Chris Wilson — Direct
415 linesMR. WATERS: Your Honor, the state calls Chris Wilson. I'm sorry, Your Honor, he's downstairs. We'll get him right away.
(Break in proceedings.)
The witness, JAMES CHRISTOPHER WILSON, was first duly sworn and testified as follows:
COURT CLERK: Have a seat in the witness stand. State your name again for the record. Spell your last name, please.
CHRIS WILSON: My name is James Christopher Wilson, W-i-l-s-o-n. I go by Chris.
DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. WATERS:
MR. WATERS: Mr. Wilson, do you understand that we're here for an in-camera hearing to determine the admissibility of your testimony?
CHRIS WILSON: I do.
MR. WATERS: All right, and you're a lawyer, so you get that.
CHRIS WILSON: Yes, sir.
MR. WATERS: So, I'm not going to go into a lot of everything that I might cover with you in a trial, but I do want to focus on particularly the Faris case.
CHRIS WILSON: Sure.
MR. WATERS: You know what I'm referring to?
CHRIS WILSON: Sure.
MR. WATERS: First of all, though, just very quickly, you're a lawyer. Is that correct?
CHRIS WILSON: I am, since 1998.
MR. WATERS: 1998, and describe very quickly your practice for the record.
CHRIS WILSON: Actually since 1995. I've had my own practice since 1998. In the last fifteen years I've done primarily personal injury work, automobile accidents, people that are injured at work, malpractice type cases, those things.
MR. WATERS: Okay, and where do you normally practice? Where is your home base?
CHRIS WILSON: My only office is in Bamberg.
MR. WATERS: You do a lot of plaintiff's work?
CHRIS WILSON: That's all I do anymore. For the last fifteen years that's really all I do.
MR. WATERS: And do you know the defendant?
CHRIS WILSON: I do.
MR. WATERS: And when did you get to know the defendant?
CHRIS WILSON: I've known Alex since we were in high school. Bamberg and Hampton -- I grew up in Bamberg and they're only about 30 miles apart, and so I knew of Alex and had been around him some growing up. We had some mutual friends. I was a lot closer to some other guys in Hampton that I grew up playing golf and things like that with, but I would cross paths with Alex. We played on the same baseball team one summer, I think, like our senior years in high school, or somewhere around high school age. Didn't really keep in touch with him or cross paths with him until we ended up going to law school, and we started law school together at Carolina. Three years there together at law school and lived together part of the time.
MR. WATERS: Did y'all become friends?
CHRIS WILSON: We did.
MR. WATERS: Did you become close friends?
CHRIS WILSON: Very close.
MR. WATERS: Best friends?
CHRIS WILSON: He was one of my best friends, yes. And I thought, you know, he was and I thought he felt the same way about me.
MR. WATERS: Do you feel that way now?
CHRIS WILSON: I don't know how I feel now, Mr. Waters.
MR. WATERS: Over the years that you developed that close friendship with Alex, did y'all also have a professional relationship as well?
CHRIS WILSON: We did. When I finished law school, I went to work in Greenville for a judge for a year. Alex went to Beaufort to work with a law firm there. So, we didn't -- we'd see each other, but it was more socially then. When I moved back to Bamberg to start practicing where I had grown up and he moved back to Hampton a couple years later we started doing a little bit more work together, and we've done cases together really since 1998. I opened up my own firm in '98. I think that's about the same time he had moved back to his firm. I mean, it was a bigger firm with resources that I didn't have starting out on my own, and so we started working cases together and worked a lot together.
MR. WATERS: Okay. Tell me for the record how that works with you. You're in a different firm than the firm he was in, correct?
CHRIS WILSON: Yes.
MR. WATERS: So when two lawyers from different firms, or three, however many it is, share a case, how do you handle the payment of the fees if there's a successful recovery?
CHRIS WILSON: Well, it really all depends on the agreement that's reached up front between the lawyers and with the clients' consent. But generally all of the cases that I work with his firm and with most firms I do business with, it's a 50/50 split on the fee recovery, or at least a equal split. Maybe if there are more than two lawyers it will be an equal split across the board. But generally it was just my firm and his firm with a 50/50 split on attorneys' fees recovered, and each firm recovers whatever costs they've advanced in the case. And sometimes his firm would advance more of the costs because, you know, they had a larger number of lawyers bringing in more money than I was and could afford to handle some of the bigger costs. But it's kind of whoever got the bill paid the bill, and then we reimbursed at the end whoever had advanced the costs. The client signs off on all of that.
MR. WATERS: Who ultimately in those situations were splitting a fee. Is that a good way for us to call it?
CHRIS WILSON: Yes, sir.
MR. WATERS: Who handles the ultimate disbursement? How does that work?
CHRIS WILSON: Whichever lawyer receives the settlement checks or the checks to pay whatever verdict or judgment that was received. I can't say in every single case with Alex's firm, but -- and having gone back through my files and audited my paperwork, it looks like in almost every single case that we worked together my -- the disbursement, the money would come through me and I would handle the disbursement. They were generally clients where I would associate his firm. They were my clients. They were people that had come to me and I wanted them to, you know, frankly know that I was the person that took care of them, and if they need anything else they could come back, and so I wanted to be the person handling that part of it also.
MR. WATERS: All right. So, if the money comes through you, then just mechanically how do you go about paying Alex in a case where y'all are splitting a fee or paying the firm?
CHRIS WILSON: Money comes in. Client has to come sign the check or whatever it is along with my firm if it's made payable -- it's generally made payable to Wilson Law Group or Wilson Law Firm and the client. The client comes in and signs the check. I endorse the check. We deposit that into my trust account. If it has to sit -- under Supreme Court rules sometimes it has to sit for ten days or more. Some smaller checks don't. Once it's been in the account long enough to be able to be disbursed pursuant to our rules, then my bookkeeper does the checks that I instruct her to do, and I sign the checks to make disbursements. If there are checks to another law firm, then the money is disbursed to that firm.
MR. WATERS: In the course of litigation, are there typically costs and expenses that accrue during the course of that litigation?
CHRIS WILSON: Almost always.
MR. WATERS: And do those typically get paid out of whatever settlement is reached, assuming a successful result?
CHRIS WILSON: They do. All of my fee agreements and every lawyer I've ever worked with have a provision in there that client understands that the fees are advanced by the lawyer, but upon recovery they're reimbursed, or recovered, by the lawyer.
MR. WATERS: In a particular case where you're splitting a fee and there were, in fact, fees and costs associated with the successful recovery -- excuse me, costs and expenses associated with a successful recovery, are those issued in a separate check typically or a check together?
CHRIS WILSON: When I first started, I think my firm was doing costs and fees, not just for other firms but costs and fees that were payable to my firm in the same check. But, I mean, ten plus years ago, if not longer, we started doing separate checks just to make the accounting and keeping up with it easier. So, generally it's a fee check and a separate cost check.
MR. WATERS: And in 2020 and 2021, were you issuing those separate checks?
CHRIS WILSON: Yes.
MR. WATERS: Very quickly without getting into the details, did you have a case in Allendale where you split with Alex in the early part of 2021?
CHRIS WILSON: Yes, sir.
