talked about that he found later in my office. and it was tight -- it was handwritten, ready to be tightened up by, you know -- because of the charges against paw, i kept everything close in the civil case, it was danny in his office that was doing it, and i had that document prepared, handwritten in the neatest handwriting that i could make because a secretary other than mine, a paralegal other than mine was going to be the person who was going to put that financial information into the final document, and that's the document that mark ball talked about that he found on my desk whenever it was that he found it. so that was what was going to be -- if necessary, what was going to be used thursday. >> alec, the jury has heard

about testimony of you stealing client funds. did you do that? >> i did, yes. >> did you steal or divert that farris fee away from the law firm? >> i did. >> how did you get in such a financial predicament that led you to steal money that wasn't yours? >> you know, i'm not quite sure how i let myself get where i got, but it came from, you know, i battled that addiction for so many years. i was spending so much money on pills. i got in a spot i couldn't -- >> what type of addiction are you referring to?

>> my addiction is to opiate painkillers, specifically oxycodone, oxycontin. >> and when did you first become dependent or addicted to opioids? >> oxycodone or opiates in general? >> opiates in general. >> i'm not quite sure of the exact date, but i can give you a time frame. i hurt my knee really bad playing football in college, and i had a knee surgery, and the medical science at the time was such that the surgery didn't work. bottom line. so it just didn't last. within a couple of years from that, i started having a lot of knee trouble. ultimately i had a couple of surgeries but the last surgery i

had i think was around 2002 or '04. i think it was around '04, so i would have started taking hydrocodone a couple of years ago before that, and i took hydrocodone, got addicted to that very quickly. i continued taking that for a long time. i would force myself off of it, wean myself off of it. i would go back to it. i battled that for a long time, and after a while i was taking so much of that, i moved on to oxycodone, and, you know, i'm guessing that was around -- that transition was around 2008, '09, something like that. it just escalates, escalates.

>> did you receive treatment or go to detox on occasion? >> i did. >> how many times? >> that i went to detox or that i detoxed? >> well, let's start with going to a detox facility. >> i've been to a detox facility three times. >> when was first time? >> december of 2017. >> okay. and before december of 2017, had you tried to detox at home? >> i tried to detox every way i could. maggie would help me. >> when you went in to a -- was it an in-patient facility?

>> the detoxes? the formal detoxes that i went to? >> in december of 2017. >> yes, it was in-patient, and all three formal detoxes that i've done have been at the same facility called sunrise detox in atlanta, georgia. >> the jury has heard an audio tape of a telephone conference with sled agents, is that where you were during that meeting? >> that's correct. the first time you went to the detox in atlanta, how long of a stay is that, did you stay? >> seven days is the opiate detox program. >> and is there a difference between detox and rehab? >> yes. >> what's the difference? >> detox is act of getting the

drugs out of your system, getting to the point where, okay, there is no longer a physical dependency. and that's a big difference than the rest of the dependency, but the physical dependency is supposed to be gone after seven days. so in other words, i mean, there's so many things. opiate withdrawal is -- i mean, it's hard. but supposedly at the end of seven days, you don't have those physical symptoms, like i don't want to be too graphic, you're sick, you throw up, you have terrible diarrhea, you sweat like you're running a marathon. you can't hold your legs still.

you can't lay down. what i'm talking about the legs moving, that goes away after about 24 hours. after 24 hours you can lay down again and maybe sleep some, but you sweat. you throw up. i mean, there's so many issues, but after seven days, those are supposed to be over. that's what detox is. the detoxification of your body. >> and what's rehab? >> rehab is the period that you go to learn how to stay off, you know, you supposedly are off after detox. rehab is where you get help staying off. >> and before september of 2021, had you ever gone to that second stage of rehab? >> no. >> so in december of 2017, how long did it take you to relapse once you got home from detox? >> not long at all. you're still going through -- though the physical dependency

is gone, you're still so sick. you just -- >> is that something you've been battling for quite some time. >> as long as i can remember. how long have you been drug free, opioid free? >> 535 days, and i'm very proud of that. >> i want to ask you questions about labor day weekend, 2021. >> okay. >> do you remember being confronted by your law firm? >> sure i do. >> and what were you confronted about? >> stealing money. >> and did you admit your misconduct to your law partners? >> well, to one of my law partners, and my brother and law partner, danny and randy.

