Ronnie Crosby — Direct/Cross/Redirect/Recross (Recall 2)
300 linesTUESDAY, FEBRUARY 28, 2023
(Court resumed at 9:34 a.m.)
JUDGE NEWMAN: Good morning.
(Audience responded good morning.)
JUDGE NEWMAN: Anything before the jury comes?
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Yes, sir. Your Honor, we were informed this morning by the State there's potentially seven reply witnesses, and before we get into that, you know, we've looked at the cases on reply, including State v. Prather, which is a 2020 case. And I want the Court -- and we want the State to understand we think many of these witnesses have already testified and they're repeat -- I mean, just a very few witnesses. They've already testified in this case, and they're been called in reply to -- the way we read the cases new matters, new evidence, something. But -- and we're -- we have a right under the case law of State v. Watson, which is a 2003 case, 353 SC 620, 579 SC 2nd 2048, to surrebuttal. So --
JUDGE NEWMAN: You said a right to?
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: It's discretionary with the Court.
JUDGE NEWMAN: Right. Okay.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: But I would submit to the Court that under the criteria set out in this case, you would determine that if they raised new matters, we would have the right to respond to those. Now, we're told that Dr. Riemer, their pathologist, is going to testify. And if you remember correctly, Your Honor, I've looked at the YouTube -- that's all we can get at this point, which is a video of it. Dr. Riemer has previously testified that she did not believe this to be a contact wound, a contact wound to the head. I submit they're going to try to repeat that testimony, or elaborate on that testimony, and that was the only issue that our pathologist raised, that he believed it was a contact wound and why. She's already testified to why it wasn't a contact wound -- it wasn't a contact wound to the head and why. So, are we going to have get our pathologist back here to counter hers if she raises some new issue? Or perhaps Your Honor -- seven reply witnesses. It was two. Now it's four.
Now it's seven. I mean, this is a process that's got to stop at some point. We're going to be here next week. Their two expert witnesses that have already testified in this case, one of them I would concede, Kenny Kinsey, probably an appropriate reply witness based on Mr. Palmbach's testimony yesterday. But the pathologist again to testify it wasn't a contact wound to the head, she's already testified to that. And some of these other witnesses, law partner members, to testify as to what they do or do not remember about the night in question. Again, they've already asked them that on direct in their previous testimony. So, I just -- this has got to end at some point. We've been weeks on financial -- two and a half weeks of the six weeks on financial matters. In my opinion, it could have been done in a day. That's just my opinion. But I would ask the Court as we make objections to consider, and maybe even proffer what they're going to put up before we get in front of the jury so that we can utilize and make an evaluation before we start down that road for a half a day witness that may not add anything that they -- to the case. Thank you, Your Honor.
JUDGE NEWMAN: Yes, sir.
MR. WATERS: Your Honor, the State is certainly aware of the scope of reply testimony as it relates to the pathologist. There are actually a number of issues on which their pathologist challenged the findings of Dr. Riemer, and she's here to explain why those conclusions are incorrect, including his reliance in particular factors and why ultimately his conclusions are wrong, and I think that's directly in the scope of reply testimony. My focus here on reply is not to just repeat testimony, but to focus on specific issues raised during the defense case that specific witnesses have something that contradicts or puts that in the appropriate context, and that is our focus. And we intend to move very expeditiously through that. But ultimately her -- as it relates to the pathologist, just like Kenny Kinsey, it relates specifically to the conclusions offered by the defense experts. These are not just mere repetition of the testimony already received, but comment on factors identified by those defense experts and why those are incorrect.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Your Honor, just briefly. Let's take Mr. Kinsey for instance. There was testimony yesterday that our expert believes there were two shooters. Obviously something that he was not asked, obviously something that's a new matter, obviously proper for reply. But there are minute details perhaps that will be -- these witnesses will be questioned about, and simply because there might be a hook doesn't mean they get to go into everything. I mean, this is -- again, we've taken -- this was an estimated three week trial. We're now in week six. This will be into week seven. It seems to me the State's position is let no dead horse go unbeaten. This has got to stop. Thank you.
JUDGE NEWMAN: Yes, sir?
