have another one coming at 4:30. We're trying to get them here a little quicker. I'm not sure we have anybody after that this afternoon.
JUDGE NEWMAN: Well, we'll be ready to leave by that time. We do not intend to go long today, certainly not past 5:30 or --
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: I don't believe these witnesses will keep us here to 5:30. And we're trying to figure out -- if some other short witnesses we can call, but it just really --
JUDGE NEWMAN: Whenever you get through with those two, then we'll be ready to go.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Yes, sir.
(Break in proceedings.)
JUDGE NEWMAN: Mr. Waters, you have a concern about the exhibits that you have not offered into evidence?
MR. WATERS: There was one very early in the heat of litigation that -- one didn't ever get moved in that was intended to be, but the State is satisfied with the exhibits as admitted.
JUDGE NEWMAN: All right. So, we -- per Mr. Griffin, you can rest formally when the jury comes back. I will take any motions now.
MR. GRIFFIN: Yes, sir. At this time, the defendant would move pursuant to Rule 19 for a directed verdict. As Your Honor knows, after the evidence has closed, if there's a failure of competent evidence tending to prove the charge in the indictment, defendant is entitled to a directed verdict. The Court should consider only the existence and/or non-existence of the evidence and not its weight. In this case, Your Honor, the evidence is exclusively circumstantial. And in State v. Dent, the South Carolina Court of Appeals in 2021 explained that the standard to be applied when the State relies upon circumstantial evidence is that all of the circumstances must be consistent with each other, and when taken together point conclusively to the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. If the circumstances merely portray the defendant's behavior as suspicious, the proof has failed.
Also, another legal document that we would point out is mere presence at the scene of a crime without more is insufficient to constitute guilt. The reason I say that legal doctrine, Your Honor, is, is at most what the State has proven and offered of the proof is that the defendant was at the kennels at 8:44. He misstated that he was there, or he lied about he was being down there, but -- and that raises a level of suspicion, and that they have concocted a cell phone timeline to come up with a time of death without any actual evidence of time of death. And there is no direct and, frankly, circumstantial evidence presented that the defendant shot and killed his wife, Maggie, or son, Paul. As the evidence established, the murderer would have blood and biological material on him or her. The murderer would have blood on his or her clothing. The murderer would have murder weapons. The murder or murderers would have evidence of disposing of murder weapons on property or vehicle.
And there's no evidence that Alex Murdaugh had any of this. He had no blood from the brutal murder of his son, Paul; he had no DNA from Paul on his clothing in the area where you would expect to find it. If he had shot his son, which he did not, there was no GSR on his clothing or clothes that is inconsistent with Alex holding a shotgun for protection. The State has proven at most that he was at the kennels at 8:44 p.m. The State does not have proof of time of death. The State only have proof of when the last time Paul and Maggie used their phones. Most importantly, and I mentioned earlier, the law is clear: mere presence at the scene of a crime is insufficient to establish guilt. Although, to be equally clear, Alex Murdaugh was not at the scene of the crime at the time his wife and son were murdered, there's no evidence that he was. And for that reason we move for a directed verdict.
JUDGE NEWMAN: Yes, sir, by the State.
MR. WATERS: Your Honor, I am looking at the evidence that's been presented by the State. First of all, without detailing every bit of evidence, there's been ample evidence of motive, evidence presented in this particular case. The years of embezzlement and theft, the exposure, very significant exposure that the defendant was facing as June 7th approached, which includes the loss of a job, the loss of a career, the loss of his bar license, the loss of years of wealth. The potential to lose everything, in his own words. You've heard evidence about a confrontation June 7th on those matters that very day, as well as the boat hearing that was upcoming, and the effects that that would have. Also heard extensive evidence of the defendant's financial condition on that day as we move forward. Also evidence, Your Honor, of his ongoing narcotics addiction and how those particular things were relevant to what was going as it related to the victims.
