STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA. | IN THE COURT OF GENERAL SESSIONS COUNTY OF COLLETON FOURTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT Indictment Nos. 2022-GS-15-00592 2022-GS-15-00593, 2022-GS-15-00594 2022-G8-15.00595 ‘The State of South Carolina, MOTION IN LIMINE TO PRECLUDE, ‘OR LIMIT FIREARM BALLISTIC OPINION TESTIMONY, OR ALTERNATIVELY, FOR A COUNCIL HEARING Richard Alexander “Alex” Murdaugh, Defendant Richard Alexander Murdaugh ("Murdaugh’), by and through undersigned counsel, moves the Court to preclude, or limit, the introduction of firearms identification evidence and the purported expert opinion testimony of Paul $. Greer ("Greet"), or, sltematively, for a Counell hearing pursuant to South Carolina Rule Evidence 702. See State v. Council, 335 8.C. 1,19, 51S S.B.24 $08, 517 (1999). The Court should preclude such evidence because neither Greer's ‘methodology in reaching his conclusions, nor the substance of those conclusions is reliable. ‘Accordingly, iis opinion testimony does not aid the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fat in issue and is properly excluded. Furthermore, any probative value such evidence or testimony may have ~ which Murdaugh denies ~is substantially outweighed by the danger of | "unfair prejudiee, confusion ofthe issues and misleading the jury and must be excluded under South Carolina Rule of Evidence 403, acts ‘Maggie and Paul Murdaugh were found murdered on June 7, 2021, on ther family property located at 4147 Moselle Road, Islandton, $.C. At the crime scene, th ballistic evidence around Paul’s body ircluded one shot cup and one shot wad (collectively Item 1) two 12 gauge shotshells(ltems 9-10), as well as bullet jacket fragments (collestvely Ite 11), fired bullet (Item 12), a ‘buckshot pellet (Item 13) and birdshot pellets (collectively Item 14). The Colleton County Sheriff's Offce identified six 300 Blackout caliber cartridges around Maggie's body (Items 2-7) and one bullet (Item 8). Law enforcement also confiscated fired 300 Blackout caliber cartridge cases (Items 35- 39) from the ground at the side entrance ofthe house on the Moselle property —approximately 300 _yards from the crime scene. Additional 300 cartridge cases (Items 108-124, 126-128), as well as 12 gauge shotshels (Items 125, 129-135) were found in an area by a pend near Moselle Road in a field which was frequented by the Murdaugh family and guests for target practice. All ofthe above evidence, as well as four 12 gauge shotguns (Items 22, 30, 31, and 32) and ‘one 300 Blaclout caliber rifle (Item 33) collected from the Moselle property were submitted to the Firearms Department at SLED for forensic examination. The laboratory then fired laboratory- supplied ammunition trough each shotgun and rfleto create test specimens. Greer then examined ‘and compared the various items of firearms ballistic evidence submitted from the crime seene with the test specimens created by the lab using the naked eye and @ microscope. tsased on the observable, physical characteristics ofthe items submitted tothe lab, he concluded that some of | the 300 cartridges retrieved from the firing range and near the residence were fired andior loaded into, extracted, and ejected by the 300 Blackout rifle taken from the property. See SLED Firearms Report, CANo. 31210061 (July 23,2021), at 7, attached hereto as Exhibit A. While he was unable to conclude the 300 Blackout cartridges found beside Maggie's body (Items 2-7) were fired by the .300 Blactout retrieved from the residence (Item 33), he reported that “{miatching individual ‘dentifying characteristics were found inthe mechanism marks of ltems2-7, [spent shell cartridges found atthe erime scene], and Items 35-37, 39, 108, 113, 116-117, and 122, [cartridges found attheshooting range and near the residence] to conclude that these lems were loaded ito extracted, and ejected fom the same frearm at some previous time” Id ARGUMENT “The Cour should preclude the State's ballistic expert fom testifying that he. 300 Blackout cemridges found a the crime soene were fied fom the same weapon thal fired .300 Blackout ceatries atthe shooting range and near the residence because there are not any reliable studies ‘orany scientific proof that every 300 black-ou rfl makes tool marks on fired catidges that are ‘nique from every other 300 black-out rifle manufactured in the world, Moreover, the field of os] mark analysis is inherently subjective and not scenifially valid. Alternatively, the Court should conduct Council hearing ‘© ensure the proffered evidence is scientifically and ‘substantively rlisble and will sist the trier of fact. Whereas here, the conclusions drawn by Mr Greer are not based on methods that ae scientifically valid o elible, such evidence is properly cluded under Role 702, Additionally, given the unreliable nature of such evidence and the Inport jury atsibutes to expert testimony, such evidence should also be excluded because any pbative value it might offer is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion ofthe issues and misleading the jury. See Rule 403, SCRE. “When admiting scientific evidence under Rule 702, SCRE, the til judge must find the evidence will asist the tier of fact, the expert witness i qualified, and the underlying