MR. WATERS: Of course, the defense, of course, you know, when we had the meeting with Judge Price, at the time we all agreed with that estimate. It was not just the State. I realize this is going long. I intend to move expeditiously, but the State has the right and the opportunity to do appropriate rebuttal evidence to a defense case, and that will be the focus of the testimony here today.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Your Honor, the right they have is the same right I have. It's the right you allow. I just want to make sure. He hasn't got a right to do anything. Thank you.
JUDGE NEWMAN: All right. Well, certainly the State cannot retry the entire case, but the State has the right to reply to contradict certain issues presented by the defense, or certain issues of credibility. It has to be finely tailored such that we don't create a situation where the court will be compelled to allow surrebuttal, which is, you know, almost unheard of. You know, you mention The State v. Prather. You know, that was my trial. I was the trial judge in that case in Lexington County, a murder case wherein I allowed reply testimony actually by a SLED agent. The Court of Appeals in a two-to-one decision reversed the conviction; then the Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and reinstated the conviction that was obtained before me. So, it can be a controversial and contentious issue almost -- it almost always is because there has to be a limit to the back and forth. I'm surprised to hear the number of reply witnesses that the State says that it intends to offer. I do not know -- the case is so complex. We've had so much testimony. I cannot sit here in advance and rule as to what would be appropriate and whatnot. I just have to deal with it on an issue by issue, objection by objection basis. And with that, let's bring the jury.
(The jury returned to the courtroom.)
COURT BAILIFF: The jury is present, sir.
JUDGE NEWMAN: Thank you. Good morning.
(Jurors responded good morning.)
JUDGE NEWMAN: Day number twenty-six, twenty-six. You have heard the defense's case. Now the State gets an opportunity to reply. And you may call your first witness.
MR. WATERS: May it please the court, Your Honor? The State calls Ronnie Crosby.
The witness, RONNIE CROSBY, was first duly sworn and testified as follows:
COURT CLERK: If you will have a seat on the stand. If you would, state your name for the record and spell your last name, please.
RONNIE CROSBY: Ronnie Crosby, C-r-o-s-b-y.
DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. WATERS:
MR. WATERS: Good morning, Mr. Crosby.
RONNIE CROSBY: Good morning.
MR. WATERS: I just want to go over a few things very quickly in reply to some of the defense case. And the first thing I want to ask you is you had previously testified about your close relationship with Paul, didn't you?
RONNIE CROSBY: Yes, I did.
MR. WATERS: All right, and over the years, did you ever have call to ride around the property with Paul, yours or his?
RONNIE CROSBY: More on my property but some on -- one or more occasions at Moselle as well.
MR. WATERS: What, if anything, would y'all carry when you rode around the property?
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Objection, Your Honor. Not proper reply. This is about Paul.
JUDGE NEWMAN: All right. In response?
MR. WATERS: Yes, sir. This will be in specific response to the defendant's testimony and his statements as well. I can be specific. I don't want to do a speaking response but -- I can ask another question and maybe put it in focus, Your Honor.
JUDGE NEWMAN: Okay.
MR. WATERS: All right.
MR. WATERS: You heard prior testimony that you don't go around looking for hogs in the daytime because they're nocturnal from the defendant, did you not? Are you familiar that that was what was said?
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Objection, Your Honor, if it's based on what he's heard or seen. I mean, is this a comment made to him or are we going to go into -- delve into the appropriate way to hunt hogs day or night? I mean, this is not proper reply. I object.
JUDGE NEWMAN: The objection is overruled.
MR. WATERS: All right. Do you want me to --
RONNIE CROSBY: Yeah. If you don't mind, ask your question again.
MR. WATERS: Sure. All right. The first question is have you gone riding around the property with -- your property or the Moselle property with Paul?
RONNIE CROSBY: I have.
MR. WATERS: And what, if anything, would y'all carry when you would go riding the property?
RONNIE CROSBY: I believe the only time I rode with Paul was -- would have been looking -- riding, looking for hogs, and then more so on my property.
MR. WATERS: All right, and what, if anything, would you carry when y'all were looking for hogs?
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Objection, Your Honor. Riding with Paul on his property, not Moselle.
JUDGE NEWMAN: The objection is overruled.
