0 assistant solicitor for when my dad became the solicitor, he had an assistant solicitor's badge. when he passed away, i had his badge and that was -- 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 trails as a prosecutor, correct? >> assists in those or was doing them, yes, sir. i believe i was actually the lead lawyer in one of them. i helped my dad in the other four. >> still part of preparing the case? >> yes, sir. >> still part of gathering the evidence and putting it together for trial? >> in a criminal case, we didn't do much of the gathering of evidence. we talk what law enforcement had gathered. >> and putting it together for the criminal trial, correct? >> yes, sir. >> presenting evidence in court? >> yes, sir. >> giving jury argument? >> i did the closing argument in one of them, yes, sir. >> did you ever have any cases that you prosecuted that went short of a jury trial, either pled out or dismissed for some reason? >> you know, i'm sure that at some point over -- between 1998 and 2021 that i took some plea, but as we sit here today, i can't specifically remember that. i don't remember working a case up for trial that didn't go to trial. i'm sure at some point in time i was involved on a guilty plea or guilty pleas. >> you'd agree with me that the civil system and the criminal systems have a lot of differences. >> and a lot of similarities. that's where i was going next. fundamentally it's about analyzing the evidence, preparing for trial, presenting that case and making your argument to the jury, correct? >> that's a big part of it. >> okay. and would you agree with me that as cases go on, or as you are preparing for trial, that you analyze the evidence that's been gathered by law enforcement and present the evidence that supports your case, correct? that's just part of it. >> presenting evidence that you deem favorable for your position? >> yeah. that you analyze the evidence and you put in the evidence that supports your case. it's an ongoing process. would you agree with that? >> yes. that's what you do. >> same thing in a civil case. you go along, you may have evidence that you ultimately analyze that evidence and some evidence makes the cut and some of it does not. is that fair to say? >> as far as what you're trying to -- i think we agree on the that. >> we would agree on that? >> i think so. i'm not sure what your question is, but i think i understand it. >> i'm just asking you that as a lawyer, as you've been since 1994, is that right? >> that's correct. >> it's a simple question. you analyze the evidence that's been gathered, whether civil or criminal and present that in court. is that correct? >> yes. that's part of what you do. >> that is an ongoing process as you prepare for a case. is that correct? >> and ongoing process as you prepare -- in criminal courts or civil courts? >> either one. >> there's a distinction because in civil court, you have the deadlines. you're not allowed to gather evidence during a trial or a week before trial or, you know -- for instance, if this was a civil trial and we found that onstar data in the third or fourth week of trial, you wouldn't be able to use it because you're past deadlines. in a criminal case, you are able to use it. >> you'd agree none of that was the fault of anyone on this side of the table. g.m. said that they didn't have anything and now they responded that they did. >> i don't have an opinion. certainly not anything that i'm intended the convey. >> you talked to this jury a lot about that but you know nothing about that particular part, is that what you're telling us? you talked to the jury a lot about the g.m. data, but you're telling me that you're unaware that g.m. initially responded to law enforcement's timely request and said they didn't have that. in the course of the trial all of a sudden said you know what? we found something. that's the reason why it arrived late. you say you don't know anything about that after talking to this jury about that? >> i don't know a single thing about that. i know that ya'll represented that to the court. i don't have any reason to doubt it. >> okay. good. >> i don't -- >> you'd agree that that is consistent with the telemetry data that the fbi did, correct? the onstar data. >> i think the on-star data and the telemetry data are consistent. >> you don't think they're consistent? is that what you're telling the jury? >> i'm not telling the jury anything about that. i'm saying do i think they're consistent? i think the onstar data tells one -- gives you one set of information. the telemetry data gist you another set of information. >> you don't think they're consistent? i mean, you talked about -- we're struggling on what is a fairly simple point, don't you agree? >> mr. waters, i'm just trying to answer your question. so i'm not trying to be difficult. i just -- my understanding -- what you're referring to the telemetry data is when a car goes into park and drive and that sort of thing. is that what you're referring to? >> yes. >> the gps information is telling you where a vehicle is on a certain path. >> correct. >> in what direction its going. so i think they're two different types of information. >> the question is were they consistent with one another. >> i don't -- i guess so. i don't think they contradict each