The lawyers for convicted former Lowcountry lawyer Alex Murdaugh claim that prosecutors are trying to turn his upcoming courtroom appearance into a spectacle.
Murdaugh had requested to appear unshackled and in civilian clothes at trial and in televised pretrial hearings as he awaits a new murder trial in the killings of his wife, Maggie, and son, Paul. However, after prosecutors accused him of seeking special treatment, Murdaugh's defense team withdrew the request, stating they would not waste court time arguing over the "optics" of a status conference.
South Carolina prosecutors had urged a Colleton County judge to deny the motion, arguing that Murdaugh's fame does not entitle him to be treated differently from other inmates. Murdaugh remains in state custody on financial-crime convictions and is serving a 27-year sentence, with a concurrent 40-year federal sentence tied to similar crimes.
The state also pointed to past custody issues, alleging that during the original trial, a family member passed Murdaugh a book through a defense staffer without law enforcement's knowledge. Prosecutors said the book was later found in his cell and led to a jail contraband warrant.
Murdaugh's lawyers fired back, accusing prosecutors of "histrionics" and arguing that the state had failed to show any special need to display him in shackles before potential jurors. They said Murdaugh has never threatened or attempted escape or violence while in custody and has appeared at numerous hearings and through a six-week trial without disruptive behavior.
The defense also argued that courts recognize the danger of showing defendants in restraints, even outside a jury's physical presence, when cameras could broadcast the image to future jurors. To make the point, Murdaugh's lawyers cited the case against Tyler Robinson, the alleged assassin of Charlie Kirk, saying the judge there ordered cameras repositioned after Robinson had been shown in shackles and warned they could be excluded if it happened again.
Murdaugh's lawyers withdrew the motion, saying they did not want to distract from more substantive issues ahead of retrial, including motions involving unknown DNA from the crime scene, access to case materials, and a possible venue change.