RONNIE CROSBY: Well, people who have hogs on their property, as a general rule you would always take a rifle with you, be it day or night, because you never know when you're going to see hogs. And because they are such a nuisance, as I spoke to earlier in my testimony, you always want to be, you know, prepared to shoot them. So, you would generally have some type of rifle with you, a long gun.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Objection, Your Honor. He's giving an opinion. He's not been qualified as an expert.
JUDGE NEWMAN: The objection is overruled.
MR. WATERS: All right. You've had plenty of experience in killing hogs on your property?
RONNIE CROSBY: Yes. I would disagree with Mr. Harpootlian. I am pretty much an expert about killing hogs.
MR. WATERS: You've had plenty of opportunity to go hunting with Paul?
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: I withdraw the objection, Your Honor. I apologize to the witness.
MR. WATERS: And you've had plenty of opportunity to go hunting with Paul or have him hunt on your property?
RONNIE CROSBY: Yes. I've been with him and he's been on my property many more times -- I didn't go with him every time he was on my property, but that's the general rule that you would have a rifle of some sort. Paul, as this jury has been told over and over, was fond of that 300 Blackout. I've been with him while he had it. I usually use some other type of AR framed gun to shoot hogs.
MR. WATERS: A .223?
RONNIE CROSBY: Well, a .223 or a 6.5 Creedmoor, which is on an AR10 frame.
MR. WATERS: Would -- is it common, though, to carry your rifle and look for hogs in the daytime and to see hogs in the daytime?
RONNIE CROSBY: Yes. You don't always see them. Sometimes night is better if you're using a night vision scope, but I've killed hundreds of hogs in the daytime riding. It's just something -- because they're such a nuisance in the Lowcountry and really across the state right now and across the South that we have a rule that you don't ride the property without a rifle because you want to try to eliminate as many hogs as you can. And we also trap them.
MR. WATERS: To your observation, did Alex have a good relationship with the local law enforcement community?
RONNIE CROSBY: My observation was Alex had a very good relationship with -- probably better than the rest of us saving his father.
MR. WATERS: Did you on multiple occasions go over in great detail Alex's original story as to what he did on the night of the murders?
RONNIE CROSBY: On more than one occasion, we discussed his story. As I testified to, I don't know how many weeks ago that was, but it was awhile.
MR. WATERS: And what, if anything, did the defendant tell you about whether or not he checked Paul and Maggie before calling 911?
RONNIE CROSBY: My understanding of what he told me was that he'd checked them before he called 911.
MR. WATERS: And was he clear on that point to you?
RONNIE CROSBY: That was clear to me.
MR. WATERS: When was the first time you've heard the defendant's latest story admitting that he was, in fact, at the kennels minutes before the victims were killed?
RONNIE CROSBY: I haven't watched all of this trial like a lot of people have, but when I heard that Alex was taking the stand -- I believe it was last Thursday -- I did set up my work station so that I could watch his testimony, and it would have been when he told you that he was at the kennels was the first time that I'd ever heard that.
MR. WATERS: Did Alex ever tell you that he thought the boat case had anything to do with the murders?
RONNIE CROSBY: Consistent with what Alex told in his testimony, he specifically told me that and told us that he did not believe that anyone on the boat had anything to do with it. I don't recall any other conversations with him related to the boat case, but he specifically did not believe, and I think that's what he said last week, that anybody on the boat -- but as far as anybody outside, you know, there was a lot of speculation going on, but I don't remember ever discussing that with him.
MR. WATERS: With him?
RONNIE CROSBY: Right, because we wouldn't know because everything beyond was, you know -- I don't know. It would have been speculation, but I didn't have a conversation with him about that.
MR. WATERS: Did you ever have a conversation with the defendant about Barrett Boulware needing money because of his illness?
RONNIE CROSBY: And you're referring to -- yes, I did in -- I believe it would have been June of 2018.
MR. WATERS: And what was that discussion?
RONNIE CROSBY: Barrett and Alex were very -- what I considered to be very close --
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Your Honor, again I object. This is improper reply.
JUDGE NEWMAN: All right, just a moment. Mr. Waters?