yeah, i mean, i admitted it. >> they learned about a fake forge account, you made the fake forge account. >> yes, i did. and did you tell them about your opioid struggles, opioid addictions? >> i told them about my addiction, yes, sir. >> to your knowledge, were any of your law partners aware of your addiction? >> not just to my knowledge, i'm certain that they were not aware of my addiction. >> how would you characterize your opioid use or addiction, severe, moderate? >> then or now? >> no, in 2020, 2021? >> i mean, i don't know how i would have characterized it then. after going to rehab and learning just more of the things i've learned really talking to

addicts about experiences. i will tell you my addiction was extremely, extremely bad. >> how were you able to function or were you able to function? >> yes, i was able to function. >> you were able to practice law? >> yes. >> and were you successful practicing law while you were addicted to opioids? >> on some level, yes, sir, i was successful. >> after you were confronted on labor day weekend 2021, did you resign or were you forced to resign from the law firm? >> absolutely. >> and then on saturday, september the 4th, do you remember what happened that day?

>> saturday, september 4th, yes, sir, i remember. >> what happened? >> when i woke up? >> let's start after you met with chris wilson, did you meet with chris wilson? >> i met with chris wilson at my mom and dad's house in alameda. >> and did you lay it out for chris wilson, your opioid addiction and your misconduct? >> i definitely laid out my addiction. i definitely gave him some details about moneys that i had taken. i didn't give him -- we didn't go into all the details about all of it, but i certainly was very candid with him about the things that involved him.

>> had you already contacted the detox facility before you met with chris wilson on the 4th? >> i believe that we had already -- at that point, i believe that we had already spoken to the guy that i knew from sunrise. and made arrangements for me to go there on monday. >> okay. and -- i know we had arrangements to go on monday, and i'm sure we had to have had it by then. i went to the hospital shortly after that, so yes. >> and did you reach out to get your insurance information? >> i did. >> and for what purpose? >> because i was going to use my insurance at detox and rehab to help pay for it.

>> and what was your immediate plans after -- the day after you met with chris wilson, did you have plans to do anything, have any other meetings on that saturday? >> i wanted to go and meet with corey fleming who is another lawyer who was affected by the things i did. >> okay. and did you -- >> and a good friend. >> did you go meet with corey fleming in. >> no. >> what did you do instead? when i gave my pills to my brother, randy and danny, i think i gave them to randy, but i had taken -- i took a lot of pills because i knew i wasn't going to be taking anymore, so randy had my pills. i had to get some from him the night before but i only got a

small amount. i could tell, you know, i wasn't taking anything near what i had been taking so i knew it was coming, and i called someone to bring me more pills, and before -- i believe before i met with chris wilson. >> did the person you called bring you more pills? >> you know, i don't know if he brought me more pills or not because by the time i met with him, after meeting with chris, and after, you know, the starting of the withdrawals, i changed my plan. >> and what was the change in plans? >> not to get pills from him

anymore. and instead, i asked him to shoot me. >> did you ask him to shoot you as a sympathy ploy? >> as a sympathy ploy? >> no. >> what was the end goal that you wanted to accomplish? >> i meant for him to shoot me so i'd be gone. >> and who was this? who did you ask to do this? >> andy smith. >> and did he, in fact, shoot you? >> he did. >> and where was that located, not your gunshot, but where were you shot, in hampton county. >> hampton county, just right on

the river. >> and why did you want to be gone? >> i mean, i knew all this was coming to a head. i knew how humiliating it was going to be for my son. i'd been through so much. at the time, in the bad place that i was, seemed like the better thing to do. i don't think that way now thankfully, but i did at the time. >> did you have life insurance on you? >> oh, yeah, i had a lot of life insurance. >> and who was the beneficiary? >> maggie was the beneficiary.