MR. WATERS: All right, and ultimately was there a recovery in that case?
CHRIS WILSON: There was.
MR. WATERS: And --
CHRIS WILSON: It was actually three cases but they were similar factually, and so we treated them as one case, but it was three separate -- three separate plaintiffs, three separate cases.
MR. WATERS: And ultimately did you, your office, disburse the fees and the expense check to PMPED?
CHRIS WILSON: On all three cases, yes, sir.
MR. WATERS: And those checks were made out to what when you disbursed those?
CHRIS WILSON: All three of the fee checks were made payable to -- I don't know if we used the acronym PMPED or if we actually spelled out Peters, Murdaugh, Parker, Detrick, and Eltzroth, but PMPED.
MR. WATERS: And generally, except for the Faris case which we'll talk about in a minute --
CHRIS WILSON: Sure.
MR. WATERS: -- when you had those fee splits with Alex, were the checks made out to PMPED?
CHRIS WILSON: Yes, sir.
MR. WATERS: And signed by you?
CHRIS WILSON: Yes, sir, and I'm the only person that can sign checks in my office, so -- now. I had a partner at one time, but now I'm the only person that can sign checks.
MR. WATERS: Okay. Did you have a case involving Mack Trucks that involved Alex?
CHRIS WILSON: Yes, sir.
MR. WATERS: And can you describe to the Court how you ended up getting that case and how you ultimately associated Alex in that case, please?
CHRIS WILSON: Sure. And I've heard it referred to the as the Faris case, the Mack Trucks and Faris. I would rather refer to it as the Mack Trucks case.
MR. WATERS: That's fine.
CHRIS WILSON: Another lawyer had contacted me about a case that he was working on, felt like he had a wreck involving a tractor trailer and an automobile in which a gentleman was injured. I believe he had already filed suit against the tractor trailer company and its driver and maybe another party. Started looking at the case for and with him. It involved a drive shaft that had fallen out of a Mack truck into the interstate and this gentleman had -- and a number of other cars had hit that drive shaft. And in looking at it, in doing a little bit of research, I and he together realized that there very likely could be a products liability case involving a defect with the drive shaft of the truck or something like that. So, I reached out to Alex and asked him if he could get involved in the case, or would get involved in the case. That's what his firm specialized in a lot was products liability cases. And we were pushing some deadlines to bring in all of the parties that we needed to, and so I reached out pretty quickly because I knew we needed some help.
MR. WATERS: And he agreed to be a part of that case?
CHRIS WILSON: He did.
MR. WATERS: As that litigation proceeded, did y'all have, as is typical, some discovery hearings, discovery motions and that sort of thing?
CHRIS WILSON: Well, we had a number of them. I don't remember how many -- I don't remember how many, but we had a number of different motions and discovery that went back and forth, documents being exchanged, things like that.
MR. WATERS: All right, and did that ultimately set up the prospect of a trial in that case?
CHRIS WILSON: It did, but it was unusual. It wasn't a jury trial like is normally done in personal injury cases. It was a nonjury trial tried before a circuit court judge with an admission of liability. We waived punitive damages, and there was an agreement between the parties that neither party would appeal the result.
MR. WATERS: And in a case -- plaintiffs' case, civil plaintiffs like, like this, if there is a large recovery let's say for the plaintiff and the defendant decides to appeal, does that typically delay payment of the recovery until that appeal is heard and resolved?
CHRIS WILSON: I mean, it can. The appeals -- you never know how long an appeal is going to take, and so if the losing party, the defendant, the company that you're suing, whoever it might be, decides to appeal, they can tie the verdict up for a while. If you win the appeal, you're going to recover costs and interest. So, you know, that's the remedy. But it can tie up money for people that are injured that need that money.
MR. WATERS: Did y'all ultimately try that case in a bench trial?
CHRIS WILSON: We did. We had --
MR. WATERS: What county was it?
CHRIS WILSON: Excuse me?
MR. WATERS: What county?
CHRIS WILSON: It was in Richland County, Columbia.
MR. WATERS: And when did y'all try that case?
CHRIS WILSON: The first part of January of 2021.
MR. WATERS: And who did the closing argument in that case?
CHRIS WILSON: Alex.
MR. WATERS: And did y'all ultimately -- there had been a concession of liability so the amount was really what was in question. Is that correct?
CHRIS WILSON: Yes, sir.
MR. WATERS: And how many plaintiffs did you have?
CHRIS WILSON: There were actually two cases. We call it Faris or the Mack Trucks case throughout all of this, but there were actually two cases. The gentleman that was injured, and then his wife, we brought a loss of consortium claim for her for the loss of companion services that she had lost from him. And just, not to get too detailed, Mr. Waters, that -- her case had gone into default. In other words, Mack Trucks hadn't answered the papers like they should have, and so they were in a really bad position in this case. And in the gentleman's case, they had answered but we were discovering some things -- when we were doing some discovery, it was clear they didn't want us looking much, much further, and so that's why this deal, everybody agreed to a nonjury trial without appeal, with a waiver of punitive damages, and an admission of liability is done. And we were in Covid and it was going to take us awhile to get to trial. So, it worked out well for both parties, and the result worked out well for us.
MR. WATERS: And that's often how it goes in litigation, both sides kind of decide what's best and sometimes they can have a meeting of the minds.
CHRIS WILSON: Yes, sir.
MR. WATERS: All right. Was there ultimately a verdict by the judge in that case?
CHRIS WILSON: There were two verdicts in two cases, yes, sir.
MR. WATERS: What were those amounts?
CHRIS WILSON: I believe it was 4 million for the injured man and 1.5 for the wife. I remember it was 5.5 combined, but I think it was 4 and 1.5.
MR. WATERS: All right, and so how did the fees break down, to the best of your recollection, that were going to be split among the three lawyers involved?
CHRIS WILSON: There were --
MR. WATERS: Let me ask you this. Do you remember how much Alex's share was?
CHRIS WILSON: 792,000. There was a larger split to the attorney that initiated the case, but I believe Alex was 792. The math didn't work out perfectly. I was 791 and the other attorney was higher than that, but I don't remember the exact numbers.
MR. WATERS: In recognition of his origination?
CHRIS WILSON: Yes, sir.
MR. WATERS: In March of 2021, did you ultimately receive the monies and prepared for disbursement?
CHRIS WILSON: Yes, sir. I believe they came in late February because we disbursed in March, and I had to wait at least ten days. Part of the money came by a wire, which would have been kind of immediately available and accessible but it was a smaller portion of the money. The larger portion came in a check, and because it was such a sizable amount, I waited maybe twelve or fifteen -- fifteen days or so. I didn't disburse on the tenth day.
MR. WATERS: Okay, and did you have a conversation with the defendant about disbursing those fees?
CHRIS WILSON: I had a conversation with Alex and with the other attorney I worked on the case with when the fees were ready to be disbursed.
MR. WATERS: What about your specific conversation with Alex? Did he make any requests of you or have any discussions with you about how to handle his $792,000 share of the fee?
CHRIS WILSON: He did.
MR. WATERS: And tell me about that conversation, please.