There's been evidence -- and again, as Your Honor is aware, the evidence must be taken in the light most favorable to the State -- that family weapons were used to murder Maggie and Paul. You heard evidence from the defendant's own mouth about the missing shotgun. And, of course, we have extensive evidence about the missing Blackout, that being the replacement gun. Of course, you've heard evidence that the defendant claimed that was missing at Christmas time, but there was evidence from Will Loving that that gun was present and being used, including at the side of the house as late as turkey season just a couple months prior to the murders. And that from the firearms expert that the cases found around Maggie's body were cycled through the same weapon. The murder weapon cycled the same cases, as well as cases that were found at the side of the house consistent with what Will Loving testified, as well as shooting range across the street.
You additionally heard that the same exact brand and weight of ammo that was used to kill Maggie was found throughout the property, as well as the same buckshot and birdshot ammo as well. There's been evidence presented by the State as to the defendant's trip to Almeda, his interaction with Shelley Smith after the murders, as well as the -- bringing the rain coat in. Additionally, that he left and moved his dad's truck and four wheeler, and that the rain coat contained high levels of GSR. There's been evidence presented in this particular case inconsistent with the defendant's statements to law enforcement, multiple changes of clothes that particular day, as well as evidence from Blanca that the clothes he was wearing in the Snapchat video were never seen again, as well as the fact that the earlier clothes that he was wearing were not seen either. You have evidence that the defendant claimed that he was unaware that Maggie was coming to Moselle, and he did not ask for that.
But you've heard evidence from multiple sources, including a text message, that he specifically asked the victim to be present on that day. Your Honor, he was found in possession of a shotgun that cannot be excluded as a murder weapon, and also had Maggie's blood on it. And then, of course, Your Honor, we have extensive phone and other digital evidence. And I don't need to reiterate the last witness, but that's been presented from multiple witnesses and multiple sources in a timeline. The defendant, of course, claimed that he was never at the scene, and the evidence shows, pursuant to the State's theory and the reasonable inferences therefrom, that he was at the scene contrary to what he told everyone who would listen. Just minutes -- he's at the scene with the two victims just minutes before, under the State's theory and reasonable from the evidence, the victims were killed. Additionally, his conduct in the timeline after that, there's a number of reasonable inferences about that that are consistent with the defendant's guilt. And to summarize a month's worth of evidence, that is the summary. I would be happy to address the timeline more, but I know that Your Honor just heard it in great detail.
JUDGE NEWMAN: When there is a motion for a directed verdict that's made at the end of the State's case, the Court is concerned with whether there is any evidence, either direct or circumstantial, which reasonably tends to prove the guilt of the accused, or from which the guilt of the accused may be fairly and logically deduced. In this case we've had in day twenty now, I guess eighteen days of direct and circumstantial evidence, and the law makes no distinction between the weight or value to be given either direct evidence or circumstantial evidence, nor is a greater degree of certainty required of circumstantial evidence than of direct evidence. Cases can be proven by direct evidence, circumstantial evidence, or a combination of the two. At this stage of the proceedings, there is evidence to support a guilty verdict, if it is believed by the jury. I, therefore, deny the motion for a directed verdict. Are we ready to roll with the defense?
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Rock and roll, Your Honor.
JUDGE NEWMAN: All right. Well, let's take a 30 second stretch and bring the jury out.
(The jury returned to the courtroom.)
COURT BAILIFF: The jury is present, sir.
JUDGE NEWMAN: Very good. Madame Forelady.
UNIDENTIFIED JUROR: Yes, sir.
JUDGE NEWMAN: How is the jury doing?
UNIDENTIFIED JUROR: They're doing good.
JUDGE NEWMAN: Doing good.
UNIDENTIFIED JUROR: Yes, sir.
JUDGE NEWMAN: Very good. You have heard the State's case. It is now the defense's turn. And you may call your first witness.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Coroner Richard Harvey, please.
The witness, RICHARD HARVEY, was first duly sworn and testified as follows:
COURT CLERK: If you would, sir, be seated. State your full name for the record, and spell the last for me.
JUDGE NEWMAN: And before we begin testimony, I think, Mr. Waters, you were going to formally rest.
MR. WATERS: May it please the Court, Your Honor?
JUDGE NEWMAN: Yes.
MR. WATERS: In the matter of the indictments, the defendant, Alex Murdaugh, for the murders of his wife, Maggie, and his son, Paul, the State of South Carolina rests.