MR. WATERS: Yes, sir. He, the defendant, during cross-examination specifically asked that -- this particular transaction we're about to discuss, and Mr. Crosby's testimony would be a response to what the defendant said about the money inasmuch as he tried imply that, well, Barrett owed me money and it was justification for him stealing the money from one of his best friends.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: He did not ask him about a conversation he had with Mr. Crosby about that money. This isn't proper reply. This is going off on another tangent.
JUDGE NEWMAN: I overrule the objection.
MR. WATERS: Can you tell us about that conversation, please, Mr. Crosby?
RONNIE CROSBY: Yes. In the -- and if my year is wrong, but I believe -- because I didn't know exactly what you were going to ask me and I can go back and look at documents, but I'm sure it's in one of these exhibits when that occurred, the materials that Ms. Seckinger put in. I believe in June of 2018, Barrett, who was a good friend of Alex's, a lot closer than me -- I think they were, in my perception, very close friends, but I had become friends with him and had done a couple of real estate transactions with him. That summer I received a call from his son-in-law. Barrett was in the Mayo Clinic with stage IV colon cancer.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Objection. Hearsay, Your Honor.
JUDGE NEWMAN: Objection is overruled.
RONNIE CROSBY: I do know for a fact that he was in the Mayo Clinic suffering -- being treated for stage IV colon cancer, and I received a call as to whether I could help Barrett financially --
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Objection, Your Honor. Hearsay, a call.
JUDGE NEWMAN: The objection is overruled.
RONNIE CROSBY: Because his wife did not have enough money to stay. Barrett had some waterfront lots --
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Objection, Your Honor. Hearsay. All of this material came from somebody else.
JUDGE NEWMAN: The objection is overruled.
RONNIE CROSBY: I do know this from firsthand knowledge, Mr. Waters. I had already bought a lot from him. But anyway, he had a lot that he asked if I would buy so that they would have money to be able to -- for his wife to stay down in Jacksonville while he was receiving cancer treatment, and I had a conversation with Alex about that --
MR. WATERS: Tell us about the conversation you had with Alex about that. A I just told him, man, it's bad, you know. Barrett looks like he's going to die, and he did die in September of that year, and he acknowledged it and he said that it was good what I was doing for Barrett because he knew that he was in bad financial shape and obviously bad health.
MR. WATERS: And you were obviously a member of this law firm. In your review of records as all of this came to light, was that -- did that conversation take place around the time that the defendant was stealing some of Barrett's money?
RONNIE CROSBY: Yes. Through this investigation that y'all have heard about into the financial stuff, starting in early September of 2021 we started going through a lot of files, and as part of that process, somewhere I determined that in June of 2018, I believe, and I can't tell you the exact figure, but I believe it was a 70 something thousand dollars insurance check that was -- came to the firm on behalf of Mr. Boulware that didn't go through the firm. It was just -- Alex took it that same month that we had that conversation. And then later there was some more money taken after he died.
MR. WATERS: I'm going to show you what's been marked as Exhibit 575, State's 575, and see if you recognize that.
RONNIE CROSBY: Is that one of the SLED agents?
MR. WATERS: Do you not recognize him?
RONNIE CROSBY: Is that David Williams?
MR. WATERS: I'm asking you.
RONNIE CROSBY: I believe that's David Williams.
MR. WATERS: Okay.
MR. WATERS: Your Honor, at this time I would offer State's 575 into evidence.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Objection. Relevance.
JUDGE NEWMAN: What is the relevance?
MR. WATERS: Your Honor, the defendant specifically testified that when he had that initial interview with David Owen on June 8th, you know, as he manufactured his decision to lie about such a crucial fact, it was because he thought that David Williams was the guy interviewing him. This is simply a picture of David Williams so the jury can assess the legitimacy of that claim.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Your Honor, I object. He never ever said David Williams. He said David. That's the record.
JUDGE NEWMAN: All right. The objection is over --
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: He never said it was that guy.
JUDGE NEWMAN: It's admitted over objection.
(PHOTOGRAPH RECEIVED INTO EVIDENCE AS STATE'S EXHIBIT NUMBER 575.)
MR. WATERS: May I have the ELMO, please?
(Break in proceedings.)
MR. WATERS: That's who you recognize as David Williams?