science is reliable” Council, 335 S.C. at 20, $15 S.E.24 at $18. In determining whether evidence is -schissible pursuant to Rule 702, SCRE, the Court “must asses not only (1) whether the expen’ method is reliable (i, vali), but also (2) whether the subviance of the expert's testimony is relable state» Warmer, 30 S.C. 75, 86,842 S.E.24 261, 265 (C1, App, 2020) (internal citations ‘onilted). The Court's determination of reliability requ 8 consideration of “(1 the publicationsand peer review ofthe technique; (2) prior application of the method tothe type of evidence: involved in the case; (3) the quality contol procedures used to ensure relibiiy; and (4) the consistency of the method with recognized scientific laws and procedures." Council, 338 S.C. at 1,515 S.5.26 at $17 (citing State x: Ford, 301 S.C. 485, 392 S..24 781 (1990)). The proponent of scientific evidence has the burden of providing the Court with the factual and scientific information needed for the Court to carry out its gatekeeping function. See Sate v Pillip, 430 SC. 319, 334, 844 8.6.24 651, 659 (2020) Ifthe Rule 702 evidence is deemed relevant and relisle, the Court must then consider wheter the probative vluc ofthe evidence i substantially ‘utwcighed by its potential for unfir prejudice, confusion of the issues, o misleading the jury. (Council, 335 8.C. at, $15 S.£.24at $17 (citing Ford, 301 S.C. 485,392 8.24 78), 1. Firearms analysis is neither scientifically valid mor reliable; thus, the ballistics evidence should be excluded. Firearms analysis isa “Yeature-comparison” method that attempts to determine whether & «questioned sample is ikely te have come from a known source bac on share ferures.” See ‘Addendum to the PCAST Report on Forensic Science in Criminsl Cours, avilable at: hits‘obamawhitehowse archives govisitsefaulUfilesmicrosteostpPCAST/peas forensics _-sddendum_finalv2.p Cast visited January 15,2023) Its an inherently subjective ferensi Fld sven the methodology depends largely, if not excusvely, on examiner judgment. id. For this reason, authoritative scientific bodies conducting objective reviews of firearms analysis have concluded itis neither scientifically valid nor reliable.In 2008, the National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences' issued @ report (the “NAS Report”), identifying the following isues which plague the reliability offireerms analysis ‘+ “{Elven with more training and experience using newer techniques, the dexision of | the tookmark examiner remains subjective decision based on unatticulated standards and no statistical foundation for estimation of error rate.” Id. at 153-154, ‘+ “Sufficient studies have not been done to understand the reliability and repeatability ‘ofthe methods.” Id. at 154 ‘+ The Association of Fireerm and Tool Mark Examiners’ (AFTE) theory of identification does not address “questions regarding variability, rdibility, repestability, or the number of correlations needed to achieve a given degree of confidence.” Id. at 155, ‘See Nat'l Res. Council, Natl Academies, Strengthening Forensic Science in the United ‘Slates: A Path Forward (2006), available at jipsi/¥w.ojp.gov/pdffilesnij/rants 22809 | pdf (ast visited January 15, 2023) A second objective critique of this discipline was presented in a report issued by the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology in 2016 (*PCAST Repost”)? Like the ' The National Academy of Science is the premier scientific organization inthe United Slates. Its carrent membership totals approximately 2,400 members and 500 international members, of which approximately 190 are Nobel prize-winners. The NRC committee ofthe NAS that studied firearm tamination was composed of scientists and scholars selected for their ability to evaluate forensic stience. These experts included forensic practitioners, erime laboratory directors, statsticians, -engineers, and materials scientists. See hte: www.nasonline ore (last visited January 15, 2023), “The conclusions set forth in the NAS Report represent a consensus opinion of the top scientific ‘minds in this country. ? The President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCASTT) is an advisory group ‘ofthe Nation’ leading scientists and engineers, appointed by the President to augment the science _and technology advice available to him from inside the White House and from cabinet departments and other Federal agencies, PCAST is consulted about, and often makes policy recommendations ‘concerning, the fll range of issues where understandings from the domsins of science, tecinology, ‘and innovation bear potentially on the policy choices before the President See ‘htps/obamawhitchouse archives,gow/edministation/soplostp peasVabou: (last visited January 15, 2023), hrips:/nww.whitehouse.gow/pcas! (ast visited January 15, 2023) s[NAS Report concluded that firearms analysis as field “stil falls short ofthe scientific criteria for foundational validity.” Specifically, the PCAST Report raised the following concerns: ‘+ The AFTE's “theory of identification” that “two toolmasks have a ‘common origin’ ‘when their feetures are In sufficient agreerent”” declares that an examiner may state that two toolmarks have a “coramen origin When their features are in “sufficient agreement.” It then defines “sufficient