CHRIS WILSON: When I contacted him and told him we are getting ready to disburse and we would have checks ready, he indicated to me that he was looking to place his fees in an annuity. He called it, like, a structure. I've never done one of those before, so I didn't really know how it worked. I've never done structure for my fees myself. I've structured client money but not my fees. He indicated he was looking to do a structure by putting the monies into annuities and that the checks needed to be made payable directly to him, that he had already cleared it with his firm, that the monies were going to be put on the books and accounted for and he would be credited as having received those monies.
MR. WATERS: Based on his representations to you that he had cleared it with his firm, did you agree to do something different and make the checks directly out to him?
CHRIS WILSON: I did.
MR. WATERS: Hold on for me one second.
(Break in proceedings.)
(COPY OF CHECK MARKED AS STATE'S EXHIBIT NUMBER 345 FOR IDENTIFICATION.)
(COPY OF CHECKS MARKED AS STATE'S EXHIBIT NUMBER 346 FOR IDENTIFICATION.)
(COPY OF CHECKS MARKED AS STATE'S EXHIBIT NUMBER 347 FOR IDENTIFICATION.)
MR. WATERS: I'm going to show you very quickly what's been marked as Exhibit 345, State's 345 for the purposes of this in-camera hearing, and see if you recognize that particular document.
CHRIS WILSON: I do.
MR. WATERS: All right, and what is that?
CHRIS WILSON: So, this is the initial check that was written per Alex's instructions directly to him on the gentleman's case for fees made payable to Richard Alexander Murdaugh, Esquire, for $600,000, but voided.
MR. WATERS: Why was it voided?
CHRIS WILSON: Because he instructed me afterwards, and I don't remember if it was in the same conversation or shortly thereafter -- it must have been shortly thereafter -- that the checks on that case needed to be made in two separate check payments because he was doing two separate annuities.
MR. WATERS: Your Honor, I have a copy for you that I was going to hand up. If I could approach?
JUDGE NEWMAN: Yes, sir.
MR. WATERS: All right, I'm going to show you what's been marked as State's 346 for purposes of this in-camera hearing, and see if you recognize these documents.
CHRIS WILSON: Yes, sir. The first page is the check payable directly to Richard Alexander Murdaugh, Esquire, for $192,000, and that is on the loss of consortium case for the wife. And on the bottom, just like that $600,000 check that was voided, it indicates it was for fees. I guess the other writing on here is maybe from my --
MR. WATERS: I'm just focusing just on the checks.
CHRIS WILSON: The checks. It has something to do with the way we recovered the checks.
MR. WATERS: All right.
CHRIS WILSON: The back page looks like an endorsement, Bank of America deposit only. It looks like a signature, Bank of America.
MR. WATERS: Okay, and again, just -- I was just asking you to identify and see if you recognize the checks.
CHRIS WILSON: Yes, I do. I recognize all of them.
MR. WATERS: All right. Tell me the second check, the amount and what that's for.
CHRIS WILSON: The second check is for $225,000 payable directly to Richard Alexander Murdaugh, Esquire. It indicates on the bottom it is for fees. This would be part of the rewrite of that $600,000 check that had been voided.
MR. WATERS: All right.
CHRIS WILSON: And then the third check is a $375,000 check payable directly to Richard Alexander Murdaugh, Esquire, and it indicates fees, and that would be the remainder of the rewrite of that $600,000 check initially written that was voided.
MR. WATERS: And those second two were rewritten why?
CHRIS WILSON: At Alex's request. He had indicated that he was putting the money into two different vehicles, or annuities, and needed the checks written that way.
MR. WATERS: All right. What did you do with those checks after you -- the three checks after you finally cut them?
CHRIS WILSON: Obviously I signed them, and at some point in time I think Alex sent somebody up to my office to pick them up. I don't think I delivered them. Often times I put checks in the mail. Sometimes when they're larger, I either offer to have them picked up or delivered, and I think he had somebody come pick those up from my office.
MR. WATERS: Like a law firm runner or somebody like that?
CHRIS WILSON: Something like that, yes, sir. I don't even think I was in the office when they picked it up.
MR. WATERS: All right. You've known Alex for a long time, right?
CHRIS WILSON: Since our -- yeah, since the mid-80's or earlier. Yeah, mid-80's, yes, sir.
MR. WATERS: Worked with him for a long time?
CHRIS WILSON: Many times.
MR. WATERS: And his explanation to you about what he was going to do, did that raise any suspicions with you to your friend that you've known for such a long time?
CHRIS WILSON: No, sir. It was different but it didn't raise any red flags or suspicions to me that anything wrong was going on.
MR. WATERS: Because you trusted your friend, right?
CHRIS WILSON: Very much.
MR. WATERS: Was your -- what was your perception of Alex's general wealth and success?
CHRIS WILSON: I thought he made a lot more money than I did. Always seemed to do well in his practice. All I ever heard is that he was one of the biggest producers in the firm. He -- you know, it's his family name on the firm but they acted like it was his name on the firm, too. He and I handled big cases together. When I talked to the partners and other members of that firm, they were talking about big cases that they were handling with him. I felt like he did really well. There were -- we never got into direct discussions about the amount of money he made or the amount of money I made. We talked about, you know, sometimes business and sometimes money and sometimes things, but I never -- I always thought he made a lot of money.
MR. WATERS: Is that part of the reason why your suspicions weren't -- didn't arise when you were asked to do this request by Alex?
CHRIS WILSON: I guess so. Not so much as just -- I had never had any dealings with him that I had any reason to distrust what he was telling me. I mean, he was a partner in that firm. He had the authority, as far as I knew, to make decisions. I mean, if he would have wanted to reduce the fee and take less and it was payable to the firm, I wouldn't have questioned that. I didn't feel like he had to have his authority -- his partners' approvals to make those type decisions.
MR. WATERS: All right. I'm going to show you what's been marked as 347 and see if you recognize that document.
CHRIS WILSON: Yes, sir. The first check is a check that was made in May of 2021, May 13th, to Peters, Parker, Murdaugh, Eltzroth, and Detrick, for $14,619.13. I don't think on the bottom it says anything, but this was a cost reimbursement check on one of those two cases. And then the second check is a check made payable on the same day, May 13th, for the same amount of money plus 1 cent, so for 14 cents, and it was cost reimbursement in the other case.
MR. WATERS: All right.
CHRIS WILSON: And that's made payable to the law firm, also.
MR. WATERS: Who was your assistant, or paralegal, at this point in time?
CHRIS WILSON: Vickie. I mean, she's one of several, but Vickie is my primary paralegal.
MR. WATERS: At some point in May of 2021, did Vickie advise you of any inquiry coming from PMPED about where these fees were?
CHRIS WILSON: No, she didn't advise me in May about any inquiry about where the fees were. She had received an email in May from Alex's paralegal, Annette, that said hey, we got the cost check but we don't have the fees. Where are the fees? And she replied to that email to Annette and said your boss has already been paid the fees, just like mine and the other lawyer. Vickie replied to that email. I didn't know about that email until all of this came out in September of what was going on. I didn't know about that reply email to Annette. Vickie did receive an email, another email from Annette and as I recall, it was an email that Annette had received from Jeannie Seckinger that Vickie did forward to me sometime towards the end of May. I think she had gotten it but she was out on vacation for a couple of days, and when she got back she forwarded it to me. And there was an email from Jeannie Seckinger that said something to the effect of Alex thought he was owed more costs in the case had some questions about costs, and they were trying to get some information so they could determine if they were owed more costs.