RONNIE CROSBY: Yes. I didn't know him. I got to know him through this investigation, and I do believe he was the agent that was involved in the case with Mr. Greg -- Chief Greg Alexander that was referenced.
MR. WATERS: Clearly not David Owen, though, correct?
RONNIE CROSBY: Well, that's not David Owen.
MR. WATERS: Have you ever tried cases with Alex?
RONNIE CROSBY: I handle a lot of cases with Alex. I believe the only case I tried to a jury with Alex was actually here in this courtroom.
MR. WATERS: Did you observe him being able to get emotional during that closing argument?
RONNIE CROSBY: Yes. A couple months ago when we talked and you asked me what kind of lawyer Alex was and I told you he was a good lawyer, and one of the things that I think I explained to you was that he was a theatrical type presence in the courtroom and he could get very emotional doing closing arguments in front of a jury.
MR. WATERS: Thank you. Please answer any questions the defense may have.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Thank you.
CROSS-EXAMINATION
BY MR. HARPOOTLIAN:
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: I hate to go here, but talk about hog hunting, which I know nothing about --
RONNIE CROSBY: You might not want to go there then.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: I've been here so long I think I probably do need to learn how to hog hunt, but I guess my first question is this. Did you ever ride Moselle with Alex? Did you ride around Moselle with Alex?
RONNIE CROSBY: Probably -- I know I dove hunted there, so I believe I rode on a Ranger, but I don't ever remember doing much riding with Alex at Moselle. But I know I dove hunted there, and I'm sure I rode in a Ranger or some type of ATV with Alex, but I don't have a specific --
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Well, when you're riding around dove hunting, you've got a gun with you, right?
RONNIE CROSBY: You would.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Would you take a shotgun to hunt dove?
RONNIE CROSBY: Yes.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Would you take an AR weapon, too?
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Why? I mean, hogs are out there, right?
RONNIE CROSBY: Well, they don't usually come in a dove field when you're shooting dove, so I don't know. You just wouldn't, Mr. Harpootlian, typically. I mean --
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: But daytime, you're riding around the property, you've got a shotgun. Have you got a slug in that shotgun or are you using birdshot?
RONNIE CROSBY: You would shoot birdshot.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Okay. So if a hog came up, nothing you could do.
RONNIE CROSBY: If a hog came into a dove field with a bunch of dove hunters, they would shoot at him regardless.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Well, maybe you're on your way to the dove field. You don't -- the dove field is not right next to the house, is it?
RONNIE CROSBY: It's -- yes, it's right within a few -- a couple -- a few hundred yards.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Bordered by the swamp?
RONNIE CROSBY: The swamp is on one end of it, yeah.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Okay, and where do the hogs live during the day primarily?
RONNIE CROSBY: Well, they can live in the swamp; they can live in a bay. You know, it can be anywhere, but largely in the swamp.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Swamp. So, a hog could have come out of that swamp.
RONNIE CROSBY: Yes.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: And you were unarmed.
RONNIE CROSBY: As I said, if a hog came in a dove field near somebody dove hunting, they would have probably shot it with a birdshot.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Would that kill a hog?
RONNIE CROSBY: If it was close enough, but unlikely.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: But unlikely. So you have, in fact, ridden around Moselle without a gun to kill a hog, an appropriate gun to kill a hog.
RONNIE CROSBY: Well, yes. If I was going over to the dove field, I wouldn't have one.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: But you've never ridden as Paul and Alex did that afternoon just looking at different -- like where deer -- what do they call them, where they plant stuff for deer?
RONNIE CROSBY: The food plots?
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Yeah, or looking around at how these fruit trees were doing. Do you remember the Snapchat video?
RONNIE CROSBY: I've never done that with Alex that I recall. I could have in the past, but I don't have a specific recollection.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Or where they plant some corn for -- I guess you use corn for deer and ducks.
RONNIE CROSBY: You do, but you don't plant them in the same spot.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: I get that. One would be near a pond or in a pond or around a pond?
RONNIE CROSBY: Correct. They had a duck pond.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Right, and then the others would just be out where the deer might come out and try to be, right? Well, we don't need to go there.
RONNIE CROSBY: Yeah, I don't think -- yeah.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: But you've never rode around like that with them looking at different plantings that you remember.