agreement” as occurring when the examiner considers ita “practical impossibility” ‘thatthe toolmarks have different origins.”) ‘+ Relying on “training end experience” and “uniqueness” in lieu of empirical ‘demonstration of accuracy. Id at 60-61. (Practitioners' honest belief that they are able to make accurste judgments about identification based on thei training and experience” isa “fallacy”; “[eJexperience isan inadequate foundation for drawing, Judgments about whether two sets of features could have been produced by (or found on) different sources” and “traning” is an even weaker foundation.” ‘+ Firearms analysis has never been satisfactorily validated. Id. at 64 (“There is no known study assessing “the overall firearm and toolmark discipline's ability to correctly/consistently categorize evidence by clas characteristics, identify subclass ‘marks, and eliminate items using individual characteristis.") ‘See The White House, President Barack Obama, Office of Science and Technology, Report to the President, Forensic Sctence in Criminal Cours: Ensuring. Scienryic Validity of Feature- Comparison Methods (Sept. 2016) (*PCAST Report"), available at (htups:/obamawhitchouse archives gow/sites/defaul/iles‘micrositesstp/PCAST east forensic senss_senst fina pd Gast visited January 15,202). In short, two independent, non-partisan groups comprised of accomplished experts have each issued reports which rely on countless other scientific reports ~refleting a consensus in the scientific community thatthe evidence the State intends to introduce has not been validated and is unreliable. Thus, the firearms report and testimony of Me. Greer should be excluded.2. Alternatively, the Court should conduct a Council hearing to determine whether to ‘suppress all such evidence or impose limitations on Greer’s testimony. ‘To the extent the Court isnot persuaded to preclude such evidence based solely onthe -etensve reporting presented by the scientific community, it should hold a Counc Hearing and -only admit that evidence which is elevant,comports with Rule 702, and passes muster under Rule 493. Its imperative that in fulfilling ts gat-keeping finction the Court determine the reliability ofthe expert testimony being presented. Council, 338 S.C. at 20, 15 S.E.24 at $18. Whereas hare, the State intends to introduce testimony that individual characterises of certain groups of cartridge cases found at or near Moselle can be atibuted to specific gun, the Court should preclude or tthe very least limit such testimony because ofthe confusion firearms examiners have sot rived a either stict rules for determining whether « microscopic pattem on tockmark isan individual ora subclass characteristic or stiet rules a to which tols or manufacturing processes 4o oF do not produce toolmarks with subclass characteristics. Accordingly, the State should not be permitted to present evidence thatthe cartridges in issue came ffom a eertin gun to the exclusion ofl others ‘When examining samples, fresrms analysts compare the markings that ae ecated on the samples when the intemal parts ofa firearm make contact with the brass and lead thst comprise anmunition, Examiners classify these marking int three categories. “Class characteristics” are features tat canbe associated with a certain group (i.e, markings that sppearon all carrie cases fire from the same make and model of gun). “Subclass characteristics” are markings hat canbe tributed ta small group of firearms from a specific production lot (ie, markings let on catridge cases ire from one ofa group of guns mass-produced at the same time). These markings ‘20 produced by the manufacturing process, such as when ¢ wor or dll tool is used cut barrel rifling (Le, markings left on all cartridge cases fired from guns in that specific production lo}.“Individual characteristics” are the microscopic markings and textures examiners claim are unique to asingle firearm. The task of the firearms examine identity the individual characteristics ‘of microscope toolmarks apart from class and sub-class characteristies and then to assess the cxtent of agreement inindividualcharactersticsin the sets of toolmasks to pemittheidenifiation ofan individual firearm. See NAS Report at 153 {tis apparent,and the AFTE concedes, that uch an exercise involves subjective qualitative judgments by examiners andthe accuracy ofthe assessments is highly dependent on their skill and training. Inthe preset case, the Stathes not ofered any information onthe qualifications of Mi Greer, let lone the methodology used to arrive at his conclusions, Nor, has the Stalo—becauseit cannot-—provided any studies supporting its conclusion ~ that certsin carte casings came from specific firearms tthe exclusion ofall thers Following therelease ofthe NAS Reports and PCAST reports, Cours have begun o limit the testimony of freams evidence tothe extent iti presented to sate opinions tht an expert is 100% certain a cartridge came from a specific gun or that cartridge sa “*match’to «specific gun to the exclusion ofall others. See, eg, United States v. Davis, No. 4:18-r-00011, 2019 WL. 4306971, at *8 (WD. Va. Sept. 11, 2019) (permiting FTM expert to testify as to similartievconsistences in recovered cartridge cases, but precluding testimony that markings indicate a “match” orthatcaridges