Bob Motta On New Bombshells in Alex Murdaugh Case
In a riveting discussion on the podcast “Hidden Killers,” Tony Brueski and Defense Attorney Bob Motta delve deep into the latest twists and turns of the Alec Murdoch case, raising concerns about the very integrity of the jury deliberation process. Motta, a seasoned lawyer, expresses his shock at the recent allegations, suggesting that if they are true, the repercussions could be monumental for the justice system as a whole. The revelations point to the possibility of undue influence within the jury room, throwing the verdict’s validity into serious doubt.
The focal point of the conversation is the recent motion filed by Alex Murdaugh’s attorneys to dismiss the case based on “after discovered evidence.” Motta explains, “I’ve been practicing a long time. We have had issues with jurors before, but nothing that rose to the level of what this potentially could be.” If these claims are true, they are not only shocking but also deeply troubling for the entire justice system.
The specific point of contention lies in South Carolina’s rules that allow for the introduction of new evidence as long as it’s been discovered with due diligence, within a time frame of up to a year. This rule, labeled as “29 B,” was unknown to many outside the state, and its recent invocation has caught many by surprise, including Motta. The allegations claim undue influence over the jury by a county clerk, a significant breach if proven.
Motta details the typical jury process, highlighting how in Illinois, where he practices, a bailiff, rather than a clerk, usually guides the jurors. He says, “Who are those guys or gals that have on the… jackets that walk around that are basically there to protect the judge and they do the judge’s bidding… those are typically the people that are dealing with the jury.” This divergence from the norm raises even more questions about the Murdoch case.
At the heart of this issue are the affidavits by jurors, in which they claim to have been influenced during the trial. Brueski points out, “We’re talking about the testimony, the sworn affidavits from jurors. We have at least two of them… this is what happened.” The testimonies provide a clear account, making the revelations hard to dismiss as mere hearsay or misunderstandings.
Motta also touches on the divide amongst observers of the case, saying, “There’s the camp that… believes it’s low country. You don’t know how low country works. It’s as corrupt as can be… And then there’s the camp where… if his sixth amendment right were violated… he deserves a new trial.” This divide reflects the broader conversation on whether constitutional rights are paramount, regardless of one’s opinion about the defendant’s character.
Furthermore, questions arise regarding Judge Newman’s capacity to remain impartial if there is a new trial. Motta contends, “I think that when he put that out there for public consumption, it showed that he’s moved out of the role of unbiased… He now has openly stated his opinion on the record.”
Amidst the back-and-forth on the legal implications, a broader narrative emerges about the allure of fame and the impact of high-profile cases on individuals within the system. The county clerk, alleged to be writing a book about the case, might have overstepped her bounds due to the seductive pull of the national spotlight.
With these revelations, the Alec Murdoch case takes on an even more complex hue, as the very foundations of the trial are now under scrutiny. The conversation between Brueski and Motta not only sheds light on these new developments but also underscores the essential question: Can justice truly be served if the process itself is compromised?
Want to listen to ALL of our podcasts AD-FREE? Subscribe through APPLE PODCASTS, and try it for three days free: https://tinyurl.com/ycw626tj
Follow Our Other Cases: https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com
The latest on Catching the Long Island Serial Killer, Awaiting Admission: BTK’s Unconfessed Crimes, Chad & Lori Daybell, The Murder of Ana Walshe, Alex Murdaugh, Bryan Kohberger, Lucy Letby, Kouri Richins, Justice for Harmony Montgomery, The Murder of Stephen Smith, The Murder of Madeline Kingsbury, and much more! Listen at https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com
The focal point of the conversation is the recent motion filed by Alex Murdaugh’s attorneys to dismiss the case based on “after discovered evidence.” Motta explains, “I’ve been practicing a long time. We have had issues with jurors before, but nothing that rose to the level of what this potentially could be.” If these claims are true, they are not only shocking but also deeply troubling for the entire justice system.
The specific point of contention lies in South Carolina’s rules that allow for the introduction of new evidence as long as it’s been discovered with due diligence, within a time frame of up to a year. This rule, labeled as “29 B,” was unknown to many outside the state, and its recent invocation has caught many by surprise, including Motta. The allegations claim undue influence over the jury by a county clerk, a significant breach if proven.
Motta details the typical jury process, highlighting how in Illinois, where he practices, a bailiff, rather than a clerk, usually guides the jurors. He says, “Who are those guys or gals that have on the… jackets that walk around that are basically there to protect the judge and they do the judge’s bidding… those are typically the people that are dealing with the jury.” This divergence from the norm raises even more questions about the Murdoch case.
At the heart of this issue are the affidavits by jurors, in which they claim to have been influenced during the trial. Brueski points out, “We’re talking about the testimony, the sworn affidavits from jurors. We have at least two of them… this is what happened.” The testimonies provide a clear account, making the revelations hard to dismiss as mere hearsay or misunderstandings.
Motta also touches on the divide amongst observers of the case, saying, “There’s the camp that… believes it’s low country. You don’t know how low country works. It’s as corrupt as can be… And then there’s the camp where… if his sixth amendment right were violated… he deserves a new trial.” This divide reflects the broader conversation on whether constitutional rights are paramount, regardless of one’s opinion about the defendant’s character.
Furthermore, questions arise regarding Judge Newman’s capacity to remain impartial if there is a new trial. Motta contends, “I think that when he put that out there for public consumption, it showed that he’s moved out of the role of unbiased… He now has openly stated his opinion on the record.”
Amidst the back-and-forth on the legal implications, a broader narrative emerges about the allure of fame and the impact of high-profile cases on individuals within the system. The county clerk, alleged to be writing a book about the case, might have overstepped her bounds due to the seductive pull of the national spotlight.
With these revelations, the Alec Murdoch case takes on an even more complex hue, as the very foundations of the trial are now under scrutiny. The conversation between Brueski and Motta not only sheds light on these new developments but also underscores the essential question: Can justice truly be served if the process itself is compromised?
Want to listen to ALL of our podcasts AD-FREE? Subscribe through APPLE PODCASTS, and try it for three days free: https://tinyurl.com/ycw626tj
Follow Our Other Cases: https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com
The latest on Catching the Long Island Serial Killer, Awaiting Admission: BTK’s Unconfessed Crimes, Chad & Lori Daybell, The Murder of Ana Walshe, Alex Murdaugh, Bryan Kohberger, Lucy Letby, Kouri Richins, Justice for Harmony Montgomery, The Murder of Stephen Smith, The Murder of Madeline Kingsbury, and much more! Listen at https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com