RONNIE CROSBY: I don't have a specific recollection of doing that with Alex.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: But -- and -- would you -- you're not telling this jury that they would not do -- they would not -- they would do that without a Blackout. They could -- I mean, would it bother you or offend you or scare you that they're riding around the property during the daytime without the Blackout?
RONNIE CROSBY: No. I was answering questions about what's normal if you're looking for hogs or for just riding my property. I mean, most people carry a gun. But no, I have no idea what they had with them or what they were doing.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: And I think Alex testified they were looking for signs of hogs because you could come back -- it would be a lot easier to find those hogs at night, right? They would come out more likely at night than they do during the day.
RONNIE CROSBY: They can become nocturnal when they have a lot of pressure. But as I said before, I've shot -- I mean, we've shot a lot of hogs in the daytime. You can ride up on them and -- yeah.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Does anybody -- has anybody testified they were out looking to shoot hogs that afternoon?
RONNIE CROSBY: I don't know what all of the testimony has been in this trial.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: All I'm saying is there seems to be some implication they would not ride around the property without an AR or some sort of Blackouts. You can't testify to that, right?
RONNIE CROSBY: I cannot.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Okay. So, let's talk a little bit about what you heard from Alex the night of June 7th. You would agree with me that -- well, let's ask it this way. What -- your practice is primarily personal injury. Is that correct?
RONNIE CROSBY: It is.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Catastrophic injuries.
RONNIE CROSBY: Well, I handle a lot of catastrophic injury cases.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Cases, for instance, where a husband and wife were riding down the road and hit by a tractor trailer. And, by the way of example, maybe you could give me something more specific. Husband is killed, wife is severely injured, that kind of thing. A Yeah.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Now, is it your experience that people who undergo -- maybe they're not hurt but their loved one is hurt, maybe killed. In that situation, that's a traumatic experience for the surviving person, correct, to see their loved one killed?
RONNIE CROSBY: Yes.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Okay, and so when you sit down with those folks and, you know, begin to recount with them what happened that night, often times -- I do a little work like you do -- often times those folks misremember or get times wrong, or because they went through this very traumatic experience, and the closer to that experience, the more likely they are to get some things wrong. Times, for instance. Is that your experience?
RONNIE CROSBY: They can, but I also find that people who have been involved in traumatic experiences try to be very -- they try to be very accurate with the details because they know it's important to me representing them.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: And typically you don't go out to the scene of the crime and interview -- or the scene of the accident and interview them that night, do you? Typically?
RONNIE CROSBY: Well, typically you don't because, you know, you don't know that it's happened.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Sometimes in the old days they used to do that, but they don't do that anymore, right?
RONNIE CROSBY: That would be very rare.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: So, you're seeing them in your office weeks later?
RONNIE CROSBY: It can be. It can be days, it can be weeks.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Okay, and in that atmosphere, it was a little more conducive to them being as accurate as possible, right?
RONNIE CROSBY: It is. But, you know, often times we also have the benefit of recorded interviews. When there's a catastrophic injury, typically the highway patrol will get -- try to interview people as quickly as they can, and they will -- we often times have it on video off a dash cam or sometimes body cam and a lot of times written statements.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: And written statements from witnesses who saw it happen.
RONNIE CROSBY: Correct.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: And so when you interview those people, they have the benefit of reviewing whatever you have to help them get a better recollection of what happened, correct?
RONNIE CROSBY: That's correct.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Okay. So, the instance you're talking about where Alex told you he turned them over before he made the 911 call, whatever it was, I'm not quite sure -- before I think is what he said -- if that would be inconsistent with something he says later on after having reviewed other people's statements, looking at video, that would not be unusual in your business. I think you just said it would not be unusual, correct? Strike that.
RONNIE CROSBY: You're trying to take me somewhere that you probably don't want to.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: No. I think I want to --
MR. WATERS: I would ask that the witness answer the question.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Withdraw the question.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Let me ask you this question. Maybe this gets to the meat of the matter here. Have you had to come out of pocket to pay back the money he stole?
RONNIE CROSBY: Yes, and if you --
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: How much? And don't tell me you don't know.
