Day 22 - February 22, 2023
The court declined to limit financial cross-examination in advance. Mark Ball addressed the kennel video, scene conditions, and financial thefts, while defense experts examined crime-scene processing and phone activity subject to significant limits.
Full day summary
9:08:432. Mark Ball — Direct/Cross/Redirect/Recross
The court declined to set a blanket advance limit on financial-misconduct questions if Alex Murdaugh testified, then heard Mark Ball’s direct, cross, redirect, and recross testimony about Moselle, the kennel video, Alex’s statements, and the law firm’s discovery of stolen funds.
Highlights
Scope of Cross-Examination if Defendant TestifiesrulingThe court declined to impose a blanket advance limitation or give an advisory opinion, directing that objectionable questions be addressed as the evidence was presented while offering to review the defendant's privilege and the parties' authorities.Scope of Cross-Examination if Defendant Testifies“I'm not going to issue an order in advance limiting the scope of this cross-examination. Any objectionable matter must be addressed on -- as the evidence is presented and not based on any advance ruling by the Court.”— Clifton NewmanThe court stated its central ruling that specific objections would be resolved during the testimony rather than through an advance limitation.Mark Ball - Directemotional momentAfter the scene had been released on June 8, Ball entered the feed room and observed steel shot, apparent shot damage, buckshot, blood and tissue, and part of Paul's skull. He said an agent told him investigators had what they needed, and he expressed intense anger that remains were still present.Mark Ball - CrossadmissionBall expressed no doubt that Alex, Maggie, and Paul were on the kennel video, then testified that Alex gave him the same account omitting a kennel visit at least three times over subsequent days.Mark Ball - Redirect“And when we found out about it, it makes you doubt everything, and it's just human nature, but I don't have one shred of anything. All I can do is just point to what I saw.”— Mark BallBall acknowledged that discovering Alex's financial misconduct caused broad doubt while expressly limiting his testimony to what he personally observed.
4. Kenneth Zercie — Direct/Cross/Redirect/Recross/Voir Dire
Defense expert Kenneth Zercie criticized crime-scene evidence preservation and footwear-impression documentation, then acknowledged limits in the materials he reviewed before completing his testimony.
Highlights
Kenneth Zercie - DirectrulingZercie said the scene photographs permitted gross footwear-pattern identification but lacked the straight-down analytical views needed for detailed comparison. He concluded that more work could have been done, but the court sustained an objection when the defense asked him to speculate that additional evidence might have exculpated Alex Murdaugh.Kenneth Zercie - Direct“Correct. I think much more could have been done.”— Kenneth ZercieZercie gave his central opinion about the completeness of the crime-scene processing while avoiding a conclusion about what additional work would have found.Kenneth Zercie - CrossadmissionAt the close of cross-examination, Zercie agreed that he could not determine whether work omitted from the materials supplied to him had been performed correctly.
6. Micah Sturgis — Direct/Cross/Redirect/Recross/Voir Dire
Digital-forensics expert Micah Sturgis examined phone activity around 8:49 to 9:07 p.m., identified signs of handling and other events, and explained the limits of determining who used or moved Maggie Murdaugh’s phone.
Highlights
Micah Sturgis - Directevidence eventDefendant's Exhibit 158 was admitted without objection, and Sturgis used it to trace Maggie's phone activity from 8:49 p.m. through 9:07 p.m., including locking, backlight changes, steps, Siri activity, camera activation, and orientation changes.Micah Sturgis - Crosstestimony highlightThe cross-examination established that Maggie's phone locked at 8:49:31 p.m. and remained locked until its recovery the next day. Sturgis also agreed that his review showed no user interaction with Paul's phone after about 8:49 p.m.Micah Sturgis - Redirecttestimony highlightSturgis distinguished the phone's Raise to Wake function from orientation records, testified that very little movement could activate the screen, and confirmed that Maggie Murdaugh's screen was off as Alex Murdaugh's SUV approached and passed the recovery location.Micah Sturgis - Redirect“I mean, they could have. They could -- it could have been accident. I don't know. I don't know what the person could have been doing, but it was a user interaction with the device.”— Micah SturgisThe answer preserved both the significance and the limits of the camera event: it indicated user interaction but did not establish intent or activity.