other. >> thank you. all right. >> you were the bread winner for your family, your immediate family. >> yes. >> and that included obviously for maggie, correct? >> i'm sorry? >> that included for maggie, correct? >> absolutely. >> for paul and buster as well, would you agree with that? >> that i was the bread winner? >> the primary bread winner, yes. >> no, i was their source of -- i was the source of income for maggie, buster and paul. i mean, i guess as they got older, i mean, there's some point that buster had a job, but i mean, would still consider myself the provider for them at that time. >> again, there's no trick here. i'm just trying to ask a simple question. >> i don't think that was a trick. >> so you were the primary bread winner. we can agree on that. >> yes, sir. >> go ahead -- give me a second. >> i'm going to show you what's been marked as state 570. see if you recognize this particular item. you can take it out of the bag. >> all right, sir. >> do you know what that is? >> yes, sir. >> that's 571? >> yes, sir. >> i'm going to show you what was in the bag of 570. can you tell me what that is the? >> i can. >> what is that? >> which one. >> 570. what is that? >> 571 is what i would consider to be my badge. >> all right. >> then what is this one, 570? >> 570 would be the one i told you about was my grandfather's badge after he retired when he became an assistant for my dad. >> your honor, i'd offer state's 571 and 570 in evidence. >> they are admitted. >> all right. where did you keep 570? the one that was your grandfather's? >> it didn't have a single place that it was kept. >> do you know where it was recovered by law enforcement? >> no, sir. >> would you dispute it was discovered in the mercedes, the side of the road incident? >> no, i believe that. >> and 571, where did you keep this one? >> usually in my car. >> where in your car? >> it could be -- it could be on the dash like you were talking to mark ball about, could be in the cup holder, on the seat. usually in the front seat. in my car is where i tried to keep it. >> all right. >> when you had it in your dash, would you have it face up or face down? >> i didn't have any particular manner in which i stored it anywhere. >> there was no rhyme or reason to it is what you're telling the jury? >> there may be occasions where i had it in the dash for some particular reason. a lot of times where it probably was in the dash for no particular reason other than that's where i put it. just like i put it on the seat or in the cup holder. >> all right. >> you said there were particular reasons why you might put it in the dash. what would those reasons be? >> could be any number of things. if i'm going somewhere where i want somebody to see it. then i would put it in the dash. if there's another reason for somebody to see it like for instance, if i get pulled over, i might have it in the cup holder so an officer could see it when he walked up. >> why would you do that? why would you have it in the cup holder. you're not saying you're on official business, are you? >> no, i'm not saying i'm on official business. >> why would you want it in the cup holder if you get pulled over? >> because i found that law enforcement oftentimes is friendlier when you're in law enforcement. >> when you're law enforcement. so you considered yourself law enforcement? >> no, sir. i can't say that i considered myself law enforcement. >> you carried a badge on you as an assistant solicitor for two decades roughly? >> from around 98 -- yes, sir. two decades. >> you would ride with it sometimes sitting in the front dash facing out, correct? >> that's correct. >> and you would put it in the cup holder so that law enforcement would see you if you got pulled over, right? >> that's correct. >> okay. so but you didn't consider yourself law enforcement? >> i personally didn't consider myself law enforcement. >> so you were using this badge as advantage and taking license with it, correct? >> in some circumstances that is accurate. >> see if you can use it to get away with something, correct? get better treatment if you got pulled over? >> get better treatment if i got pulled over? i mean, that's probably a fair statement. yeah, if somebody in law enforcement saw that, yeah, i'd say that's true. >> did you have to take an oath when you got that badge? >> no, sir. >> you didn't? >> not that i remember. i certainly don't recall taking one like going somewhere and raising my hand -- >> raising your hand and say i promise to do my duty fairly with integrity? you never had to do that? >> mr. waters, if i did, i sure don't recall it. it was a very informal process when i became volunteer assistant solicitor for my dad. then when i continued with duffy. at some point, you know -- if i took any oath at all that i can remember, it would be on some paper that i may have had to sign. i don't specifically remember doing that. >> all right. let's talk about it. let's go back to 571. on the inside of it, what are those right there? are those -- is that an i.d. card with your picture on it? >> yes, sir, that is. >> and at the top -- leave it in there, if you would, please. can you not see it? >> i can. i was going to see what's on the back. all right, sir. >> all right. it's got your picture on it, got your name on it? >> yes, sir. that