>> how much life insurance did you have. >> i had $12 million. a $4 million policy and $8 million policy. a total of 12. >> did you ever have any life insurance on maggie? >> no, never. >> you ever have any life insurance on paul? >> no. alex, will you tell this jury about maggie and your relationship with her? >> i saw a picture.

she was just as beautiful inside as she was outside. and she was so adventurous. i mean, you couldn't tell her something was good or bad. i mean, she wanted to find out for herself. she wanted to do it, see it, experience it, on her own, and form her own opinion. she was devoted. those two boys, buster, paul, me. i mean, she made sure we didn't

want for anything ever. fun, playful, i mean, she had a laugh that, you know, you didn't even have to know what was funny, if you heard her laugh, you would laugh. you know, she had this little playful look where she'd smile at you, and bite her lip. i can't do it, but i mean, she would just do it, it would just melt you. you know, she was such a lady.

such a feminine person. a girl. but then she had two boys. she didn't grow up in the swamp and in the country, riding four wheelers, and hunting and fishing. i mean, she changed everything. she -- i mean, she became a boy's mom. i mean, her life became ball and riding four wheelers and doing those things. now, don't get me wrong, she was still 100% girl, and you heard, she loved to do those things with her nieces, but, i mean, she threw herself into her boys' lives. she never took not working for granted. i mean, she -- i mean, she might

not have worked, but i promise you, she worked, and she worked to make sure me and paul and buster had everything. you know, she wanted a big family, and pregnancy just didn't suit her. her pregnancies were so hard. i would leave her in the mornings and she'd be sick. i would come home and check on her, and she'd be sick. i'd come back at the end of the day, and she'd be sick. i mean, she was so sick all the time with both of those boys, and when we had pau-pau, maggie got in trouble, and pau-pau got in trouble. and because pregnancy didn't suit her, so we decided that,

you know, we would just have the two boys, and you know, i just think how hard it was on her, made her love those boys so much more. and she did. but she was the kind of person, maggie, you know, she could put on the most elegant ball gown and go to the governor's mansion and hang out with, you know, the most affluent people, whatever, or she could come down to, you know, she could go to a food bank in hampton or walterboro and fit in, everybody at both places would say when she left, that maggie, she's a good one.

she's just a special person. very special person. >> would you ever do anything to harm maggie? >> i would never hurt maggie. ever. >> will you tell the jury about paul, please, and your relationship with him. >> pau-pau was just the brightest -- he's the most inquisitive young man. he wanted to be a part of everything. if you were working, i can remember as a little boy, you would be working on something.

it didn't matter what it was. his little head was going to come in there, nose in there to see what you were doing. he was a man's man. he was 100% country boy. he was tough. i mean he could hunt anything. he could catch any fish. he could run any piece of equipment. he could use any tool. i mean, he could do anything. at 22 years old, he could do so many things. i mean, he took care of so many, and he was so tough, but on the other hand, he had a side to him that was just so sweet. i mean, he wouldn't come home, but he wouldn't go check on his

grandparents. he wouldn't go near summerville or out of his way, checked on his grandparents. you know, to be such a tough person, he would get all of his buddies and get on a boat and go watch a sunset. how many 22-year-old people you know do stuff like that. he was such a special boy. he cared about people. he was fiercely, fiercely loyal. he was so misrepresented in the media. i mean, never an accurate story told about what he was. and i will challenge you right now. i would challenge everybody in this room to go find somebody, somebody that new pau-pau,

really knew him that did not have an ulterior motive that would say something negative about him. and i challenge everybody who can hear me now to do that. paul was that kind of person if you knew him. he would help you. and he would be glad to help you. you know, i thought mark ball made a good point when he said, you know, pau-pau might not have quite found his place yet. paul was adhd, and so he would jump around from thing to thing a lot. but there's absolutely no question in my mind whatsoever, that pau-pau would have found whatever that thing was that he was going to do, and whatever that ended up being, he was going to be one of the best at

it. that you've ever known. i'll tell you one more thing. i didn't even know this when paul was alive. but -- excuse me. when they were doing his eulogy, i gave the names of some of his friends, and he had a real cute friend that they were just friends, but cute little girl maggie adored. i didn't know her very well. maggie did. maggie adored her, they talked to her, and pau-pau, we learned this from her, julianne, and at 22 years old, learned that

pau-pau would tell his friends, be present. appreciate where you are, the things you have, and the people around you. i think a lot of that came from it hurt paul so bad when mallory died, but how many 22 year olds do you know that think that way. be present. appreciate things around you. at 22 years old. he's the most special boy. >> do you love paul? >> did i love him? like no other. he and buster. >> do you love maggie. >> more than anything. i love maggie, i remember the first time we went out. >> did you kill maggie. >> no, i did not kill maggie.