were fred from same firearm); Untied States v: Medey, No. 17 Ce. 242, ECF No. 85 at 54 (51D, Md. Apr. 24, 2018) (transcript of oral sling) (ing the ‘court will nt allow expert to express opinion that eartridges found at rime scene were fired from ‘the same gun as that sociated withthe defendant oro express confidence level as tos opinion United States v, Adame, 444 F Supp 34 1248, 1266-1267 (D. Or. 2020) (holding expert cannot say “match” or thet cartridges were fired from same firearm; expert pemited to testify regarding only.cass characteristics); People v, Rass, 68 Mise. 3d 899, 918 (N.Y. Sup. Ct June 30,2020) (limiting testimony to class characteristics only); United States v, Tibbs, No. 2016-CF1-19431, 2019 WL 4359486, at*24 (D.C. Super. Ct. Sep. 5, 2019) (recognizing the weakness in AFTE Journal's peer reviewed articles end holding expert may only testify that bullet fragment and shell casing are “consistent with” being fired from recovered firearm; that recovered firearm “cannot be excluded” assource of bullet and bullet fragment, but cannot testify that bullet and fragment were definitively fired from recovered firearm); United Staves, v. Shipp, 422 F. Supp. 34 762, 783 (E.D.N.Y. 2019) (expert cannot say “match” or that cartridges were fired from same firearm); State . Gibbs, No. 1819003017, 2019 WL 6709058, at *5 (Del. Super. Ct. Dee. 9, 2019) (“The expert is precluded ‘rom testifying to being 100% certain as to his findings [and] ithe testifies to ‘match," the expert ‘muy not testify to conclusions that suggest there is @ match to “the exclusion of all other firearms in the world” or that it is « ‘practical impossibility’ that any other gun could have fired the recovered material. He may not testify within a reasonable degree of scientific’ certainty and may not state his conclusions regarding a ‘match’ with any degree of certainty.”)? This trending limitation in federal and state courts is arising because of the growing recognition in the judiciary of the critique amongst the scientific community when examiners express opinions based on perceived individual characteristics. As recently explained in People v. Ross, 68 Mise. 34 899, 129 N.Y.$.34 629 (NY. Sup. Ct. 2020), Even if an expert is sing reliable principles to examine for class characteristics, there is little reliable basis for extrapolating further from other marks seen under & scope. The experts opinions must be limited if there is simply too great an analytical gap between the data and the opinion proffered. Ara foundational level > Although South Carolina has not adopted the Daubert approach, South Carolina's Council test has been held to be “extraordinarily similar” o the federal test. See Warner, 430 S.C. at 86, 842 SE.2d at 366 (citing Young, How Do You Know What You Know?, 15 S.C. Law, Rev. 28, 31 (2003) Accordingly, opinions utilizing this framework ae instructive. 9beyond comparing class characteristics forensic toolmark practice lacks adequate ‘scientific underpinning and the confidence ofthe scientific community as a whole. A significant flaw in the forensic method isthe potential for subclass cheracteristies to mimic individual characteristics and obscure the true reason for what may appear to the examiner tobe a unique match: “[bullets fired ftom different guns may have significantly similar markings, reflecting class or subclass, rather than individual characteristics,” Both the itereture and the forensic science expert confirmed that subclass characteristics remain an unknown for the examiner under ordinary circumstances. Such a void can lead to an erroneous conclusion that there is “agreement” or “consistency” ifthe examiner mistakes a subclass characteristic for ‘an individual one on discharged shell casings or bullets. ‘Hat 916-917 (intemal citations omitted) (emphasis added); see also United States»: Taylor, 663 F.Supp. 24 1170, 1177 (D.NM. 2008). ‘Such limitation is appropriate when characteristics on a cartridge case claimed by the ‘examiner to be “individual” can derive ffom any of several soures, including the manufacturing processes, subsequent materials hendling and processing, and use or servicing ofthe firearm, Without personal knowledge of the “individual” and subclass characteristics produced by a particular manufacturing run, or even a known sample for comparison, an examiner does nat have sufficient information to differentiate between the two phenomena for most forming processes ‘Thus, Courts have appropriately limited the testimony ofa firearms expert seeking to testify to a conclusion “matching” (o the exclusion ofall others) a certain firearm to cartridge casings based. cn the examiner's Findings conceming individual charncteritis of the firearm. In the present matter, the examiner did not present any findings based on “class characteristics” Rather, Mr. Greer offers testimony that the “matching individual identifying: characteristics” found on certain cartridge cases submitted for his review can be definitely ted to specific firearms. See Ex.A at 7. As set forth above in scientific reports and case law from across the country, such testimony should not be allowed because Mr Greer’s conclusion remains inherently subjective and is derived from a method with unarticulated standards and no statistical 