RONNIE CROSBY: Well, we're still counting, Mr. Harpootlian.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Well, how much have you paid so far?
RONNIE CROSBY: We have had to borrow millions to pay back because of his stealing.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: No. How much have you had to come out of pocket?
RONNIE CROSBY: Well, when you borrow it, you've got to pay it back, and I couldn't tell you how much has exactly been paid back as of we sit here today. But, yes, and if you're implying that I would come in here and somehow shade truth in any way because of that, that's -- I would take high offense with that, Mr. Harpootlian.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Well, I'm not concerned about your high offense. Are you angry at him for stealing your money?
RONNIE CROSBY: I have no feeling one way or the other.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: You don't have any feeling about Alex Murdaugh betraying you and stealing your money? You are -- I admire you. I don't know that I could look beyond that.
MR. WATERS: Objection, Your Honor
JUDGE NEWMAN: The objection is sustained. There's not a question. The jury is to disregard the argument.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: You're not angry with Alex Murdaugh?
RONNIE CROSBY: I have had anger with him, extreme anger, Mr. Harpootlian, because of what he did to my law firm, my partners, my clients, his clients, our clients, what he did to his family, what he's did to so many people. Yes, I experience a lot of anger.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: And that hadn't --
RONNIE CROSBY: But you can't walk around with anger. You have to find a way to deal with it and move forward, and I have done that. And if you suggest -- you're dead wrong. If you think I've come in here and told this jury something because of money when we're talking about two people who were brutally murdered, then you're headed in the wrong direction.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Do you think he did it? Do you think he --
RONNIE CROSBY: I don't have an opinion. I don't have the benefit of the materials you have.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Well, let me ask you this. You're angry with him. He stole million of dollars from your firm. You admit your firm is not even called the Murdaugh firm anymore, right?
RONNIE CROSBY: It is not. I don't admit that I'm angry right now; I told you I've gotten away from that. I don't have any feelings because you can't walk around with anger. I have been very, very angry about it because of what he's done, and he did it in a very callus way, a very deceitful way.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: And you carry no -- I'm sorry, maybe I just saw some anger there. Were you angry just a moment ago?
RONNIE CROSBY: No. You keep trying to push a question and don't want to accept my answer, which is what it is.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: That you've just given -- you're -- you're zen, you're Nirvana, you're whatever the --
MR. WATERS: Your Honor, objection --
RONNIE CROSBY: Mr. Harpootlian --
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Have you forgiven him?
RONNIE CROSBY: -- I came to the scene of these murders to support my partner. I was there. I saw things that haven't even been talked about in this courtroom. I was there. I loved Paul very much. I thought I knew who Alex was. I did not. And it's hard to -- you might not understand, but it's just hard to walk around with anger, and hard to even walk around with it when it's with somebody who you didn't know and didn't understand. So, you might have beat it in that way, but, you know, I've got to function. I've got a family. I've got to move on with life.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Were you aware that he went to rehab in 2017?
RONNIE CROSBY: I was not, other than what was said by Alex in this courtroom.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: You never were aware he had a drug problem?
RONNIE CROSBY: I was unaware.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Okay. Sort of --
RONNIE CROSBY: And if I would have been -- known, I would have tried to help him.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: You indicated that he could be emotional in trying a case, correct?
RONNIE CROSBY: He could be. He was theatric much like -- his father and grandfather had a courtroom theatrics and he could be emotional.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Any of your other partners that way? Johnny Parker?
RONNIE CROSBY: No, Johnny is quite the opposite. Johnny is very --
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Laconic, I believe, is the best way to describe him.
RONNIE CROSBY: Yeah. He doesn't show emotion.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: And how -- and nobody else in your firm was theatrical or emotional?
RONNIE CROSBY: Not to Alex's level.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: You don't know any other lawyers in the state that go to that level?
RONNIE CROSBY: You're asking me a question right now I don't know. You might yourself. I don't know. I don't know what other lawyers do. I'm usually trying cases against defense attorneys, so I don't get to see plaintiffs lawyers anymore.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Okay. Well, I want to thank you for -- let me ask you one last thing. This Boulware guy that he stole all of the money from, Mr. Boulware, do you remember him?
