Alex Murdaugh's defense makes 'high-risk' move to show DNA proves he didn't kill family, prosecutor says

LEXINGTON, S.C. — Alex Murdaugh’s defense team is gambling on a "high-risk" DNA test in its bid to point to another killer, a prosecutor said, citing the defense’s own expert.

Judge Debra McCaslin sided with the defense over prosecutors’ objections Friday, allowing new testing on swabs from Maggie Murdaugh’s cellphone and clippings from under her fingernails, even though the process will likely use up the last of the testable samples. McCaslin said due process requires that a defendant be given "a meaningful opportunity to present a full and complete defense."

Murdaugh was convicted in 2023 of murdering his wife, Maggie, and son, Paul, at the family's Moselle property in Colleton County. The South Carolina Supreme Court later overturned the convictions after finding that former Colleton County Clerk of Court Becky Hill improperly influenced the jury.

His retrial is scheduled for April 5, 2027. Murdaugh has maintained his innocence in the killings.

Alex Murdaugh at a pretrial hearing in Lexington, S.C., Oct. 16, 2026. (Tracy Glantz of The State and Henry Taylor of The Post and Courier.)

The defense team plans to employ Othram to conduct a Y-STR test, a method that isolates DNA from the Y chromosome to generate a profile of a male contributor in samples where female DNA is predominant.

Murdaugh's attorneys contend that all three samples contain unidentified male DNA and are seeking to determine whether a single man was the source. Defense attorney Phil Barber said the findings could rule out certain individuals as contributors and may provide ancestry information, although the test cannot differentiate between men who share the same paternal ancestors.

Alex Murdaugh's attorney, Dick Harpootlian, speaks at a pretrial hearing Oct. 16, 2026. (Tracy Glantz of The State and Henry Taylor of The Post and Courier)

The defense said the process will require approximately 90 days.

Creighton Waters, the lead prosecutor, said in court that the testing would be "high risk" and unlikely to generate significant evidence.

"When we talked to their expert, he said, 'Yeah, that’s pretty much a sole source sample. This would be high risk and unlikely to generate anything, and [it] appears that that’s the case, because when we got back the quantification from [Othram], it’s goose eggs on the Y chromosome," Waters said.

Barber laid out his reasoning for the new test, acknowledging the unknown male DNA could have an innocent explanation but saying the pattern is hard to ignore.

FOLLOW THE FOX TRUE CRIME TEAM ON X

Alex Murdaugh in court Oct. 16, 2026 (Tracy Glantz of The State and Henry Taylor of The Post and Courier)

"Maybe it’s different male DNA. Maybe it’s the same. Maybe it’s red herrings. ... But as we keep progressing from one hand to two hands and now the phone, you know. It’s starting to look less and less like a red herring," Barber said. 

"If you have an unknown person under both her fingernails and throwing the phone out the side of the road after she’s murdered, it’s not him, I mean, that’s extremely important to the defense."

Notably, the defense and prosecution both said once the DNA test is performed, there won't be enough samples left to test again in any post-trial proceedings, which Murdaugh was OK with.

"To perform the test, there is enough to perform the test, but there’s not enough to perform the test and then have enough left over," Barber said.

SEND US A TIP

"My client just informed me that he will waive that," he said, referring to any post-conviction retesting.

Alex Murdaugh arrives for a judicial hearing on Monday, June 29, 2026, at the Marc H. Westbrook Judicial Center in Lexington, S.C. (Tracy Glantz/The State via Pool)

Former prosecutor Joshua Ritter told Fox News Digital the strategy could backfire, saying the defense may have been better off leaving the DNA untested and using the unknown male profile to raise reasonable doubt at trial.

LISTEN TO THE NEW 'CRIME & JUSTICE WITH DONNA ROTUNNO' PODCAST

"They could make an argument, 'Hey, you found samples. It was unknown male DNA. That DNA did not come back to our client, correct? There's somebody else out there who could potentially be linked to this crime,'" Ritter said. 

"Now, unless it comes back that it's a person who does have some reason to be suspicious, they've got a problem because if it comes back to a person with a rock solid alibi or a person with an innocent explanation as to why their DNA would end up underneath her fingernails, they've foreclosed any argument that they could have made.

Alex Murdaugh, right, is shown here with his family. (Fox News)

"It's one of those situations where sometimes it's better left unknown for the defense, but they seem to be determined to try to figure out who that DNA belongs to."

Murdaugh is due back in court Nov. 13.

Fox News Digital reached out to Murdaugh's defense team for comment.