JUDGE NEWMAN: The State has rested, and now it's the defense's turn.
DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. HARPOOTLIAN:
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Would you state your full name for the record, please?
RICHARD HARVEY: My name is Richard Harvey.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: And Mr. Harvey, you're an elected official here in Colleton County?
RICHARD HARVEY: Yes, sir. I am the corner of Colleton County.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Okay, and briefly describe your duties to the jury so they understand what a coroner does.
RICHARD HARVEY: We basically investigate any death that occurs outside the hospital. Any death that dies within 24 hours of admission to the hospital. Any emergency room death is reported to the coroner's office as well. And primarily our responsibility is to do an investigation as to the cause of their death, including medical records, autopsies. And that's basically my responsibility is to determine what the cause of death and the manner of death is.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: So, you don't have a medical degree, though.
RICHARD HARVEY: No, sir.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Okay.
RICHARD HARVEY: But I was one of the first medically trained coroners in the State of South Carolina.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Okay, and how long have you been coroner?
RICHARD HARVEY: This is my thirtieth year.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Thirtieth year. So, let me talk a little bit about in general -- well, no, let me just go ahead and cut to the chase here. You were -- you have a file with you, and I believe it's a file concerning the deaths of Paul and Maggie Murdaugh?
RICHARD HARVEY: I do.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: And how did you get notified of their death?
RICHARD HARVEY: I was actually notified by one of my deputies who was on call that evening, and any time there's a homicide along that lines, in most cases I attend those. And he was on call, and basically he told me he also has another job because he's only part-time, and he told me, he says, look, I can't stay. He says I've got to work tomorrow morning. He says you know I hate to dump this on. He says -- he says but, you know, this is going to be yours.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: So, you took -- well, let me back up for just a second. Did you respond, and if so, what time did you get to the scene? And I'm going to lead you and say in Moselle.
RICHARD HARVEY: I was notified at 2304, which is 11:04 in the evening.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Okay.
RICHARD HARVEY: And I arrived on the scene -- let me back up there. I arrived on the scene at 2304. I was actually notified about 2230 by my deputy who was on call.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: So, 2230 would be 10:30?
RICHARD HARVEY: Yes, sir.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: So, you got notified at 10:30. You got on the scene at?
RICHARD HARVEY: At 11:04.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: And were you by yourself?
RICHARD HARVEY: Yes.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Okay, and I'm going to jump ahead a little bit. Did you process this scene? Did you take -- did you have somebody to take -- did you take photographs or somebody --
RICHARD HARVEY: Yes, sir, I did.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: So, the photographs in your file --
RICHARD HARVEY: Yes, sir.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: -- are your photographs.
RICHARD HARVEY: Yes, sir.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: And in taking those photographs, did you, for instance, go into the feed room and take some photographs?
RICHARD HARVEY: Yes, I did.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Okay, and had that crime scene been processed by SLED at that point?
RICHARD HARVEY: No, sir.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Okay. Did you do anything to -- I mean, and I'll be frank with you. There's some footprints that have been identified as law enforcement or perhaps your folks that were in the feed room perhaps in blood before SLED could finished processing. Are those your folks, or SLED, or whose? Do you know?
RICHARD HARVEY: I'm unaware of those.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Okay. So when you took those photographs, did you take precautions to -- how do you not disturb evidence?
RICHARD HARVEY: We've always kind of followed a pattern of we follow the same path in and the same path out. Therefore, we don't cross over into any possible assailant's.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Okay, and, again, you're preserving evidence. It's a homicide, so this is your case, right?
RICHARD HARVEY: Correct.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: And you do that pursuant to state law.
RICHARD HARVEY: Yes, sir.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: And the -- and we've got -- received your photographs, thank you for those, and I think you gave them to SLED also, correct?
RICHARD HARVEY: Yes, sir.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: And so you performed a function also -- I've looked at the death certificates of Paul and Maggie Murdaugh, and you have a time of death of 9:00. Is that correct?
RICHARD HARVEY: Yes, sir.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Okay. So, let's go through. When you begin to examine the body to determine time of death, tell me how you do that.