MR. WATERS: Okay.
CHRIS WILSON: She did forward me that email.
MR. WATERS: All right. Stand by for me real quick.
(Break in proceedings.)
(EMAILS MARKED AS STATE'S EXHIBIT NUMBER 348 FOR IDENTIFICATION.)
(EMAIL MARKED AS STATE'S EXHIBIT NUMBER 349 FOR IDENTIFICATION.)
(PROMISSORY NOTE MARKED AS STATE'S EXHIBIT NUMBER 350 FOR IDENTIFICATION.)
(TEXT MESSAGE MARKED AS STATE'S EXHIBIT NUMBER 351 FOR IDENTIFICATION.)
(DISBURSEMENT DOCUMENTS MARKED AS STATE'S EXHIBIT NUMBER 353 FOR IDENTIFICATION.)
MR. WATERS: I'm going to show you what's been marked as 348 for purposes of this hearing, State's 348, and see if you recognize that document.
CHRIS WILSON: Yes, sir. This looks like the email string where Jeannie Seckinger, the Chief Financial Officer at PMPED, emailed Annette Griswold, which was Alex's primary paralegal. It basically says that Nicole -- I don't even know who that is -- brought them the expense check and that didn't match their records. Alex thinks he has more outstanding costs but can't say what, and they want to see if they can get some information concerning expenses and disbursements. It looks like Annette forwarded that to my paralegal, Vickie, on May the 27th. Vickie was out. It looks like Annette asked her again on June the 2nd if she could get her some information, and Vickie replied to Annette that she didn't deal with some of the documentation they were requesting, and so she would forward that to me.
MR. WATERS: And that's June the 2nd when?
CHRIS WILSON: 2021, June 2nd.
MR. WATERS: June 2, 2021.
CHRIS WILSON: Yes, sir.
MR. WATERS: At this point in time are Alex's fees still in your trust account?
CHRIS WILSON: No, sir, they were disbursed. The check was March, so I don't know the exact date, but they were disbursed in three separate checks in March.
MR. WATERS: At some point in time around this June 2nd, thereabouts, did you receive any call from Lee Cope?
CHRIS WILSON: I believe I had a conversation with Lee Cope. I was trying a case in Hampton the week before that and I was in and out of their office, and I believe I had a conversation with Lee. That would have been, like, the week of May the 24th or some of those days in there, and I believe I had a conversation with Lee. He asked me if all of the money had been disbursed in the Faris case, and I told him that it had not been, that we had some liens outstanding, medical bills and liens outstanding, and we were holding money for some additional costs in case things came in, and he didn't ask me any further questions. He did not mention that there were any issues or concerns about fees.
MR. WATERS: After you received that call from Lee Cope -- well, what did you tell Lee Cope?
CHRIS WILSON: I told him I would have to check into it.
MR. WATERS: After that, did you reach out to the defendant?
CHRIS WILSON: I did.
MR. WATERS: And what was your conversation with him?
CHRIS WILSON: I reached out to Alex and I said Alex, you know, hey -- I mean, I don't know what all we talked about in that call, but at some point in time we talked about -- I said hey, I've got this email that's been forwarded to me by Vickie where your firm is saying that you believe you're owed more costs. I put the cost down on the cost -- on the disbursement sheet that you had given me, but if you've got more costs, just figure out what it is and get it to me. We're holding some money to deal with some medical bills and liens, and with the clients' consent we were holding some money in case additional costs come in. Sometimes costs are slow coming in and that's normal, and if there's an issue, just let me know. He said, you know, I'll check on it or there's not an issue or I'll check on it. And I said hey, this is the case that I disbursed the fees to you, you know, per your request. Is everything all right? And he said yeah. I've just got to make sure they know it's on the books the right way, and that this is the case that we've already worked out the -- put it on the books.
MR. WATERS: And did he tell you he had structured those fees in annuities as he had told you before?
CHRIS WILSON: Yeah, that he had put them in the annuities.
MR. WATERS: Put them in the annuities. The firm is going to make sure they're on the books.
CHRIS WILSON: As far as I knew, the firm was aware that the monies had been paid to him, that he was putting them into annuities, that they would credit him as already having been paid, and they would account for that whenever or however they split up money.
MR. WATERS: And just to be clear, those funds were not in your trust account. They were gone at that point.
CHRIS WILSON: Yes, sir. They had been gone since March, or whenever those checks were cashed after I wrote them in March.
MR. WATERS: $792,000.
CHRIS WILSON: Yes, sir.
MR. WATERS: For purposes of this hearing, I'm not going to go into the night that Maggie and Paul were killed, but just very quickly, you did have some texts and calls with Alex that night. Is that correct?
CHRIS WILSON: Yes, sir.
MR. WATERS: And you were at the residence and responding as friends and family did in the aftermath of that event. Is that correct?
CHRIS WILSON: Yes, sir.
MR. WATERS: After the -- few weeks after the murders, did you -- let me get you some tissues.
CHRIS WILSON: I've got one; I've got one. I'm fine. Yes, sir, I'm fine.
MR. WATERS: A few weeks after the murders, did you have another conversation with Alex asking him if everything had been handled with the firm and those fees?
CHRIS WILSON: Yes, sir. I don't remember if it was two weeks or three weeks or what it was. I mean, everybody was destroyed and I don't think anybody was focusing on that. I know I wasn't. But at some point in time after that I just said hey, is everything all right with the contact I had gotten with those fees, and he said it was.
MR. WATERS: At some point in mid-July of 2021, and over a month after the murders, did Alex call you up and ask you anything about these fees?
CHRIS WILSON: He did.
MR. WATERS: And tell me what the conversation with Alex was about these fees.
CHRIS WILSON: He contacted me and said that he was not able to structure the fees the way that he thought he was going to be able to do, that he had messed that up, and that the fees needed to be paid to the firm, and they needed to go back through my trust account.
MR. WATERS: Okay, and what did you say at that point?
CHRIS WILSON: I didn't -- I didn't see anything that caused me any red flags or anything and felt like if that's what had to be done, that the fees had to be paid to his firm and needed to go back through my trust account, he could send me the money and I could run it back through my trust account and then pay it to his firm.
MR. WATERS: So he's promising, he's saying I will send you the money back. Is that correct?
CHRIS WILSON: Yes, sir.
MR. WATERS: Did you ultimately receive any funds?
CHRIS WILSON: 600,000 of the 792.
MR. WATERS: You only received 600,000?
CHRIS WILSON: Yes, sir.
MR. WATERS: And how did you receive that? Do you recall?
CHRIS WILSON: I think it came in two different wires -- wires, excuse me, that it either came on the same day or on back- to-back days.
MR. WATERS: Did one of those wires come from Palmetto State Bank for $350,000?
CHRIS WILSON: I believe so, yes, sir.
MR. WATERS: And that was on or about July 15th?
CHRIS WILSON: That sounds right, yes, sir.