RONNIE CROSBY: Yes, I remember him.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: How much money did he steal from him? Do you remember?
RONNIE CROSBY: He stole 70 something thousand in June of 2018. Mr. Boulware died in September, I believe, of 2018, and I believe another 270 something thousand after Mr. Boulware's death sometime in or around February 2019.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Have you and your partners paid Mr. Boulware's estate or his folks back?
RONNIE CROSBY: Yes. I met with them personally.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Okay, and even though it has cost you, your firm, and has cost millions of dollars to you, you have forgiven him? You buried those --
RONNIE CROSBY: I didn't say I forgave him.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: You're just not angry about it anymore.
RONNIE CROSBY: I said I have no feelings, and I had to work on that, Mr. Harpootlian. You know, when you go through what we've gone through, not only the trauma of losing people we loved in a double homicide, seeing the aftermath, and then learning that someone you'd worked with for more than twenty years had been stealing throughout a period of time and deceiving us, there's a lot of emotion there. And, yes, it was bad in the fall of 2021, and I have found a way to have no feelings. It's not forgiveness. It's just I don't have any feelings.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: And you're not angry at him today. You're not angry at him at all.
RONNIE CROSBY: I'm not angry. If I raised my voice, it's only because of the implications you were trying to make out of it.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: The implication that you might not want to help him in front of this jury here today because -- let me finish the question -- because he destroyed your firm, and he stole millions of dollars you had to pay back, he deceived you, all of that's away and is not influencing your testimony here today at all. If you would answer that yes or no, then you can explain.
RONNIE CROSBY: All of those things happened, and it does not influence my testimony. I take the oath that I just took very seriously, and if you've got any indication that anything I said was inaccurate, I'll be glad to address it with you.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Well, the jury can judge that.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Thank you.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. WATERS:
MR. WATERS: How long did you know Alex?
RONNIE CROSBY: Since the late 90s.
MR. WATERS: And knowing what you know now, was he able to look you in your eye and lie convincingly to you day in and day out?
RONNIE CROSBY: He did.
MR. WATERS: And was he able to look juries in the eye and display emotion?
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Objection, Your Honor. That is not appropriate redirect, and it's leading.
JUDGE NEWMAN: The objection is sustained.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Thank you.
MR. WATERS: Mr. Harpootlian asked you about some of the things that you have gone through. And is your issue with Mr. Harpootlian's questioning the implication that you would come in and shade things in front of this jury?
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Objection. Leading.
MR. WATERS: What is your concern with Mr. Harpootlian's questioning of you? Can you express that to the jury, please? All of that that he just went through with you, sitting up on the stand having to deal with this, what is your problem with what he was trying to say?
RONNIE CROSBY: Well, I fortunately -- well, let's start with I took an oath to tell the truth, but we as lawyers also have oaths and obligations to a court, and it goes a lot deeper than just that oath. We are bound by rules of professional conduct, ethical rules that I take very seriously as a lawyer. To my knowledge, I enjoy a very good reputation as far as being a person of integrity, and that's what I took issue with was him attempting, because he cannot impugn my integrity.
MR. WATERS: That's fair. Would you take a .22 if you went out looking for hogs?
RONNIE CROSBY: Possibly a .22 Magnum, which is a long rifle.
MR. WATERS: It's just a long rifle?
RONNIE CROSBY: Yes.
MR. WATERS: You would take a long rifle, not a pistol. Is that correct?
RONNIE CROSBY: Yeah. I would never -- I'm not a good shot with a pistol, but I would never take a pistol.
MR. WATERS: And what was Paul's favorite gun for shooting hogs with?
RONNIE CROSBY: I knew he -- he always had a 300 Blackout, but I don't know if he shot them with anything else.
MR. WATERS: Thank you. Nothing further.
JUDGE NEWMAN: Anything further?
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: I'm sorry, Your Honor, I just can't leave this alone.
RECROSS-EXAMINATION
BY MR. HARPOOTLIAN:
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Is the 300 Blackout that's in evidence his favorite, the 300 Blackout with a thermal scope on it?
RONNIE CROSBY: Yes.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: No further questions.
JUDGE NEWMAN: You may step down.
(The witness exited the stand.)