Convicted Murdaugh accomplice asks court to hear from jurors dismissed in federal fraud trial

A Lowcountry banker convicted in his role in helping former attorney Alex Murdaugh take money from his law clients has filed a motion to reconsider the trial that found him guilty Nov. 22.

Attorneys for Russell Laffitte, the former CEO of Palmetto State Bank, filed a motion in federal court Tuesday asking for a hearing on “jury issues” in the November trial at the federal courthouse in Charleston.

After a three-week trial, a jury deliberated for 11 hours before finding Laffitte guilty on six counts of bank and wire fraud. But that guilty verdict only came after two of the original jurors were dismissed by Judge Richard Gergel and replaced with alternates who had sat through the trial but had not taken part in the jury’s previous deliberation.

Laffitte’s attorney Bart Daniel is asking that the court accept affidavits from the two dismissed jurors, but keep them under seal to protect the jurors’ identities.

In Tuesday’s court filing, the jurors are identified only as “Juror No. 88” and “Juror No. 93.” The affidavits from the two will describe “improper influences on jury deliberations, her experience as a juror, and the circumstances surrounding her removal,” according to the filing.

Federal prosecutors, facing a deadline, have so far not responded to the defense filing.

Laffitte was found guilty on six counts: One count that he conspired with Murdaugh to commit numerous acts of bank and wire fraud; one count of bank fraud; one count of wire fraud; and three counts of misapplication of bank funds, which said he illegally misappropriated more than $1.8 million in bank money on Murdaugh’s behalf.

Murdaugh still faces trial on charges of financial crimes, as well as state charges he murdered his wife and son. Trial on the murder charges is scheduled to begin in Walterboro in January. The South Carolina Attorney General’s Office says it plans to seek a life sentence without parole.

‘Virgin territory’

Late on the day jurors started their deliberations after Laffitte’s trial, Gergel reconvened both sides to read several notes the judge received from the jury.

One juror indicated that she needed to leave the courthouse to take scheduled medication, but also indicated she was feeling pressured to change her vote. Other jurors wrote to the judge claiming a “hostile” juror was refusing to engage in deliberations or to follow some of the judge’s instructions. Another juror reported feeling anxious and asked to be removed.

After meeting privately with the jurors, Gergel dismissed both the juror needing medication and the anxious juror who reportedly told him she was unable to continue serving her function as a juror.

The dismissals apparently solved the “hostile” juror issue. After being sent back into deliberation with two replacement jurors, the jury returned with a unanimous guilty verdict in less than an hour.

Before the jury returned, Laffitte’s attorneys raised an objection to at least one dismissal, but Gergel said he felt he had no choice as that juror indicated she was unable to continue.

“She was shaking as she talked,” Gergel told the court.

Gergel indicated that the situation was highly unusual, and one he couldn’t recall facing in his 13 years on the bench.

“We’re in virgin territory,” he said.

Laffitte’s attorneys have already asked the court for a new trial, arguing that removing a juror who indicated she was dissenting from the consensus of the rest of the jury was a “miscarriage of justice.” If the original jury had failed to reach a unanimous verdict, the judge would have had to declare a mistrial and federal prosecutors would have had to bring the case against Laffitte all over again.

Daniel and co-counsel Matt Austin say in their request for a new trial that they did not expect Gergel to dismiss the two jurors when he told the court he would be meeting with them about their concerns. They suggest the judge could have instead halted deliberations for the evening and bring the original jury back the next day to continue.

Only twice did jurors emerge from their deliberation room earlier on Nov. 22, at one point to ask that the court provide them with a transcript of Laffitte’s five hours of testimony for their review, and again to hear a 10-minute recording previously played in the trial.

Gergel only allowed jurors to hear the short recording, saying a transcript of Laffitte’s full testimony, which concluded the day before, was not yet available. But the judge offered to have the court reporter read back any specific testimony the jury requested, although the jurors never did.

This story may be updated.