10foundation for estimation of error rates. Such evidence cannot be deemed to satisfy the reliability requirements of Council and Rule 702; therefore it is properly excluded, or alternatively, limited ‘Moreover, even if the States ballistic evidence provided from Mr. Greer was admissible under Rule 702 - which it is not ~ the minimal probative value (if any) that a jury could gleam. fiom Mr. Greer’s testimony is substantially outweighed by the potential for unfair prejudice, confusion ofthe issues, and misleading the jury. CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing, the Court should grant Defendant's motion in limine to preclude, + limit the ballistics evidence and testimony of Mr. Greer. Alternatively, the Court should hold a Council hearing and only admit that evidence which is relevant, comports with Rule 702, and erectus Richard A. Harpootlin, SC Bar No. 2725 Phillip D. Barber, SC Bar No. 103421 RICHARD A. HARPOOTLIAN, PA. 1410 Laurel Street (29201) Post Office Box 1050 Columbia, South Cerotina 29202 (603) 252-4848 Facsimile (803) 252-4810 rah@harpootianlew.com péb@herpootianlav.com passes muster under Rule 403. James M. Grifin, SC Bar No, 9995 ‘Margaret N. Fox, SC Bar No. 76228 GRIFFIN DAVIS LLC ‘4408 Forest Drive (29206) Post Office Box 999 Columbia, South Carolina 29202 (808) 744-0800 igslfing@ griffindavislaw.com mfox@grffindavislav.com January 23, 2023 ‘Columbia, South Carolina ‘Attorneys for Richard Alexander Murdaugh "State of Souh Carolina v. Richard Alexander Murdaugh Indictment Nos. 2022-GS-15.00592, $93, -594, and 595 ‘Motion in Limine to Preclude or Limit Firearm Ballistic Opinion Testimony, or Altematively, fora Council earing, EXHIBIT A (SLED Firearms Report, July 23, 2021)SOUTH CAROLINA LAW ENFORCEMENT DIVISION FORENSIC SERVICES LABORATORY REPORT HENRY D. MCMASTER MARK A. KEEL ‘Gomer ‘Ch oly 23,2021 David Owen, tt FIREARMS DEPARTMENT South Carolina Law Enforcement Division SLED LAB: L21-00074 £400 Broad Rive: Road ‘Your Case No: 31210061 (Columbia, SC 25210 Incident Dae: 6772021 [Deceased] Paul Mardaugh [v-Deceased] Margaret Murdagh [OW] Richard Mordaugh Mast Kes eve ITEMS OF EVIDENCE: Mem: 1 One sot cup and one wad component, ited a". fora Marker 1° RESULTS: See lem 69 reat Wem: L1 Reddih-brown debris swabbed from Hem 1 RESULTS: Rem LT was retured without farther. isis, Wem: 12 Fibro material removed from lem 1 RESULTS: Them 1.2 wes retumed without further analysis (One fied 300 Blackout caliber caridge case, listed a“. rom Macker 2 ‘One fied 300 Blackout caliber caridge case listed as from Marke 3" (One fred 300 Blackout alter earridge case, isted a from Marker ‘One fied 300 Blackout caliber carrie case, listed as "(fom Marker 5 RESULTS: See ler 128 results. oh nee 7.0.x 298, Comba, South Crain 2321-1998 Phone (8 896-700 Fax 88896-7984, 1L21-09074 PSO Pag: | 0f 337[SLED LAB No. Lataoore | aly 23,2021. me = em: 6 Oneteed 300 Blackout caliber cartridge cae listed a. fom Marker 6° Wem: One ved 300 Blackout caliber eartidge cae, listed 35 "fom Maker RESULTS: Seeltem 128 result, Hem: 8 One ced ble, listed as "ner ie ire impression a Marker tem: em 1B 4 1 RESULTS: Seeltem 137 resus, (One fired 12 gauge shotshell sed as "fom Marker” ‘One fired 12 gauge sbotsbll, sted as "fom Marker 10” ‘One fied bullet jacket fragment three bllt jacket fragments, ant one piece of lead, ited 35 "om defect in ground (gravel) (Marker 13) ‘One ied bale, ited a. from bedding nse doghouse”. RESULTS: Seeltem 137 etal Onebuckshot ple, listed as ~.fom table below storage 100m window” ‘Twenty-four birdshot pellets listed 8". rom dog food storage roam” RESULT! Seeltem 104 esas, 11 Redlish-brown debris swabbed from Item 14 RESULTS: ey 141 wes retired without frter analysis, ‘One Benelli Model Super Black Eagle 3 semiautomatic shotgun, 2 gauge, serial number [USTB2IOEU7, with one unfred 12 yauge shotbel, one untred i¢ gauge shotshel, nd accessory. Please note that the accessry was not ted onthe submission documents RESULTS: tem 22 was physically examined. The shotgun was test fired ané found to bein working ‘ord. The 12 gauge shotsell was he correc gauge for use inthe shorgun. The 16 gauge ‘hotell was not comect for we inthe shotgun, [No analysis was performed onthe scessory 224 Redish-brown debris swabbed from te right sid of the Rem 22 receiver RESULTS: Rem 22.4 was forwarded tothe DNA Department. CALEA v 7.0. Hox 2998, Calambn, Sut Carin 292211398 Phone (13) 896-700 Fn 83) 986-738, 1L21-09074 PSG Page 2 of 337[SUE CAB Res a0 age (uty 23,2001 Wem: 2258 Reddsh-brown debris swabbed from the left side of the Hem 22 receiver, above manufac em: information. RESULTS: tem 225 was forwarded tothe DNA Department 226 Test specimens fired by Item 22 using Labortory supplied ammunition na RESULTS: The pecs er pkg frre our Agen fr lng em tg 7 The wie 12 gauge shotsell submited as Iter 22 test fired in the Item 2 shotgun, RESULTS: ‘Thistest specimen was used for comparisons purposes and was packaged er eur with the cotherevidence 228 Res sh-rown debris swabbed from under the forearm on the magazine tube and receiver 0 0 a 2. RESULTS. them 228 was retuned without further analysis (One Mossberg Mode 835 "ULTI-MAG" pump-action shotgun, 12 gouge, serial number ‘UM6I3411, with one unfied 12 gauge shashll, sted as (previous on pool able).