MR. WATERS: And the other was about $250,000 on July 16th of 2021?
CHRIS WILSON: I believe from Bank of America, yes, sir.
MR. WATERS: And that was only $600,000?
CHRIS WILSON: Yes, sir.
MR. WATERS: So, you were short on what you had already given to Alex, correct?
CHRIS WILSON: Yes, sir.
MR. WATERS: How much are you short?
CHRIS WILSON: $192,000.
MR. WATERS: $192,000.
CHRIS WILSON: Yes, sir.
MR. WATERS: Did you have a conversation with Alex about being short?
CHRIS WILSON: I did.
MR. WATERS: And what was your conversation with Alex?
CHRIS WILSON: He told me that he wasn't able to access the 192,000 immediately, that he had already put it into the annuity, but he couldn't do it the way he wanted to, but he couldn't access it because it would be penalized if it was withdrawn, and that he would get me the money.
MR. WATERS: So, what did you do in response to what your friend told you to do -- or told you about the reason why he was short $192,000?
CHRIS WILSON: I mean, at that point I had an indication that I was supposed to have $792,000 in my trust account that was supposed to have been paid to his firm. I'm responsible for that trust account. I put $192,000 of my own money in that trust account to cover the shortfall.
MR. WATERS: Based on his representation that he'd get you back.
CHRIS WILSON: Yes, sir.
MR. WATERS: I'm going to show you what's been marked as Exhibit 349, State's 349 for this in-camera hearing. And do you recognize that?
CHRIS WILSON: I do.
MR. WATERS: Tell me what that is, please.
CHRIS WILSON: This is an email that I sent to Alex at his request. He said he needed to be able to provide it to his firm so they would know the money was being held, and it was dated July 19th of 2021. It says: Alex, as discussed, I'm confirming that I'm holding in trust $600,000 in the gentleman's case and $192,000 in the lady's case, which represents attorneys' fees. I'll continue to hold these monies in trust until I'm instructed by you -- Excuse me. -- by you or your firm regarding payment.
MR. WATERS: You sent that email at that point in time. Did you receive any further inquiry at that point in time, at least from the law firm, saying all right, go ahead and send us the 792?
CHRIS WILSON: Mr. Waters, I didn't hear anything else from the law firm at all until September the 3rd, 2021, about 3:00 in the afternoon when Mr. Lee Cope called me. The first question he asked me was I still holding $792,000 in my firm -- that seemed to be his first concern -- and I said yes, I am. And he said, well, we need to get that money paid to us. And then he told me that they had done -- they had discovered a check that -- I think I remember him telling me that was from me to Alex and the firm, and that they had discovered that Alex was stealing money from the firm and from clients, and that he could not talk very long and asked me not to say anything to anybody until the following Tuesday when they could issue a press release.
MR. WATERS: And let me slow you down just real quick before we get there. At some point in time in August, did you attend any event or any conference where you saw Alex?
CHRIS WILSON: I did.
MR. WATERS: And when was that?
CHRIS WILSON: It's called South Carolina Association of Justice now. I still call it the Trial Lawyers' Association. We have an annual convention in Hilton Head every August the first weekend, and I usually attend and was there and Alex was there.
MR. WATERS: You saw him there?
CHRIS WILSON: I did.
MR. WATERS: And did you have any conversation with him at that conference about the $192,000 that you covered for him and when he was going to pay that back?
CHRIS WILSON: I believe I asked him about it, and he indicated he was working on it, something -- you know, something -- some discussion about his father's estate. You know, his father had just passed and there would be money coming from the estate, and then with Maggie's estate being tied up also.
MR. WATERS: Did he say he might could sell some property or something like that?
CHRIS WILSON: I think he did mention that he was working towards selling some property.
MR. WATERS: At this point in time, still a couple of months after the tragic murders of Maggie and Paul, were you still very sensitive to your friend's emotional health and well being?
CHRIS WILSON: Sure. I mean, I didn't push him.
MR. WATERS: You didn't push him.
CHRIS WILSON: No, sir.
MR. WATERS: At some point after that conference where you asked him about it and didn't want to push him, did you have another conversation with him about when that money might be paid?
CHRIS WILSON: I believe I did, yes, sir.
MR. WATERS: All right. I'm going to show you what's been marked as State's 350 for this hearing and see if you recognize that.
CHRIS WILSON: I do.
MR. WATERS: And tell me what that is.
CHRIS WILSON: It is a very rudimentary handwritten scratched out promissory note that I asked Alex to sign for me, which he did August 17th of 2021, acknowledging that I had loaned him $192,000 that he would repay within sixty days I think is what it says.
MR. WATERS: And tell me how the circumstances of how you came to get essentially on a folded piece of paper -- this is a copy of it, right?
CHRIS WILSON: It is, yes, sir.
MR. WATERS: Tell me about this.
CHRIS WILSON: That was more about -- I mean, I wanted to get repaid my money as quickly as possible, but that was more about I was concerned, just like everybody else, everybody in his firm and everybody in his family, that he was going to do something to himself, you know, that he was going to kill himself. And, I mean, I knew enough to know that if he -- I couldn't make a claim against his estate if there wasn't something in writing, and so that was more -- I went to him and said Alex, look, I hate to even ask this, but I need to ask you to do this in case something happens to you, and I phrased it like if you get hit by a car or something. But it was more about -- worried about what he might do, and I need to ask you to do this so that if there's a problem, I can deal with it, and he did. He didn't have a problem with it.
MR. WATERS: You already said this part, but at some point a few weeks later you get a call from Lee Cope asking about those fees and saying that Alex had been stealing money, right?
CHRIS WILSON: Yes, sir.
MR. WATERS: Did it hit you like a thunderbolt?
CHRIS WILSON: It knocked me down. I mean, I was with a group of guys. I could not talk. Lee told me he could not talk very long. I mean, I didn't know how to react.
MR. WATERS: Were you trying to get in touch with Alex?
CHRIS WILSON: I did. I mean, I couldn't do it immediately. I think I spoke to Lee for just a minute. He told me I needed to call him right back. I called him back. We talked for just a minute. He couldn't talk long; he said he had other things to take care of to deal with all of what was going on.
MR. WATERS: Do you remember what day this is?
CHRIS WILSON: September 3rd, Friday, 3:00 in the afternoon.
MR. WATERS: 2021?
CHRIS WILSON: 2021, yes, sir.
MR. WATERS: And you remember it like it was yesterday?
CHRIS WILSON: I can tell you exactly where I was and who I was with.
MR. WATERS: Tell me more about what happened.
CHRIS WILSON: I finished up what I was doing with that group. I think I tried to call Alex, or I know I texted him, and I believe I tried to call also and I couldn't get him.
MR. WATERS: Did you continue to try to contact him?
CHRIS WILSON: I did. I think he did respond maybe that afternoon later and said I'm in a -- I forget what it was. I was in a meeting or something and I can't -- I'll call you back as soon as I can. But as some point in time, I kept trying to get him and we did talk later.
MR. WATERS: What did you talk about? What day was that when you finally were able to talk with him?