i did not kill paul. i would never hurt maggie, and i would never hurt paul ever under any circumstances. >> thank you. >> gentlemen, we'll take a -- excuse me, judge. >> we'll take a ten minute recess, please do not discuss the case. a ten minute recess, please do not discuss the case >> so we are taking a ten-minute recess. i'm katy tur, you're joining us at 3:28 p.m. alex murdaugh, accused of killing his wife and son in a murder that happened in june of 2021, and the big bomb shell that we saw today besides the

fact that he took the stand was that the very first thing he said was that he admitted to lying to police and investigators, and pretty much everybody else for 20 months, lying over and over again about where he was on the night of the murder. lying until today when he admitted on the stand, under oath, that he was, in fact, at the dog kennels where his wife and son were murdered, minutes before prosecutors say they were murdered but he says he did not do it. he's adamant about that. joining me now is civil rights attorney and former brooklyn prosecute, charles coleman, and msnbc legal analyst, lisa reuben. charles, you and i were talking as we were watching this, and this is a case we haven't covered on the show. it's unusual for somebody to take the stand in their own defense in a murder trial like

this, and it seems like he was doing it against the wishes of his own defense team. >> right. >> so how is he doing? this decision that he has made for himself, how is it playing out? >> i would say it's not playing out well, and unfortunately lawyers can be some of the most difficult clients, and i say that because -- >> murdaugh is a lawyer. >> yes, and in many cases, we as lawyers think we can walk into this space, and because we've been in that space before, we think we understand it. we can operate from a different perspective, that of being a witness, a defendant, and that's not always true. there are all sorts of different factors that you don't face as a lawyer, that you can't necessarily prepare someone for. the other side to that is when you are an attorney to someone, regardless of whether that person is a lawyer or not, you know what it is they're going to say. you know explanations they have with regard to questions you anticipate being asked. when you hear those responses

and answers from your client, and you realize, you know what, this doesn't sound right, this doesn't add up, you will likely tell that client, listen, i don't think this is a good idea, in this case, i think alec murdaugh decided i know what's best for me. >> prosecutors say the motive he wants to distract from the financial troubles he had. his son paul had gotten in trouble because he was driving a boat under the influence and a girl on that boat died and in that after math, the family of the girl was suing or is suing alex murdaugh and his financial history would have been revealed. their argument is that he was trying to distract, gain sympathy, and that's why he ended up killing both his wife and son. they're talking about his finances and the problems he was having with his finances. he's blamed opioid use, his addiction to opioid for the

problems that he had with his finances. admitting that he stole money from his law firm and clients. is that going over well? >> it's one of the plays they have. i'm not in love with that as a motive. it's a reach in terms of saying, look, to create a distraction from these problems, he decided to murder his child and wife. i think that's a bit of a stretch. i'm not in love with it. but i think the defense is doing a good job of addressing what prosecutor haves put out regarding his opioid addiction, regarding his financial situation as a means of basically dispelling the notion that he would have gone that far to try to commit a murder in order to distract. so that's something they have to do. i expected them to take the approach they have. so i'm not surprised there. i just don't know how effective it will be. >> you have an issue with the defense questioning and the level of detail they went into with regards to his opioid abuse and detoxing from opioids, what

was that? >> when alex murdaugh was asked how long he's been sober for, he remembered with a precision that was astonishing, he said 535 days. he was extremely proud of that. that's the quote he used and smiled a genuine proud smile. and at other moments in the testimony, he was remarkably nonspecific about other things you would remember. for example, he said his son paul faced a number of threats in the after math of the boating accident in which mallory beach died. when asked what the threats were, he was vague. the contrast between he remembered how many days he's been sober for and some of the other things he didn't remember at all is kind of striking to me. he was also asked to comment about his relationships with both paul and maggie, and he got very teary in describing both of