* RESULTS: Wem 30 as physically examined, During et fing, the fst shtshel was loaded from he smagivine tbe and successflly test fred. Aer Fring, the nex available sbothel in the ‘magazine tbe had to be manully removed, The sotshell wat then fe nto the chamber with the liter and ied This issue did ot prevent est ring and no further ways was pevfomed 2 Test specimens fied by lem 30 using Laboratory supplied ammunition RESULTS: ‘The est specimen were packaged for ern o yur Agency for long tem sorage as evidence (One Browning Model Auo-S Light Twelve semiautomatic shotgun, 12 gauge, serial number O386rNV21T RESULTS: ‘Nem 31 was physically examined. During test Fring. the shotgun did xt extract and eect the {ied shotshelis. The shotshells had tobe removed from the chamber by manually yeling the fiearn. Ths issue di no prevent test fing aod no futher analysis wis performed 2 Testspecimens fied by Item 31 using Laboratory supplied ammunition RESULTS: ‘The est specimens were packaged for teturn to your Ageney for long tem sorage as vider = CALEA ¥ 1.0. on 139%, Columbian, South Caran 222-198 Phone 109/896-7968 Fan 6-751 121-09074 PSG Page3 of 37[- SUED LAB Ne. L2i-o9074 Tage dof 10 (Laty23, 2001) Wem: 32 (Ove Benelli Model Super Black Eagle I semiautomatic shotgun, 12 gauge, seri number 'U391145, with evo unired 12 gauge shotsells and one accessory. RESULTS: Hem 32 was physically examined. The shotgun wastes fred and found 0 be inworking ‘nde, The unre sbtells wee the ewrest gouge fr we ne sbatgu, [No analysis was performed on he accessory Wem: 32.2 Test specimens fred by Item 32 using Laboratory supplied ammunition RESULTS: ‘The test specimens were packaged fr retum to your Agency for long term storage as cevidene Wem: 32.3 Debris swabed fom ise the choke of tem 32. tem: 33 lens 333 ene 3. RESULTS: Tem 323 was returned witout futher analysis ‘One Palmeto tte Armory Model PA-S semiautomatic rifle, 300 Blackout caer, serial ‘number PADGS237, wth acessory. RESULTS: tem 33 was physically examined. The ife was test fired using the em 34 magazine During test fring, te frst available eared in the magazine was fed and chambered coment. The cage was sucessfully tet fied, and extacied and ejected from theif [As the firearm cycled the next availble cartridge from the magazine filed o fed ito the ‘chamber. The bolt had to be manually cycled i order to feed the neat caridge, This issue ‘id not prevent est ring nd no farther ealyis was perfonmed "No analysis was performed on the acessry. 2 Test specimens fred by lem 33 using Laboratory supplied ammunition. RESULTS: ‘The et specimens were packaged for rtm to your Ageny fr long term storage as evidence {3 Test specimens cycled trough lem 33 using Laboratory supplied amnion. RESULTS: Te especies wee phage fr ret your Agee ron ter sre as ‘One magazine and twenty-six unied 300 Blackout caliber canrdges, RESULTS: [tem 34 was physically examined. The magazine was comect magazine assembly for we in ‘he em 33 ileand in ober similar type firearms. The unfiedearvidges werethe comect ‘alberfor sen the Item 3 il and nother firearms chambered for 30 Blackout caliber aceon Giles anne .0, ox 21398, Columbia Soeth Carton 29221-1398 Phone (SH3) 496-7300 Fax (43) 896135. Lal-09074 ps6 Page 4 0f 337[SLED LAB Necwai-ape7 July 23,2021 tem: 104 ‘One fre 300 Blackou caliber care eas, listed as fom ground at side entrance doo ‘One fred 300 Blackout caliber carvige ase, listed as "fom round at side entrance door ‘One red 300 Blackout caliber earidge ese, Histd s "fom round at side entrance door” ‘One fred 300 Blackout caliber carvidge ease, listed as "fom Bound at sid entrance doo” ‘One red 300 Blackout caliber ears cate, Hsted sft ground at side erance doo” RESULTS: See lem 128 rents. ‘Tce fred bullet jacket fragments and seven pieces of lead listed a frm Margaret Murdaugh at apy" RESULTS: See lem 137 ea Forty-eight birds ples listed as". .rom left shoulder and head of Paul Murdaugh st auopsy RESULTS: See lem 104 rents ‘One piece of plastic listed a” from let shoulder and head of Paul Murdaugh RESULTS: "tem 68 was phsically and microscopically examine. Icould not be determined whether "Wem 68 was par: ofa wad or wad component at some prior ime, ori originated fom another source. No marks of value suitable for identification were found, nd it was ‘concluded that lem 68 was unsuitable for ideation autopsy" ‘One combination wad, sted as "om fa RESULTS: hems 1 and 69 vere physiily examined and microscopically compared with ach other and test wads fired bythe lem 22 and 30 32 shotguns. Based on ther observable, phil characteristics, ems I and 69 were most consistent with wad/vad components loaded ino ‘some 12 goige shotsells. Items 1 and 69 bore some sisted markings: however, their origin ould not be detmined and he resuls ofthese comparisons wee inconclusive. It could nt bbedetermined whether lems I and 69 were fred by items 2,30, 31,32. orby another freanm o firearms. Tims 1 and 69 may ot be suitable for deificaion with oter Gears related evidence of Paul Muréaugh a autopsy” Slice dffennces in class characteristics were found o conclude tht ems ot fed bythe lem 33 nie 0 69 were One birshot pelt, sted "found with Paul Mardaugh's clothing” RESULTS: hems 13, 14,67, and 104 were physically and microscopically examined. From