RICHARD HARVEY: Well, initially that evening when I initially got there, I was -- I was told that SLED was coming, which I knew, depending on where SLED was coming from -- it depends. It could be an hour; it could be 2 hours. It all depends on what part of the state and what group is actually coming to you. My initial processing was that I went and checked both bodies, and I simply put my hands in their armpits to determine how warm they are. This is -- this is one of the things we do sometimes to try and estimate a time of death is, is the body cold? Is the body warm? And one of the other things we check for is what they call rigor. And rigor is basically when a person dies, the body goes through this process. As it goes through this process, your joints start to stiffen. And when I initially got there, that was all I did initially because I knew SLED was coming.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: So, was -- is it rigor or rigor? I'm not sure how you pronounce it.
RICHARD HARVEY: I call it rigor.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: I call it rigor. So, if I'll -- if you'll allow me to say rigor --
RICHARD HARVEY: That's fine.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: -- because I've never said rigor. Was there rigor or rigor?
RICHARD HARVEY: There was not.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Okay. So, these folks had been dead less than a couple hours?
RICHARD HARVEY: 1 to 3 hours typically is what they say that rigor should start developing.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Okay, and so in terms of trying to estimate or get a, a little bit closer than 1 to 3 hours, you took your hand -- show me what you did. And you did it both to Paul and Maggie?
RICHARD HARVEY: Yes.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: How about, would you step down here, please?
RICHARD HARVEY: Sure.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: And they were laying on the ground, both of them, right?
RICHARD HARVEY: Yes, sir.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: And did you move them?
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Okay. So --
RICHARD HARVEY: They were covered with a sheet initially when I got there.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Right. So, let's have you stand over --
RICHARD HARVEY: Okay.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: -- here so the jury can see me and you. You went up to Paul, and where did you put your hands?
RICHARD HARVEY: I put --
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: I'm not worried about if it was left or right.
RICHARD HARVEY: Basically what I did is I lifted his arm just a little bit here, and I stick my hand up into the armpit. And that's one of the central sixteen areas of your body without using -- the only other choices is a rectal thermometer, and in most case when you have that many people around, I'm not going to pull somebody's pants down to utilize a rectal thermometer, so I stick my hands in their armpit. And like I said, I can get an idea, I mean, how warm they are.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Okay, and you did the same thing to Maggie.
RICHARD HARVEY: I did the same thing to Maggie.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: And you concluded on your death certificate 9:00.
RICHARD HARVEY: That's strictly an estimation.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: That's a guess.
RICHARD HARVEY: It's a guess.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Okay. It could have been 8:30?
RICHARD HARVEY: Could have been 8:30.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: It could have been 10:00.
RICHARD HARVEY: There were no witnesses there to tell me exactly what time this happened.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Do you carry a rectal thermometer to do specific measurements?
RICHARD HARVEY: Well, usually what I'll do is I'll get it from fire and rescue, the ambulance, and then I'll borrow those. And yes, I do do rectal temps.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: But you didn't do it that day
RICHARD HARVEY: But we didn't do it that night, no.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: And that's the reason the death certificate says 9:00.
RICHARD HARVEY: Right. That is an estimation from what I found as far as the warmth of the body.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Beg the Court's indulgence.
(Break in proceedings.)
MR. ZELENKA: May it please the Court?
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: I'm not quite done.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: I just wanted to make sure that we understand each other. Your statement of 9:00, it could have been 8:00?
RICHARD HARVEY: It could have been 8:00.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Their deaths could have been the result of being shot at 8:00.
RICHARD HARVEY: I basically looked at 2 and a half hours from the time that the call came in until the time I actually got there.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: So, they could have been shot at 10:00.
RICHARD HARVEY: Could have been.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Or any time in between.
RICHARD HARVEY: Yes, sir.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Thank you, Coroner. Please answer any questions that Mr. Zelenka has.
JUDGE NEWMAN: By the State?
MR. ZELENKA: Thank you. May it please the Court?
JUDGE NEWMAN: Yes, sir.
CROSS-EXAMINATION
BY MR. ZELENKA:
MR. ZELENKA: Mr. Harvey, you did not use a rectal or any sort of thermometer on that night?
RICHARD HARVEY: No, sir.