them. one of the things he didn't describe was the actual question, what was your relationship like. he said what she was like as a mother, in society, as a community member, but he didn't address their relationship and that absence was stark for me as a listener. >> i'll agree with you, the detail he's gone into and some of the aspects of the night of the murder and the day of the murder and the lack of detail from the moment he is discovered, he says he discovered the bodies of his wife and son. there's a striking comparison. so detailed, so long, and then kind of vague when it came to the 911 call and what was happening surrounding that. i know prosecutors have said given the tracking of the phone and where he was when he called 911, it would have been impossible for him to look at the bodies and then call 911. that in fact, he called 911

before he even went and looked at the bodies. >> i think there are a number of inconsistencies in his story, and it's not just the lack of specificity. he was defiant, for example, about the blood spattering both on his steering wheel and on his shirt. he really couldn't explain how the blood got on his shirt. that's something the state's expert says is consistent with a firing of a weapon, and he couldn't explain it other than to say when he discovered their bodies, he touched paul and maggie. he remembered turning over paul, at which point, the phone fell out of paul's pocket, and he said he returned it. why are you putting the cell phone back on your dead son's body. these are questions the prosecution will exploit on cross-examination. he lied to law enforcement multiple times, and he also has

to deal with the 99 pending financial crimes that are also charged against him. >> he lied for 20 months until today, to pretty much everyone as he admits, he's blaming opioids for that. let's bring in nbc news senior legal correspondent laura jarrett. the prosecution has not had their chance to question alex murdaugh yet. they will once the defense rests in this line of questioning. there's so many weird aspects to the story. if you haven't been following it day-to-day and you're just trying to get caught up, it's not only the murder of the wife and the season, there's also now some questions about the death of a housekeeper on their property from a few years ago. investigators are looking into the deaths of somebody on his road near his house. there's a lot going on to. this is just a very weird case.

>> so many bizarre deaths related to this family. we have a netflix documentary, an hbo documentary. the jury at least is not supposed to be watching or listening to all of that. just what's happening in court. a fair amount has come out. they have heard about the housekeeper. it's interesting they didn't raise that today. the defense did work to get ahead of the worst, most damming evidence. we didn't hear about that so far at least. >> we heard about cousin eddie, so much of the drug use, the financial crimes so i wouldn't be surprised if we hear about gloria satterfield. >> we are a few minutes into in ten-minute recess. we're going to sneak in a one-minute break. 60 seconds, don't go anywhere. one-minute break 60 seconds, don't go anywhere. with samsung's fastest processor yet.

switch and save up to $1000 on the new galaxy s23 ultra. now that's epic. on the network america relies on. come here! you know why people are always looking at their phones? they're banking, with bank of america. see cousin jimmy over there? his girlfriend just caught the bouquet so... he might need a little more help saving. for that engagement ring... the groom's parents. you think they're looking at photos of their handsome boy? they're not! she just saw how much they spent on ballroom dance classes... won't be needing those anymore. digital tools so impressive, you just can't stop banking. (vo) verizon has the epic new phone your business needs on the 5g network it deserves. digital tools so impressive, boost your team's productivity with samsung's fastest processor yet. switch and save up to $1000 on the new galaxy s23 ultra. now that's epic. on the network america relies on.

back with me is laura jarrett. we're going to wrap up the conversation before we go back to the courtroom where murdoch -- murdaugh will take the stand in a few minutes. danny cevallos mentioned this earlier, and i think it's worth repeating. he's trying to appear with folksy, the nicknames, the pau-pau, et cetera, but he also was somebody who comes from great wealth and great stature within the community. he's got an estate. there's a lot that differentiates alex murdaugh from probably all of the jurors. >> they had to take down a portrait of his great grandfather before trial. that is the amount of influence that this family has in town, and you wonder about, we've heard about how sloppy the crime scene was that night, and some of it you wonder is because everyone was so comfortable with each other, everyone knew each other that might have contributed to the atmosphere