CHRIS WILSON: I think I spoke -- I did speak to him that evening, the Friday, September the 3rd, by phone. I don't remember exactly the conversation, but I said look, Lee has called me and told me what's going on. What is going on? And he said I really can't talk about it much right now. I said I need to talk to you and I want it to be in person. I need to know what's going on and --
MR. WATERS: What happened next?
CHRIS WILSON: Well, he said he would try to meet with me the next morning and that he was sorry, and -- and I don't remember all of the gist of that conversation. But the next morning I tried to call him, I woke up and I started driving towards Beaufort because I thought he was staying at John Marvin's house down that way. And I started calling him and driving his direction, and eventually he called me back and said he would meet me in Almeda at his mama and daddy's house.
MR. WATERS: Did you meet him there?
CHRIS WILSON: I did.
MR. WATERS: Was that in the morning of September 4th?
CHRIS WILSON: Probably a little bit before lunchtime, kind of late morning, yes, sir.
MR. WATERS: Did y'all have a conversation?
CHRIS WILSON: We did.
MR. WATERS: Where was the conversation?
CHRIS WILSON: I got there before he did. I don't think I pulled in the driveway. I kind of waited out on the road, pulled in the driveway. We went in the side door. The caregiver was there. She -- we went out onto the front porch, and we talked on the front porch.
MR. WATERS: And what did he say to you?
CHRIS WILSON: I mean, the first thing I asked him is, you know, Alex, what the F or what the H is going on here? You know, what is going on? And have you done something else to me or that involves me that I don't know about because I know about this and I've got to deal with this, but is there something else you've done that I don't know about that I need to be concerned with?
MR. WATERS: What happened next?
CHRIS WILSON: He broke down crying, said I can't -- I can't right this second. He went inside, came back out with some paper towels and told me that he had had a drug problem, that he was addicted to opioids, and that he'd been addicted for -- I don't remember if he said twenty or twenty-plus years, but, you know, for twenty years or so.
MR. WATERS: Did he say anything about the money?
CHRIS WILSON: He told me that he had -- that he had been stealing money.
MR. WATERS: Did he have a particular phrase about what he had done to you?
CHRIS WILSON: Shit me up.
MR. WATERS: He said he shit you up?
CHRIS WILSON: Shit me up or shit me up or shit me off or something like that, but I think it was he shit me up.
MR. WATERS: And he said that -- he admitted to you he had been stealing client money?
CHRIS WILSON: Yes, sir.
MR. WATERS: So, he confessed that to you. Is that correct?
CHRIS WILSON: He said that he had shit a lot of people up.
MR. WATERS: I'm going to show you what's been marked as State's 313 in this in-camera hearing. Do you recognize that?
CHRIS WILSON: Yes, sir.
MR. WATERS: What is that?
CHRIS WILSON: I think this is the original of that $225,000 fee check written in the gentleman's case directly to Richard Alexander Murdaugh, Esquire.
MR. WATERS: Is that your signature on it?
CHRIS WILSON: It is.
MR. WATERS: How did that conversation end?
CHRIS WILSON: I don't remember exactly how it ended, Mr. Waters. I was so mad. I mean, I had loved the guy for so long, and I probably still love him a little bit, but I was so mad and -- I don't remember how it ended. I left. I mean, I asked him, you know, how did I not know these things or see these things, you know? And we talked. I don't remember -- I mean, he was concerned about me getting my $192,000 back, seemed concerned. I told him I wasn't worried about that at that point. I wanted to make sure there wasn't something else.
MR. WATERS: This was a little bit before lunch on September 4th?
CHRIS WILSON: Yes, sir. I mean, we didn't leave -- we didn't -- I'm sure we -- I'm sure I yelled at the beginning, or at least raised my voice, but I didn't leave yelling and screaming and hollering. We didn't fight, but I left and I wasn't happy.
MR. WATERS: Where did you go after you left? Do you remember?
CHRIS WILSON: I rode through Hampton, actually through Hardee's and grabbed something for a bite of lunch on the road, and headed back to Columbia where I live.
MR. WATERS: That day, did you hear anything else about Alex?
CHRIS WILSON: I did.
MR. WATERS: About how long after you left Alex did you hear something?
CHRIS WILSON: I had stopped in my office in Bamberg, or at the post office to pick something up, and I was somewhere between Bamberg and Columbia when I got a call. It was either from Randy or Lee Cope, but I believe it was Lee Cope.
MR. WATERS: What were you informed?
CHRIS WILSON: That Alex had been shot in the head, and that he was on a helicopter going to the hospital in Savannah. And I think it was Savannah Hospital, but they said the hospital, but I believe they said Savannah Hospital.
MR. WATERS: What did you do in response to that information?
CHRIS WILSON: What the devil is going on. I thought he'd tried to kill himself. I didn't think he was suicidal when I left, but when I heard that, I thought he'd tried to kill himself.
MR. WATERS: Did you go to the scene or did you return back home?
CHRIS WILSON: I went back home.
MR. WATERS: Did you try to reach out to Alex after that?
CHRIS WILSON: I did not. I talked to his brother Randy, I think, some that same day and some on the next day. But by that time frankly all of this had, for lack of a better term, blown up to where I didn't think I would be able to talk to Alex, and I don't know that I wanted to.
MR. WATERS: Have you had a conversation with him since?
CHRIS WILSON: I have not spoken to him since that morning at Almeda.
MR. WATERS: Have you had any other communication with him?
CHRIS WILSON: He's texted me once or twice to which I responded something very generic like I'm thinking about your family. And I think he may have written a letter, some short letter that frankly I turned over to my lawyers.
MR. WATERS: I'm going to show you what's been marked as State's 351 and see if you recognize that.
CHRIS WILSON: I do.
MR. WATERS: And what is that?
CHRIS WILSON: This is one of the texts that I received from Alex and my response.
MR. WATERS: Is that a number you previously had recognized being Alex's?
CHRIS WILSON: I don't know if I had ever seen that number before, but it's not the normal cell phone number that I would have used to contact him, or he would have to contact me. I mean, there were -- sometimes he would tell me he's calling me from the phone in his car. Sometimes it would be a number I didn't recognize.
MR. WATERS: Is that the text on the screen there?
CHRIS WILSON: Yes, sir.
MR. WATERS: Does it say: So sorry for all the havoc I created for you. I would do anything to make it right.
CHRIS WILSON: Yes, sir.
MR. WATERS: Thank you, Mr. Wilson. That's all of the questions for this in-camera hearing.
JUDGE NEWMAN: By the defense?
MR. GRIFFIN: We have no questions, Your Honor.
JUDGE NEWMAN: All right, Mr. Wilson. Thank you.
CHRIS WILSON: Thank you, Judge.
(The witness exited the stand.)
JUDGE NEWMAN: How many more witnesses do you anticipate on this, on this matter?
END OF IN-CAMERA HEARING
MR. WATERS: There's a lot of moving parts, Your Honor. I do have a law firm witness that I would like to call on this particular matter, along with the partners. We have the Satterfield matter, there is a confession of judgment, or we can present testimony on that as well. And we have a bank witness to establish a -- the financial condition of Alex at the time these murders happened.
JUDGE NEWMAN: Which was what?