these ‘examinations te following conclusion Were reached 121-0904 PSG Page 5 0f 337[SUED LAB Ne tats999§ ig af 10) + Based on its observable physical characteristics, lem 30 was most consistent with being a Nomber 0 ot larger buckshot pellet. No mark of valve stable for identification were ound, ad it was conclded that Item 13 was unsuitable for identification with other fear elated evidence + Based on their observable, physical characteristics, ems 14,67, nd 104 were most consistent with being Number? brdshot pellets. No marks of value suitable for ‘dentfication were found, adit was concluded that Items 14, 67, and 104 were ‘suitable for Wentifistion with the rearms elated evidence Suffice differences in lass characterises were found to conclude that Nem 13,14, 67, ‘and 108 were not fired by the lem 33 fle ‘One fired 300 Blackout caliber arige eas, listed as "ftom tothe lef of shooting chair (cea fly ‘One fired 300 Blackout caliber cartridge cs, listed ae * collected from right font comer (oar fel" Wem: 119 One fied 300 Blackout caliber carrie cate, lined a8 .fom in font of shooter che under able (near fie) Wem: 111 One fied 300 Blackout caliber cari cas, listed 25..ftom in font of ea at table (near Sela. ‘One fre 300 Blackout caliber arti ese listed as. from under shooting table (ear fey. (One fred 300 Blackout caliber carrie case listed a "from in font of right shooting table leg net fei. Wem: 114 One fied 300 Blackout caliber earvidge eas, listed as "fom near ight leg of shooting ble ron of che (near Geld)” (One fired 300 Blackout calber canie cae, i shooting table le (nea il Wem: 118 One fied 300 Blackout caliber care ase, listed as "from he right halfway between legand wall (nerfed. Wem: 117 One fied 30 Blackout caliber carve ase, listed as "ftom nar ight leg of shooting le near chair (nerfed) ‘One fred 300 Blackout caliber caidge case liste as fom by rght wal (ea ely ‘One fred 300 Blackout caliber cartridge case listed a from right fot arto fren wall (ese Fld) Wem: 129 One fired 300 Blackout caliber carte case, listed as. ftom ight sie of shooting platfrm (ese fel Wem: 121 One fied 300 Blackout caliber aridge ase, listed as “.ftom ight of hooting char by platform (near field) RESULTS ‘See Item 128 results. Cat asap 126 ..fom the front of and tothe ight of a South Carolina 29221-1398 Phone (893) 896-7300 Fa (83) 96-1351 1.21-09074 PSG Page 6 0f 337Ea ‘No. L1-49078 Page TO 10) Joly 23,2001 verte netcnecrne daft nouns Sars snanane aine t tvs asm non dt in, ET fom righ side chi platform ear tem: 125 One fred 12 gauge shotshel hited as "collected near Fil. tem 125 was originally ‘submited as ".8.."firedshotshelle. This evidence was temized for idemeation and ‘reporting purposes. See lems 129-138 RESULTS: See Tem 138 resus. em: 126 One ied 300 Blackout clier cartridge cae, ited a fom right font comer” tem: 127 One fre 300 Blackout ealber earie ese, listed a "fom ight and othe front of ight ‘able es Item: 128 One fired 300 Blackout caliber eadge case, sted a5 * collected from right near font wall RESULTS: lems 2-7, 35-39, 108 124 and 126-128 were physically examine and, where ppropriate, misroscopiclly compared with each oter ind ts carvidge cass fied by the lem 33 rife. From thee examinations and comparisons the fellowing conclusions were reached: ‘+ Matching inividuel denying characteristics were fund on Hems 38,109 - 110, 121, 126,127 and test earidge cases feed by the lem 33 rfl, It was conchded that these ems were Ged by em 3, + Due o insufficient comesponding individual identifying characteristics, the results of comparisons of Neri 2~ 7, 38 ~ 39,39, 108, 111 ~120, 122-124, and 128 with each ter and text carrie cer fired bythe tem 33 sewer inconclusive. It could not be detemined whether these lems wer red by Item 33 or by anotberfiearm or firearms wih similar sifling characteristics. These Items may or may not be ssable for identfiestion with other fieurms related evidence. ‘+ Matching individual ideoifying characteristics were found inthe mechanism marks of lems 111, 14-115, 18~ 118,123, 128 to conclude that these ems were loaded into, extracted, and ejected from the lem 33 rifle at some previous ime. ‘+ Matching indvidsl identifying characteristics were found in the mechanism masks of hems 2 7,35 37,39, 108,11, 116-117, pd 122 to conclude tha these lems ‘wer Toaded into, extracted, snd ejected from the sme fresrm a some previous ine a rohan 1121-09074 PSG Pag: 70f 337‘SLED LAB No. Lii.09074 Page tof 10 July 23,2021 219 130 BL im 133 2 1S tem: 137 Sulfiier iferences in clas characteristics were found to conclude that tems 2— 7,38 37, 39, 108,11 ~ 120, 122-124, and 128 were not red by any ofthe lem 22, 30,31, or 32 shotgans. (One fre 12 gauge shots! originally submited axwith em 125, ‘One ire 12 gauge shotsel, orginally submited swith em 125. ‘One red 12 gauge shtthel, orginally submited aswith Kem 125. ‘One fred 12 gouge shtshell,oginally submited sxwith Kem 125, ‘One fred 12 gauge sotshel, orginally submited swith em 125. ‘One fred 12 gnugeshotsel,ciginally submited swith Kem 125, ‘ne fred 12 gauge shotshel, orginally submited awit em 125, RESULTS: Items 9 10 125, and 129 ~135 were physically examined and, where merely compared with tt shabele fred bythe em 22 and 3035 shales. From these examinations