that night, which is one of the things the defense is trying to poke holes in and say, hey, at the time, maybe it was done out of catering to him. we don't know. but clearly the jury, you would think, would be skeptical of somebody who has boats and all of these different homes, and he's naming properties, and this might be a jury that's not made up of a bunch of wealthy people. >> it's important to understand that the defense only needs one. they only need him to connect to one person who's willing to hold out on his behalf in the name of reasonable doubt, and keep that jury from rendering a unanimous conviction. that's what they're going for. if they get two, three, four, fantastic. but ultimately, all he needs to be able to do is connect to one of those jurors, and keep that juror for voting for him as guilty and they have done their job. >> you're talking about looking at the breadth of crimes he's being accused of, beyond just the double murder but all of the financial crimes and maybe the jury saying i don't see how this

makes his life any better. the motive here, what's the positive effect of him killing his wife and son? it doesn't get him out of the other stuff. >> it drew more attention to him. >> jurors will play sociologist, and sometimes they will split the baby, saying they will split the charges or because you have so many mounting legal troubles, we're not going to convict him at all. this is one drop in the bucket of the numerous financial crimes he's charged with. they understand by no means is he looking at a free life, even if he is acquitted here or if he is not convicted. and so it would not entirely surprise me, given how weird this case is if we see a split verdict or he ends up with a hung jury. >> the judge is seated. they are bringing in the jury now. we're not going in yet. alex murdaugh is back on the stand. once the defense is done with murdaugh and the prosecution takes up questioning, what's

your expectation for how long they're going to go with this witness or murdaugh, i should say? >> i think they could go for a while longer with him. hi, honey, i'm on tv right now. i think they could go for a while longer and you can see my family life is intervening here in the same way that the jurors have heard a lot about murdaugh's family life. what i expect they'll hear now is a lot more about what happened in the aftermath of his revelations of his financial, his getting clean and whether or not he was trying to cover his tracks. we didn't hear very much, for example, about the scheme to kill alec murdaugh. maybe we'll hear more about that. he was very terse about that when he was on the stand for us earlier. >> say hi to ruby for us and tell her mommy is on television. we see alec murdaugh on the stand. the jury has not been seated,

though. we will go in there as soon as this trial resumes. one of the things that struck me as i have been watching in trial over the past few weeks is during most of the testimony, and the opening arguments, i saw him sit there and not react at all. let's turn lisa's mic down for a second. not react at all to what was being said. very rarely did we see minimum react, and i wonder if this is part of trying to humanize him. you know, actually we're going to get the cross-examination now. so let us dive back in. >> you agree that the most important part of your testimony here today is explaining your lie for a year and a half that you were never down at those kennels at 8:44. would you agree with that? >> i think all of my testimony

is important, mr. waters. >> would you agree that's an important part of your testimony? >> sure. >> and would you also agree that the first time that law enforcement officers that you've talked to, and the prosecution, and here in open court ever heard you say that you lied about being in the kennels was today in this court? >> yes, i'm aware of that. >> you would agree with that? >> yes, sir. >> all right. all of this time later, this is the first time you've ever said that? >> yes, sir. >> and you would agree with me that for years you were stealing money from clients? >> yes, sir, i agree with that. >> and that you were stealing from your law firm? >> yes, sir, i agree with that. >> and that had been going on since at least 2010?

>> i'm not sure of the exact date but it's been going on for a long time. i don't take a dispute about 2010. >> you're sure about a lot of things. >> i'm fine with that date, mr. waters. i don't have any reason to dispute it. i'm just not certain of it. >> all right. let's just keep on things we may be able to agree about, and let's talk first about your family's legacy here in the league profession. okay? >> talk about anything you want to. >> good. tell me about your great grandfather, was he the solicitor for the very circuit that we're in? >> yes, sir. >> and what was his name? >> randolph murdaugh sr. >> what did he go by, do you know? >> randolph. >> randolph. and did you ever get to know him

or did he pass before -- >> no, sir, he got killed in 1940. >> and how long was he solicitor? >> 20 years. >> for 20 years. >> yes, sir. >> and then your grandfather, who was that? >> randolph murdaugh jr. >> what did he go by? >> buster. that's who buster is named after. my granddaddy. >> was he a solicitor? >> yes, sir, he was solicitor for 46 years, from 1940 he took over when my great granddaddy got killed and he served until 19786. he was the longest serving prosecutor in the country. >> and you knew him obviously well, he was your grandfather. >> i knew him extremely well and loved him dearly. >> idolized him, did you not. >> yes. >> he was a prosecutor for all that time as well, is that correct? >> yes, sir. >> and then your father, mr.