does have my picture. and my name. >> all right. put that one back for me, please. >> all right. >> look at the top one. what office does it say that you are on that top one right there? up there at the top. >> state of south carolina, solicitor of the 14th judicial circuit. it says i do hereby certify -- >> has your name. >> right. and it has all of that data -- >> what position does it say that you're appointed to? >> as the -- okay. >> as solicitor of the 14th judicial circuit, i certain fight that richard a. murdaugh was appointed as the deputy solicitor of allen dale and jasper and hampton counties. signed by duffy stone. >> signed by duffy stone. >> i was never a solicitor. that's what that says. i've never been a deputy solicitor. unless -- i was a volunteer assistant solicitor. as far as i know, sean thornton has been the only deputy solicitor that duffy stone had. >> it's a simple point. it set deputy solicitor but that's a higher rank than assistant solicitor. is that your understand something. >> that's what i think. i have never been deputy solicitor. even though that says that. i agree with you. that was signed by duffy stone, not by me. >> i understand. this is what was given to you. >> that's what i was given to me. >> we went through this about whether or not you had an association with the law enforcement community and given to you not by your father but a successor, correct? >> we got to this because you asked me if i took an oath. i don't remember talking an oath. >> and you agree it says deputy solicitor? >> i agree that says deputy solicitor. >> would you agree with me on the back that it is proposing special trust and confidence in your ability, care, prudence and integrity? is that what it says on the back of this? >> if -- no, sir. i trust if you read that off the back of that, i assume that it does. >> all right. >> you were reading off of the one that duffy stone gave me, correct? >> yeah. the one at the top, where did that come from? you want me to bring it back to you? >> no, sir, i think i can see it. >> it's not focused very well. >> that's okay. i know what it is. i looked at it when you handed it to me. the card on the bottom is what i got from duffy stone. the one on the top -- the one on the top should give you a better -- there we go. all right. so the one on the top was what came from my dad when he was solicitor. the one on the bottom is what came from duffy stone when he was solicitor. and duffy stone stone took over at my dad retired in 2006. duffy stone filled my dad's unexpired -- the rest of his unexpired i four-year team like my dad filled my granddad. and duffy became the solicitor. >> did you ever have lights in your vehicle? >> in the particular vehicle -- >> no. in any vehicle. >> yes, sir, i did. >> was that a government vehicle? >> no, sir, it was not. >> when did you have lights -- like blue lights and stuff? >> i had blue lights. >> let me remember. you did five cases over 20 years? you had blue lights in your vehicle but it was your private vehicle, correct? >> it was the vehicle that i drove. it was law firm owned vehicle. >> the law firm's own vehicle. how did you get blue lights? >> i had them installed >> who installed them? >> i believe eddie gibson installed temporary. >> who was that? >> he's the guy who apparently does blue light work for most of the sheriff's department in the 14th circuit and a lot of the police departments. >> did you -- when did you have that installed? do you recall? one vehicle or more than one vehicle? start with that. >> i believe i had it in one vehicle. >> when did you have that installed do you think? >> i'm not sure. it would have been -- >> five years, ten years? >> here i can give you a time frame. the vehicle that i was in -- that got taken in on june 7, i got that vehicle sometime around december -- late december or january. so i had had it for six months. i would have had the previous vehicle for five years. that's how long we kept vehicles in the law firm. so i would have had it for five years. and sometime during that five-year period, i had lights installed. >> did you ask the sheriff at the time if you could do that? >> i did. >> who was that? >> i believe it was t.c. smalls. i believe in collinton it was andy strickland? >> in allendale, it was tom carter. >> were you friend with andy strickland? >> yeah, i was friends with andy strickland. >> and you said hey, i'm going to get some blue lights installed in your vehicle. he said that's cool or words to that effect? >> that doesn't sound like the words that he would use or i would have used but i asked him and he said it was okay. >> it was okay. all right. >> along with sheriff smalls and i believe sheriff carter. i'm not positive about sheriff carter but i believe so. >> i'm doing to show you real quick what has been marked as state's 507. see if you recognize that. >> i believe this is my su suburban. this is my suburban that ya'll had. >> okay. does that look like where your badge was on the day of the incident? >> i have no idea. >> you don't recall putting it there? >> i don't take issue with the fact that it's -- i don't take issue with the fact that it's there if that's how they say it was founded. that's the picture. >> your honor, i offer state's 507 in to evidence. >> no objection.