Episode
Did Alex Murdaugh's Retrial Judge Once Rent Office Space From His Defense Lawyer?
- Published
- Jun 20, 2026
- Duration seconds
- 2341
- Processing state
not_requested- Canonical source
- https://audioboom.com/posts/8918609
Actions
POST https://stenobird.com/v1/public/podcasts/hidden-killers-with-tony-brueski-true-crime-news-commentary-5840426/episodes/did-alex-murdaugh-s-retrial-judge-once-rent-office-space-from-his-defense-lawyer/transcription-requests
Idempotently request low-priority transcript generation for this episode.GET https://stenobird.com/podcast/hidden-killers-with-tony-brueski-true-crime-news-commentary-5840426/did-alex-murdaugh-s-retrial-judge-once-rent-office-space-from-his-defense-lawyer.md
Read the agent-friendly Markdown representation of this episode resource.
Summary
The woman now controlling every motion, every evidentiary fight, and the retrial itself in the Alex Murdaugh double murder case once shared an office with the man defending him. Judge Debra McCaslin reportedly rented space from Dick Harpootlian — Murdaugh's lead attorney — when both were in private practice. They worked a class-action together. And in a separate murder case where Harpootlian represented the defendant, McCaslin was the judge who reportedly denied the state's request to revoke bond. The South Carolina Supreme Court handed McCaslin exclusive jurisdiction after reversing Murdaugh's convictions for the killings of Maggie and Paul Murdaugh. The reversal came after findings that former court clerk Becky Hill's misconduct tainted the original jury. Now the question isn't just whether Murdaugh is guilty — it's whether the system running his retrial can survive its own history. Eric Faddis has been on both sides of courtrooms where a judge's connection to counsel shaped everything. He walks through what warmth toward one lawyer actually looks like in practice — in rulings, in tone, in the calls that could go either way. Then he digs into the ruling that may matter more than any witness: the first jury heard hours of financial crimes testimony. The Supreme Court said that was excessive. McCaslin now draws the line on what the next jury hears. That single decision could determine whether prosecutors can rebuild the motive that carried the first conviction — or whether they walk into round two without their strongest weapon. Join Our SubStack For AD-FREE ADVANCE EPISODES & EXTRAS!: https://hiddenkillers.substack.com/ Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC8-vxmbhTxxG10sO1izODJg?sub_con…