MR. WATERS: Which was he was burning through cash like crazy. He was out of options. This 793 -- 2 thousand dollars was gone in no time at all. And I think the evidence is very compelling that for an extended period of time, he had been living in a velocity of money that is really quite stunning, and he constantly had to achieve more money to avoid the reckoning that was happening. And so it will show on that particular day that -- and on June 7, 2021, when he's being asked about these Faris fees, the financial condition is not good. There's not that money there. He's extremely leveraged in the debt that he has, and it will be part of a history where he is forced to do all of these things that we've been showing through Ms. Seckinger to stay afloat and to stay one step ahead. For the jury to understand the reality of what he was facing, they have to understand the extent of what is being potentially exposed; they have to understand why he would be doing these things and why he was out of time. This is not the kind of case where -- and I don't know if you want legal argument at this point, but --
JUDGE NEWMAN: Well, I asked the question and you're -- I guess this is still your answer. I don't know.
MR. WATERS: Yes, sir, thank you, Judge. So, anyway, this is the kind case where -- for example, he mentions the boat case out of the gate. The boat case, the hearing was going to be that week. We will establish evidence that the hearing was to get access -- or get the identification of his accounts. Once that happens, that he would be unable to -- there would be not long before what had been going on would be exposed. And what we're talking about, and this is really how it's different from some of the other res gestae and other cases that you're looking at, is it's really about the fear of what is about to be exposed. And what we're talking about, again, is a decade of malfeasance and misappropriation that ultimately would result in the charges that it's resulted in, as well as loss of his livelihood and loss of his law degree, and that's the real fear that was there. And when we look at June 7th in particular, at that point in time he's out of options. We've heard from Ms.
Seckinger that in the past if he's been able to pay that money or repay that money, then he would kick that can down the road. But on this particular day, the State believes we have evidence, and we believe it's a reasonable inference from those evidence -- that evidence that he was out of options. But for the jury to really understand what's going on, they have to understand the full picture of what this man has been doing and what he's been trying to hide, and frankly what he was able to successfully hide in the wake of these murders. The bank witnesses will also establish relevant -- specifically to this particular witness and the events that you've heard about -- is that one of the first things that Mr. Murdaugh did business related was to secure $600,000. He got a loan from PSB, Palmetto State Bank, that wasn't even on the books. They just wired the money. Russell Laffitte wired the money, 350 bucks (sic).
He borrowed 250,000 from another person, and that's the 600 that he gave to Chris that he used to talk Chris into telling PMPED that all 792 was back in the account. And so, again, that's one of the first things he did to stave off the inquiry of that very morning, 6/7/21, was to get that money in there, and it did, it staved off the inquiry. The fact that Ms. Seckinger -- there had been a number of things that had been occurring there for awhile -- ultimately turned her attention back to Alex. It doesn't change the fact that it did effectively delay that time period and delay the ultimate detection of that. And he was able to put that money in, much as he was able to do when he stole the $125,000 from his brother, or he used the firm credit card, or what we'll see throughout this -- throughout the extent of this financial matter. So, the bank witness ultimately will establish two things.
Number one is the financial condition at the time, and number two, his efforts in the wake of the murders to secure that additional money so that he could get enough back to Chris Wilson to talk him into telling the law firm that there was nothing to see here and that everything was okay. And, frankly, it worked until two things happened. Number one, Ms. Seckinger started to look back at the Hershberger matter, and then more importantly we have another law firm witness -- don't know if I can put the checks up on the screen. Stand by for me, Your Honor. They found this check right here, this very one, in his office right around that same time in early September, and at that point in time they knew that he had been lying to them about these particular fees, and that's what caused everything to unravel.
And then just like you'll see, Your Honor, with what happened on June 7, 2021, within a short period of time the side of the road happens, and Alex immediately claims that he was the victim of a horrible attack, and everyone immediately assumes that the bad guys are back. There's a symmetry, Your Honor, between what happens on the side of the road and what happens on June 7th because when the hounds are at the door, Hannibal is at the gates for Alex Murdaugh, violence happens. And the same thing happened on the side of the road that happened on June 7th. And for this jury to understand the real picture of this man that -- I would remind Your Honor, I know you're well aware of that. They had already repeatedly put in the issue his character and what a loving father he was and all the rest of it. They need to understand really what this man was hiding, and he was hiding something we've never seen before. And the pressures of that are important for the jury to understand why this man might be a murderer.
JUDGE NEWMAN: Mr. Griffin, any comment you would like to make?
MR. GRIFFIN: Yes, Your Honor, I would like to respond. The -- what you've heard thus far today does not establish that Hannibal is at the gate in any form or fashion. What you heard from Ms. Seck -- Seckinger, excuse me, is that -- what's the language she used? Hang on, I've got it right here. There's a history of trust and brotherhood in that firm, and that some similar events have happened in the past where Alex had been overdrawn with the firm through, you know, loan checks or expense checks, and that eventually the money was paid back and everyone goes about their merry way. I mean, that is basically what she's -- she testified to, Your Honor. And the -- and this sort of concept that Alex committed the murders to cause a delay in the firm investigating this conversion of fees was debunked by her own testimony where she said, number one, Mr. Randolph Murdaugh was going back in the hospital to die and that I stopped in my tracks and I became a friend and stopped looking, and that Mr.
Murdaugh did die. I mean, that's what stopped her conversation, and that's what stopped her inquiry on June the 7th by her own testimony. And then you go forward, and then she says she passed it off to Lee Cope, and that Lee Cope kept following up, and he communicated with Mr. Wilson, and Mr. Wilson sent an email Alex had got the money back into the account. And frankly, Your Honor, if this plays out as we attached to our response, the draft transcript and the trial testimony in the Russell Laffitte case, that Mr. Murdaugh had in progress at Palmetto State Bank a loan application to get refinancing, and that Maggie's murder stopped and delayed that, and it had the complete opposite of that effect. He wasn't at the end of his rope. The murder of Maggie -- we have play out, you know, this -- I mean, the murder of Maggie actually caused the delay in the refinancing of the Edisto house, and it precluded getting additional loans from Moselle, and so those are the facts.
And how murdering Maggie Murdaugh and murdering Paul Murdaugh eased his financial stress, it didn't. There's no financial gain is what he said. There's no life insurance. There's nothing to be gained by it, and so there's no logical connection from his, you know, disastrous financial house and potentially having to be -- answer to financial misconduct within the firm, losing his law license, being criminally prosecuted -- and so to -- and it's all just a theory. There's no facts. It's all just a theory. But the theory is the best way out is for him to murder his wife and son, and put himself bulls eye in that circle that you heard about in the testimony of this case, and that he is the prime suspect, number one, because he's the father, he's the husband, he finds bodies. They show up and he's holding a shotgun. And he does that to get out from under scrutiny of a $700,000 diversion of fees with a history of trust and brotherhood in that law firm. Your Honor, that's -- there is no logical connection whatsoever, and it does not lead to evidence of motive. And it -- you know, we can have more testimony, but frankly, Your Honor, it doesn't meet -- and then if we go to 403 and unfair prejudice, I mean, you heard a lot of unfair prejudice here, but the undue delay, confusion of the issues to the jury, I mean, they've got a whole lot more evidence about financial misconduct than they have about a murder and evidence of guilt in the murders, and that's what this is all about.