and comparisons, the fllowing conclusions were reached: 1 Natching individual identifying characterises were found and it was conclu that, ‘ems 9 = 10 were fred by the same firearm, + Dueto insuTicient conesponding individual denitying characteristics, the routs of comparisons of lems 9 10 wit et shotbels red by the ler 22 shotgun were lnconcisive. It ould not be determined whether lems 910 were fired by Hem 22 ‘by another res ith similar characteris. lems 9 ~ 10 may be suitable for ‘entifcation with other reams related evidence. ‘+ Saffcien differences in cas andr individual characteristics were found to eonchade ‘Ga ems 9 10 were not fired bythe tem 30,31, 032 shotguns. ‘+ Ducto ther damaged and weathered condition, the results of comparisons of tems 15 and 129~ 138 with each other, ems 9 ~ 10, and test shosblls fied bythe em 22 and 30~32 shotguns were inconclusive. Itcould not be determined whether Items 125 and 129 ~138 were red by the ream tat ire tems 9 ~ 10 the Hem 2,30, 31, or 32 shoiguns or by nother rer ot Hirearms with similar characteris, lems 125 and 128" 135 may not be suitable fr ientifistion with ober reas seated evidence ‘Sufficient tfrences in lass characteristics were found to conclude tat lems 9~ 16,128, tnd 129-135 were not red by the Item 33 rile (One pice of lead, listed as". from hair onthe em 92 des" RESULTS: ems 8,11 ~ 12,66 and 137 were physialy examined and, wher appropriate, rmicroscapically compared with ech othe and tat ules fied by the tem 33 rile. From ‘hese euinatons and comparisons, the following conclusions were reached: 0.x 336 Colt South Cartna 2921-198. Pone 209) 67000 Fax (3) 196-751 1L21-09074 PSG Page 8 0f 337‘SLED LAD No LEV907% Page oF 10 |_Suly 23,2021 (coos + Based on their observable, physi characteristics, lems 8 and 12 were most ensisten with bullets londed nto some 300 Blackout calle earedges. ‘Marks of value were found on em 8 and it was concluded th it may be suitable or ‘entiation with her ears related evidence + Due to damage, lem 12 was unsuitable for idenification wih ther rearms elated evidence; however, may be suitable fr elimination purposes ase on class sractensies ‘Due to damage and tei size, thee be determined ber oreaibers of ems 1,66, nd 137 ould not Dye to damage and limited mares of value found on the tem 1 fred bullet jacket, ‘agment andthe lem 6 Fred bllt jacket fragment, was onclded that hese ems may or may ot besuitbl fer identification with ther reams related evidence 1+ Nomar of value wee found on he lem 1] bullet jacket fragments, the tem 11 piece of lead. and he lem 66 pieces of lend and it wat concluded tat these ert ‘were unstable for Menification with other firearms elated evidence, ‘+ hem 137 bore some sited markings; however, their origin auld not be determined and it wat conchded hat thi lem was unsuitable fr ientieation with ether Sears related evidence. + Dye to damage and insuficient corresponding individual idenfyng characteristics, the result of comparisons of lem 8, the Item 1 ied bullet cket agent, and the tem 66 fied bllt act fragments wih eachother and tes lets fired by the lem 33 ifle were inconchsive. Although some limited similarities were noted on lem 8 ‘and one of the tem 66 ied bullet jacket fragments, it ould ot be determined wheter Item 8 the tern 1 fied bullet jacket amen and te Kem 66 fired bullet jacket fapments were Ged by lem 33 or by anther ream or fre with similar ling characteristics, Suffcem differences in clas characterise were ound to conclude hat Kem 8, the Her U1 fired bullet jacket faint, and the Hem 66 fied bullet jacket fragments were nt fired by the tem 22 and 30 ~ 32 shotguns. tome 3,9, 10, nd 33 were entered into the Integrated Ballistics Identification Systm (IBIS). These ‘xhiitsil stomatialy be comeated wi exhibits from SC, GA, NC, and VA. Should any investigative leads be developed, your Agency will be noi Pease ean the evidence for 2 Ininemun of to years monde to maotin te availabilty foe fate comparisons lated IBIS Citta ashes v 1398 Pre ($0) 67900 Fo 499 167351 1L21-09074 FSG Page 901337Page 10or 10" ‘hr rpot contains Re concusons, opinions and inerprtains fhe anal whose sgance appears Below chi rcnd peri he conn tis pert arabe pon ona. ford fico tine for prion Gul 5 Aran, Paul. Greer 0, Bor 139, Club, South Carats 2922-198 Phone (8038947300 Fax (803) 896-381 L21-09074 P38 Page 10 of 337STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA }._ INTHE COURT OF GENERAL SESSIONS ) FOURTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT COUNTY OF COLLETON } ‘The State of South Carolina, Indictment Nos. 2022681500502 - 00505 Pints, * CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Richard Alexander Muréaugh, Defendant, 1, Holli Miller, paralegal tothe attomey forthe Defeodent, Richard A. Harpootian, PLA. with offices located at 1410 Laurel Street, Columbia, South Carolina 29201, hereby certify that on January 23, 2023 did serve by hand ering the following documents to the below mentioned person: Document: ‘Motion in Limine to Preclude or Limit Firexrm Ballistic Opinion ‘Testimony, or Alternatively, for a Council Hearing Served: Creighton Waters, Esquire Office of The Attomey General Rembert C. Dennis Building Post Office Box 11549 Columbia South Carolina 293 cewaters@scag.gov 9.2023 va:01