randolph, he became solicitor not long after that, is that correct? >> when my grandfather retired, because you weren't allowed to be solicitor after age 72, my dad took over, filled his unexpired term, and then he ran. >> and he became the chief prosecutor for this area right here as well? >> yes, sir. >> and how long was he solicitor? >> from 1986 until 2006. >> so 2006? >> yes, sir. >> i actually worked a case with him about a guy who killed a trooper. >> he was a fine, fine, fine man, excellent lawyer. >> yes, he was. >> and he was an excellent lawyer, right? >> yes, sir. >> that's a big part of your family legacy and heritage so engrained around here is that history of being the chief prosecutor and being part of --

the central part of the legal community, is that correct, would you agree with that? >> that my family has been a central part of the legal community, yes, sir, i agree. >> not only the central part of the legal community but the chief prosecutor for this area since 1910, i think? up until 2006? >> 1920. >> 1920, 2006. 1910 is when my great grandfather started the law firm. >> so 1920 to 2006, correct? >> that's correct. >> an unbroken chain of being the chief prosecutor here, is that correct? >> that's correct! and you went to law school as well? >> that's right. >> when did you great from law school? >> 1994. >> and did you ever become a full-time solicitor? >> no, sir. >> so you went into private

practice with moss. and you went to the law firm that no longer exists. >> what was your question. >> my question was that you started first with moss and kune, go ahead and answer that one. >> yes, that's correct. >> and then you went to the law firm that doesn't exist anymore that started in '19 but didn't exist anymore because of your activities, correct? >> that's correct. >> and as part of that, of your practice, you were a, correct? >> successful trial lawyer? >> i don't know about your adjective, but i guess yes, si >> did you make millions of dollars in legal fees? >> yes, sir. >> but you won't tell this jury that's successful? >> if that's the criteria, yes, i was successful. >> you won cases? >> i did win cases. >> settled cases?

>> sure i settled cases. >> heard your former law partner say that you were a successful lawyer? >> i did hear some of them say that. >> i think you even became president of the trial lawyers association. is that right? >> that's correct. >> when was that? >> i'm not sure of the exact year, but it would have been in the 2015 range, 2014, '15, '16, somewhere in there. >> in that role you were kind of president of the association of people who do trial plaintiff's work, correct? >> yes, sir. >> you did jury trials, correct? that's part of it? >> that's part of it. >> sitting down, looking jurors in the eyes? is that right? >> yes. >> what kind of cases did you normally do? generally what subject matter?

>> i did all kinds of cases. i did cases -- i handled some very big cases. i had a lot of cases where somebody -- their cable company was billing them $20 more than they should have been, and i handled everything from that to the big cases and everything in between. >> so the big cases. tell me about those. those were typically plaintiff's work, correct? all plaintiff's work for your big cases? >> yes. >> and plaintiffs' work would be, they would be automobile or truck accidents, correct? >> every big case i ever had was automobile -- i mean, no, sir. not all of them were automobile wrecks. >> were many of them? >> sure. >> if they -- let's say your

plaintiff collided with a ups truck or trach tore trailer or something like that, you've had cases like that, correct? >> i have. >> they led to very big recoveries? >> the ups case i handled? >> yes. >> yes, sir. >> as a part of that, developing those types of cases, you were involved in investigating the facts of the case, correct? >> yes. >> and you were involved in gathering let's say telemetry data from automobiles, correct? >> telemetry data like you presented in this courtroom this week? >> yeah. you never did that? >> i've never had a case specifically where the type data that y'all have presented in this case that i've used, but i've had data from automobiles. >> essentially computer -- >> onstar data, data from the black box.

