Alex Murdaugh is back in court this morning for a pretrial hearing ahead of his murder retrial, and his attorneys opened up with a claim that the judge said "raised my eyebrows."
The disbarred attorney appeared before Circuit Judge Debra McCaslin at 10 a.m. in Lexington County for a pretrial hearing ahead of his April 2027 retrial in the killings of his wife, Maggie, and son, Paul.
Murdaugh's defense raised a new potential ballistics issue, telling the judge it learned through FITSNews reporting that weapons from a recent Allendale County murder may have been connected to the Murdaugh murder case.
Prosecutor Creighton Waters told the court the claim was entirely new to him.
"I have never heard the first thing about that," Waters said, adding that he communicates with SLED daily and had not been told of any such development.
"I will certainly look into that, but I would be flabbergasted to find out that actually had happened and no one had advised this office of that," Waters said.
McCaslin appeared struck by the allegation as well, telling Murdaugh attorney Jim Griffin, "As far as the murder in Allendale with the murder weapons, you certainly raised my eyebrows on that."
Griffin argued that if investigators determined shell casings from the Allendale case matched those tied to the Murdaugh murders, the defense wants the underlying testing and investigative records. He said such a finding could raise questions about the original ballistics analysis or whether a firearm associated with the Murdaugh case was later used in another killing.
Waters stressed that he had not read the FITSNews material and said he does not generally follow media coverage of the case.
"I don’t watch the podcast and I don’t read the blogs because I try to base what I’m doing on the evidence and not on speculation that’s out there in the media," Waters said. "It would blow my mind if something like that had happened in SLED and not call me."
Waters later said that SLED has now told him there is no known ballistics match linking a .300 Blackout used in an Allendale County shooting to another crime. Waters said the firearm evidence from the Allendale case was entered into a ballistics database but "there have been no leads or no matches on that."
"I’m going to find out more and double check and we’re going to run this down," Waters said, adding that SLED told him there were "no leads or hits" involving the .300 Blackout used in the Allendale shooting.
Harpootlian said the defense wants more than a verbal assurance from investigators and remains skeptical of SLED because of issues it has raised over the agency’s handling of evidence in the Murdaugh case.
"I have never questioned Mr. Waters’ integrity," Harpootlian said. "But as a result of this case, I cannot help but question the SLED lab integrity and the SLED agency."
WATCH: Murdaugh defense attorney Griffin demands Giglio material on Eddie Smith
The defense also raised the case of Michael Colucci, whose murder charge was dismissed without prejudice after his attorneys alleged the state withheld critical exculpatory evidence.
Griffin noted that former SLED agent David Owen, the lead case agent in Murdaugh’s murder investigation, was also involved in the Colucci case and asked whether Owen was disciplined or sanctioned as a result.
Waters said he was not aware of any finding that Owen had been dishonest, but said he would look into it further.
The discussion centered in part on prosecutors’ Giglio obligations, named for the 1972 dismiss the murder and weapons indictments, alleging that false physical evidence was presented to the grand jury that indicted him.
The motion targets testimony from South Carolina Law Enforcement Division (SLED) investigator David Owen and raises questions about the evidence used to secure the original charges.
It is not yet clear whether McCaslin will rule on the dismissal motion Friday.
"They're alleging misconduct or false statements by one of the main case agents," he said. Williams added that he would be "a little surprised if that gets taken up on Friday," saying the issue will likely require evidence, testimony and additional briefing.
The disputes range from a defense effort to dismiss the murder indictments outright to battles over whether prosecutors can again introduce evidence of Murdaugh’s financial crimes, use testimony he gave during his first trial and present other evidence to a new jury.
WATCH: Murdaugh retrial raises new concerns and evidence
Williams said that a second trial changes the strategic landscape for Murdaugh.
"There is no surprising the government or the state at trial," Williams said. "He's given his testimony, they can prepare infinitely now to cross-examine him."
"That tends to be frankly more helpful for the state. I think they usually have a better chance on retrial," he added, while noting that limits on some of the state's evidence could cut the other way.
Murdaugh, 58, was convicted in 2023 of murdering Maggie, 52, and Paul, 22, at the family’s Moselle estate in Colleton County in June 2021. The South Carolina Supreme Court later overturned the convictions after finding that former Colleton County Clerk of Court Becky Hill improperly influenced jurors.
The high court ordered a new trial, but the retrial may look significantly different from the first.
At Murdaugh’s first trial, prosecutors argued that years of theft and financial fraud were closing in on him and that the killings were an effort to distract from mounting scrutiny.
The South Carolina Supreme Court did not rule that all evidence of Murdaugh’s financial wrongdoing was inadmissible, but it said prosecutors had been allowed to go too far into the details during the first trial.
McCaslin will now be tasked with determining how much of that evidence can be presented to jurors the second time around.
Williams said he expects the amount of financial evidence to shrink from the first trial. He said, "there will definitely be less," adding, "How much less I think will be a good question."
Prosecutors are also vying to use Murdaugh’s sworn testimony from his first trial during the retrial.
Murdaugh took the stand in his own defense in 2023 and admitted lying to investigators about his whereabouts shortly before Maggie and Paul were killed. He denied murdering them.
Whether jurors in the new trial will be able to hear portions of that prior testimony could become especially important if Murdaugh chooses not to testify again.
The defense has separately mounted a wider challenge to the charges themselves.
Another major fight involves forensic evidence.
Murdaugh’s attorneys have sought additional DNA testing using newer techniques, including testing tied to evidence found underneath Maggie's fingernails.
Prosecutors have not opposed additional testing outright but have sought safeguards surrounding the handling of evidence, testing procedures and access to results.
"Independent testing might be tough," Williams said. "It wouldn't shock me if she lets them have a separate new test by the defense. To me, that strikes me as being fair, assuming they have the evidence available to be retested."
WATCH: Alex Murdaugh returns to court ahead of retrial
The defense has also sought to move the retrial out of Colleton County, where the killings occurred and where the first trial became a media spectacle.
Murdaugh’s attorneys have argued that extensive publicity surrounding the case, along with the fallout from Hill’s conduct, makes it impossible for him to receive a fair trial there. They have proposed moving the case to nearby Charleston County.
Williams said venue may be one of the more straightforward disputes for McCaslin to address Friday, though the location could be the real fight.
"The battle, frankly, does seem to be not the venue change, but where," he said. "Personally, I'd be a little surprised if she doesn't change the venue."
Other pending disputes involve access to phone data, third-party guilt evidence, discovery rules, polygraph evidence, juror questionnaires and protective orders governing sensitive material.
Fox News Digital has reached out to the attorney general's office and Murdaugh's defense team for comment.