Alex Murdaugh’s DNA Test Strategy: A Risky Move

LEXINGTON, S.C. – The defense team for Alex Murdaugh is taking a big risk with a DNA test in hopes of pointing to another suspect, as noted by a prosecutor referring to the defense’s expert opinion.

On Friday, Judge Debra McCaslin ruled in favor of the defense, despite objections from prosecutors. She approved new testing on swabs from Maggie Murdaugh’s cellphone and samples from under her fingernails, although these tests may deplete the remaining samples available. McCaslin argued that due process mandates that the defendant be allowed a “meaningful opportunity to present a full and complete defense.”

Murdaugh was found guilty in 2023 of murdering his wife Maggie and son Paul at their Moselle property in Colleton County. However, the South Carolina Supreme Court later nullified the convictions, citing inappropriate influence on the jury by the former Colleton County Clerk of Court, Becky Hill.

A retrial is set to begin on April 5, 2027. Murdaugh has consistently denied any wrongdoing in the murders.

The defense intends to use Othram to perform a Y-STR test, a technique that isolates DNA from the Y chromosome to reveal profiles of male contributors, particularly when female DNA predominates.

Murdaugh’s attorneys insist that the three samples in question contain unidentified male DNA and aim to determine if a single male could be the source. Defense attorney Phil Barber mentioned that while the test might eliminate certain suspects, it won’t distinguish between men who share common paternal ancestors.

Conducting the test is expected to take about 90 days, although the lead prosecutor, Creighton Waters, expressed skepticism about its potential significance, calling it “high risk.” He reiterated that initial results suggested minimal viable evidence might be obtained.

“Our discussions with their expert indicated this is mostly a sole source sample. Essentially, it’s a long shot to produce helpful information, especially since the quantification from Othram showed negligible amounts on the Y chromosome,” Waters stated.

Barber defended the decision to push for this new test, acknowledging that the unknown male DNA could have an innocent explanation. However, he also pointed out the pattern is difficult to disregard.

“It could be a different male’s DNA, or maybe the same person. Or, perhaps, there’s a chance this doesn’t lead anywhere,” Barber reflected. He emphasized that finding unknown DNA under Maggie’s nails and her discarded phone may indicate something crucial for the defense.

Both sides agreed that once the DNA test is performed, there won’t be sufficient samples left for potential re-testing during any post-trial scenarios, a position that Murdaugh has accepted.

Barber noted, “While there’s enough to run this test, there won’t be enough remaining after that.” He added that Murdaugh has opted to forgo the possibility of retesting post-conviction.

Former prosecutor Joshua Ritter warned that this strategy might backfire. He suggested that the defense may have been wiser to leave the DNA untested, using the existence of unknown male DNA to introduce reasonable doubt at trial.

“They could simply argue that the found samples didn’t match our client, indicating someone else might be linked to the crime,” Ritter said. However, if the DNA leads to someone with a solid alibi or a plausible reason for being in contact with the victim, the defense might be left without a compelling case.

Ritter concluded that sometimes, in defense situations, it might be better not to uncover certain truths, as it can complicate arguments.

Murdaugh is slated to return to court on November 13.