specifically telemetry data, i don't believe i've had one of those. >> but onstar and black box stuff? >> more so the black box event recorder. many times in a wreck, the black box will go back and tell you things leading up to the wreck. i've been in numerous cases where those were involved. >> and you've had cases where cell phone evidence was relevant to your case? >> sure. >> people's call logs relevant to your case? >> i have had those. >> cell tower location was relevant to your case? >> yes. >> computer evidence was relevant to your case? >> i'm sure i have, yes. >> when did you start with the law firm? >> august -- september of 1998. >> you've been doing essentially

that kind of work, more or less, up until september of 2021, correct? >> that's correct. >> to the point where you rose to be the president of the trial lawyers association. >> i was the president of the trial lawyers association around 2015, as we discussed. >> can we agree now on successful? >> by those criteria i was successful, certainly. we talked about a lot of my flaws here today too. do i feel like i was successful? no, sir, not sitting here today i don't. if you want to use that term on those criteria, i don't have with you saying at that time i was successful. >> do you think people viewed you as a successful lawyer? >> i'm sure there were a lot of people that did. >> do you think people viewed your family as very prominent? >> i believe there were a lot of people that did, yes, sir. >> did you think that a lot of

people viewed you and your family as very prominent in the legal community? >> i never thought of myself as prominent. >> i asked you if you thought people viewed you that way. >> at the time did i think people viewed me that way? >> yeah. prior to everything happening. >> no, i don't think people viewed me as prominent, no, sir. a big shot? no, sir. i don't think that. >> what about your family? >> that my family thought we were big shots, no, sir. >> thought your family was prominent in this community. >> prominent as in -- >> it's not a hard question. >> i'm not sure -- i think my family was very well thought of. i think my family was respective. i think my family helped a lot of people. >> i'm not challenging you on any of that. i'm getting you to agree with a basic fact. >> that my family helped a lot of people and was very well thought of.

>> prominent. >> if that's what you mean by that, yes, sir. >> and your family had a very long association with law enforcement. >> yes, sir. >> and you had a very long association with law enforcement. >> yes. by association i assume you're talking about friendships. >> uh-huh. >> yeah. >> not only friendships, but also professional as well, correct? >> as a prosecutor or as a civil attorney? >> let's talk about civil. did you have associations with them in civil cases? >> sure. as we discussed, a lot of cases that i handled were wreck cases or might be a train wreck, tractor-trailer. there were a lot of high pay patrolmen involved, dealt with a lot of law enforcement in the civil practice. >> you also mentioned you were a prosecutor as well, correct? >> i was a volunteer assistant

solicitor. >> did you or your family or your law firm ever have events or parties or social affairs in which the law enforcement community in this area was invited? >> sure. the law firm itself didn't really sponsor things like that. but there would be occasions where one of us in the law firm, and certainly we all had a lot of friends in law enforcement, and they were always invited. >> it's a simple point. you've had a lot of friends in law enforcement. your family and you had a long association with the law enforcement community in this circuit. is that correct? >> association being friendships and working relationships, absolutely. >> all right. let's talk about being a prosecutor. when did you become an assistant solicitor? >> i believe i became an

assistant solicitor when i moved from beaufort to hampton. so that would have been september -- sometime around september 1998. might have been a little bit after that. >> did you get a badge when you became an assistant solicitor? >> at some point i did, yes, sir. >> who gave you that badge? >> my father. >> mr. randolph? >> yes, sir. >> and over the years, did you prosecute criminal cases, much like what's going on here today? >> yes, sir, at times i did. i believe i prosecuted -- from 1998 to 2001 -- >> what? >> from 1998 to 2021 i believe i was involved in five jury -- i believe there were five trials, is the best that i can remember,

all with my dad. that was really the purpose of me being assistant solicitor, getting to spend time with him, do things with him. >> five jury trials overall that time, and you had a badge that entire time. is that correct? >> i had a badge for a big part of that time, yes, sir. >> you actually had two badges, right? >> i had one badge, but when my grand dad became an assistant solicitor -- when my dad became the solicitor, he had an assistant solicitor's badge. >> right. >> when he passed away, i had his badge, and that was one -- at some point in time you were asking somebody about two badges. that was the other badge. >> i got you. >> you said you did five criminal jury trials as a prosecutor, correct? >> assisted in those or was doing them, yes, sir. i believe i was actually the lead lawyer of one of them.