JUDGE NEWMAN: Well, with regard to the list of other witnesses Mr. Waters indicates that the State has for purposes of the Court being able to do an analysis as to whether there's clear and convincing evidence, you have indicated with regard to some of the witnesses, some of the files you do not -- or did not contest them. But if you have the few employees from the law firm, including Lee Cope, Mr. Murdaugh's secretary or administrative assistant, including someone from the bank -- who is the other person you mentioned?
MR. WATERS: Well, we have also the Satterfields, which, of course, we have a confession of judgment, again for purposes of hearing that might be sufficient for the Court's analysis, although the circumstances, I think, are never relevant. And then with the boat case, the one they're going to want to add, and that would be Mark Tinsley in the boat case, is to understand the context of the boat case and understand how this all relates to everything, is not only was the discovery there, you know, being sought by Mr. Tinsley, but there will be testimony -- and again, this is all in transcripts, which they have and, you know, I don't know. We've talked to the defense about, you know, obviously they don't have to concede and they'll be able to cross on all the rest of it, but, you know, it is in transcripts. They've had a chance to review it, and whether or not that's sufficient at least for an in-camera determination.
But one of the things that Mark Tinsley will say was the very aggressive posture in which they were taking in the boat case, which meant that Alex Murdaugh was not a defendant of convenience. That the goal of the litigation, at least as it related to him, was a personal recovery, and that is why he was proceeding so aggressively in that particular case. Mark Tinsley will also say that -- and will talk about how that litigation was going. He will also say that after the crimes of June 7, 2021, that landscape completely changed. This was an extremely significant liability, and the testimony will be that that aggressive posture, seeking a personal recovery from Alex Murdaugh actually of $10 million, that they weren't coming off that, and that that was the manner in which that litigation was going. Once the murders happened, that was done, and Mr. Tinsley will testify to that, at least the posture that they were taking.
JUDGE NEWMAN: All right. Well, the Court has heard sufficient amount of evidence -- received sufficient amount of evidence to make a determination regarding clear and convincing evidence involving the law firm and do not need to hear from Mr. Cope or the other witness --what's her name, Ms. Griswold -- in order to make that determination of there being clear and convincing evidence. With regard to the Satterfields, you do have a confession of judgment, which the Court has not seen and reviewed. With regard to the boat case, there's been no testimony in the record regarding the impact of that on Mr. Murdaugh's state of mind or the like. So Mr. Tinsley, and particularly considering the representation by counsel that the plaintiffs in that case were just seeking a financial statement basically. And so the Court can hear from Mr. Tinsley, review the confession of judgment, then hear arguments from the parties once again regarding the admissibility of all of this as it relates to these other bad acts, or bad acts, and also limitation on this, if any.
MR. WATERS: Yes, Your Honor. I have two matters right now. I do have the confession of judgment, which I can mark, as well as the disbarment.
JUDGE NEWMAN: I don't believe the rule requires a full blown trial on these matters for the Court to make a determination of clear and convincing evidence.
MR. WATERS: I do have two issues, though. Of course, we have the bank witnesses to establish that financial condition.
JUDGE NEWMAN: Okay.
MR. WATERS: There's that.
JUDGE NEWMAN: Yeah. The bank witness is also included. I overlooked mentioning the bank witness.
MR. WATERS: I do have a -- we can definitely do that in the morning. I do have a problem, unfortunately, that Mr. Tinsley is not available in the morning but can be here first thing Monday morning, Your Honor. We can handle the bank witnesses in the morning.
JUDGE NEWMAN: All right.
MR. WATERS: And, again, we do have a transcript.
MR. GRIFFIN: It's your case.
JUDGE NEWMAN: Yes, sir, Mr. Griffin.
MR. GRIFFIN: Your Honor, we have filed a separate motion with the Court on the admissibility of essentially Mr. Tinsley's testimony given any consideration by the Court because he's giving, you know, a legal opinion. It's just a judicial decision. It's not Mr. Tinsley's decision, and we've submitted that to the Court. So, we don't think that anything Mr. Tinsley has to say will be relevant if we're be prepared to argue that tomorrow as well as --
JUDGE NEWMAN: Well, I haven't -- I don't -- I haven't received that motion.
MR. GRIFFIN: Well, here is a clocked-in copy --
JUDGE NEWMAN: When was it clocked in?
MR. GRIFFIN: January 24, 2023.
JUDGE NEWMAN: January 24th. Last Tuesday? When was that, last Tuesday?
MR. GRIFFIN: A long time ago.
JUDGE NEWMAN: Okay. Yeah. I did see it but I didn't realize that that was pertaining to Mr. Tinsley.
MR. GRIFFIN: Yes, sir.
JUDGE NEWMAN: Well, we'll address Mr. Tinsley's issue when Mr. Tinsley is available. I cannot conclude based on argument that his testimony will only be related a question of law.
MR. GRIFFIN: Yes, sir.
JUDGE NEWMAN: So we'll defer anything, or any presentation until Mr. Tinsley is available, and then we can press on with the other witnesses tomorrow morning before the jury gets here at 11:30. We'll start at 9:30. Hopefully that two hour window will be sufficient with a break in there somewhere. Regarding the Satterfield matter, what is the defense's position with it?
MR. GRIFFIN: Your Honor, we agree that they have a confession of judgment. We agree that there's the order disbarring him for that conduct, and they concluded that that confession of judgment, even though it has a disclaimer -- anyway, the Supreme Court concluded that it was an admission, so for purposes of disbarment I would be hard pressed to argue against that satisfying clear and convincing standard.
JUDGE NEWMAN: All right, and what year was that, the wrongful conduct?
MR. GRIFFIN: Yeah. Well, the Satterfield matter, I don't have it off the top of my head, but it was quite some time ago.
JUDGE NEWMAN: We'll address the Satterfield issue separately on -- aside from the Court determining just the issues in general regarding whether or not this testimony should be admitted on motive, identity, common scheme, res gestae. There's a separate issue regarding the remoteness. And, of course, I know that the State believes that this is a thread that was woven through all of one thing to the other to the other that culminates in the conduct on June 7th. We'll hear arguments on that later.
MR. WATERS: Your Honor, not to belabor the point, the initial ground would be consciousness of guilt, which is a basis for admissibility, and again that's kind of what we're talking about. I mean, that goes under 404. But the case law involving consciousness of guilt is fear of detection, is --
JUDGE NEWMAN: Have you submitted something on that?
MR. WATERS: I'll get you some additional cases on that, Your Honor, and we'll have that for you by tomorrow.
JUDGE NEWMAN: All right.
MR. GRIFFIN: I'm not sure what act he is going under the consciousness of guilt prong, so --
JUDGE NEWMAN: I don't know either. We'll see.
MR. WATERS: Again, he's, he's trying to avoid facing life without parole and the loss of his livelihood, and for the jury to understand that it's more than just $792,000, it's this entire time period, and that is really the issue is avoiding that detection.
JUDGE NEWMAN: Okay. Well, we've done enough on this day. We'll resume at 9:30.
MR. WATERS: Thank you, Your Honor.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Thank you, Your Honor.
(Whereupon, the case was at ease.)