MR. ZELENKA: And isn't it true that the best way to determine the actual time of death, particularly in a violent homicide, is to take the temperature?
RICHARD HARVEY: Yes, sir.
MR. ZELENKA: Correct?
RICHARD HARVEY: Yes, sir.
MR. ZELENKA: And the temperature decreases roughly at a rate of one and a half degrees every hour.
RICHARD HARVEY: Right.
MR. ZELENKA: Correct?
RICHARD HARVEY: Correct.
MR. ZELENKA: And it's also affected by the ambient temperature and the weather, correct?
RICHARD HARVEY: Correct, yes, sir.
MR. ZELENKA: And yet as I understand your testimony, and correct me if I'm wrong, you really do not have a general idea as to when that incident actually occurred.
RICHARD HARVEY: That's right, yes, sir, that's true.
MR. ZELENKA: Because you didn't take the temperature, correct?
RICHARD HARVEY: Correct, and thermometers are not always accurate either, so -- and that's one thing that we've learned over the years. I mean, we do have -- and actually we now have the -- I can't think -- ultraviolet light, the light that shoots for the forehead, but what I've determined with that is that it's not necessarily accurate. I may shoot it at the forehead and it will say 99 degrees, but if I shoot it in your ear, it might say 103.
MR. ZELENKA: That's right.
RICHARD HARVEY: So, I mean, they're not necessary accurate either.
MR. ZELENKA: That's right, and it's impacted by body weight, correct?
RICHARD HARVEY: Absolutely. Absolutely.
MR. ZELENKA: Age. Elderly versus youth, correct?
RICHARD HARVEY: Yes, sir.
MR. ZELENKA: And the weather, correct?
RICHARD HARVEY: Yes, sir.
MR. ZELENKA: If they were covered by a sheet, that would --
RICHARD HARVEY: Yes, sir, which they were at that time when I initially got there.
MR. ZELENKA: That could affect something?
RICHARD HARVEY: Yes, sir.
MR. ZELENKA: If they got wet through rain, that could affect it.
RICHARD HARVEY: That could, yeah. That could definitely drop the temperature.
MR. ZELENKA: And it had rained at that time, didn't it?
RICHARD HARVEY: It had not rained hardly at that point. Both of their hairs -- heads of hair were dry.
MR. ZELENKA: Okay, but all those are factors which reflect what the actual time of death is.
RICHARD HARVEY: Yes, sir.
MR. ZELENKA: Yet temperature is key.
RICHARD HARVEY: Yes, sir.
MR. ZELENKA: And the only information you have is that the bodies were warm, correct?
RICHARD HARVEY: Yes, sir.
MR. ZELENKA: Based upon --
RICHARD HARVEY: And rigor had not started.
MR. ZELENKA: And that usually begins to occur within 1 to 3 hours.
RICHARD HARVEY: 1 to 3 hours, so that's the timeframe that I was looking at.
MR. ZELENKA: Okay, and you walked around the area, got close to them at that particular time. Is that correct?
RICHARD HARVEY: Yes, sir.
MR. ZELENKA: And you were walking in the scene, correct?
RICHARD HARVEY: Yes, sir.
MR. ZELENKA: No further questions.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Your Honor, just --
JUDGE NEWMAN: Yes, sir.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. HARPOOTLIAN:
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Do you remember when SLED showed up?
RICHARD HARVEY: I do have probably the times for that. I do not see SLED on here, though.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Well, let me perhaps ask another question.
RICHARD HARVEY: Okay.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Was Colleton County already there?
RICHARD HARVEY: Yes, sir.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Okay. Were there Colleton County detectives there?
RICHARD HARVEY: Yes, sir.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Okay. Did any of them talk to you about time of death?
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Did any of them ask you what your examination revealed?
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Did any of them ask you how you came to your decision about time of death?
RICHARD HARVEY: No, sir.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Thank you.
RICHARD HARVEY: Yes, sir.
JUDGE NEWMAN: Anything further?
MR. ZELENKA: Nothing further.
JUDGE NEWMAN: Thank you, sir. You may step down.
RICHARD HARVEY: Thank you.
(The witness exited the stand.)
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Please the Court, Your Honor?
JUDGE NEWMAN: Yes, sir.