Alleged Murdaugh accomplice Laffitte requests statewide jury selection or change of venue
Former Hampton banker and alleged Alex Murdaugh accomplice Russell Lucius Laffitte got new hope when an appeals court recently ruled that he deserved a new federal trial. Now, Laffitte has a new trial date and new lawyers and is making new demands of the federal justice system.
Laffitte, Murdaugh's former banker and, according to state and federal indictments, an accomplice who is accused of playing a role in helping the now disbarred and imprisoned Hampton lawyer steal millions from law clients and partners, will receive a new federal trial to commence May 5.
In preparation for this second federal court showdown, Laffitte's attorneys are now arguing that, in light of the case's notoriety and media attention, Laffitte requires a statewide jury pool to get a fair trial or, in the alternative, a change of venue.
Laffitte was convicted in November of 2022 on federal charges of conspiring with Murdaugh to commit wire fraud and bank fraud; wire fraud; bank fraud; and three counts of misapplication of bank funds and sentenced to seven years in federal prison.
While Laffitte began serving that sentence, in 2024, a Fourth Circuit federal appellate tribunal rendered a Nov. 14 order that vacated the conviction from the U.S. District Court of South Carolina and the sentence imposed by federal Judge Richard Gergel.
The appellate panel ruled that Judge Gergel violated Laffitte's Fifth Amendment right to be present when he questioned a juror, identified only as Juror 88, without Laffitte or his counsel present and violated Laffitte's Sixth Amendment right to an impartial jury when he later dismissed that juror during deliberations, adding that the juror's dismissal was linked to her pending view of the verdict.
With the new trial date set, Laffitte's attorneys have filed a motion for a district-wide jury panel or venue transfer.
As it now stands, Laffitte's new federal trial will begin with jury selection at 9 a.m. on May 5, followed immediately by opening statements before Judge Richard Gergel. The proceedings are currently set to be held in the Beaufort Division of the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina, in Courtroom 1 of the J. Waties Waring Judicial Center, 83 Meeting St., Charleston.
The federal District of South Carolina is divided into four Areas: A, B, C, and D. As Laffitte's case also stands, jurors will be selected from Area C, which handles all federal cases in the Beaufort and CharlestonDivision includes Beaufort, Berkeley, Charleston, Clarendon, Colleton, Dorchester, Georgetown, Hampton, and Jasper counties, also known collectively as the "Lowcountry."
Laffitte's Feb. 3 motion for a district-wide jury panel asks the federal court to pull jurors from all four areas for a statewide jury selection.
"A district-wide jury panel serves the principles of fairness, judicial economy, and the interests of justice and will maximize Mr. Laffitte's chances for a fair and impartial trial," argues the motion. "A district-wide jury panel is both appropriate in this case and necessary to safeguard Mr. Laffitte's constitutional right to a fair and impartial trial in this matter."
The motion cites Laffitte's alleged connection with the notorious former personal injury lawyer and convicted murderer Murdaugh, the Laffitte family's legacy banking connections in multiple Lowcountry counties, and the fact that Laffitte still has pending state criminal charges in some of these counties — all of which could potentially prejudice jurors selected from Area C.
"Mr. Murdaugh (formerly a well-known lawyer from a renowned family of Lowcountry lawyers) is now infamous in this state following his 2023 conviction for the alleged murders of his wife and son, in addition to his admitted involvement in multiple fraud schemes," the motion continues. "Mr. Laffitte is no doubt tarnished in the minds of many given his relationship (which was not as close as many in the public apparently believe) and Mr. Laffitte is often referred to as 'the Murdaugh banker'."
The 25-page motion also argues that "pervasive and prejudicial media coverage has saturated the local jury pool with potentially biased information" and cites, in detail, the multiple books, news articles, documentaries and television programs related to Laffitte's case, and connecting him with the internationally followed Murdaugh cases, as well as the "viral podcasts which have sought to villainize Mr. Laffitte."
The motion also includes a chart detailing the numbers of Murdaugh- and Laffitte-related news stories in each federal area from 2001-2025.
Finally, the motion argues that this case is of statewide and national interest and "cries out for the use of a statewide jury" to ensure Laffitte's Sixth Amendment right to a fair trial before an impartial jury.
Laffitte's attorneys cite several federal court precedents in which trial judges have used their discretion to order that a jury must be drawn from an entire federal district or a division of that district.
If Laffitte's motion for a statewide jury panel is denied, his attorneys have also suggested an alternative: an intra-district transfer of venue, which means holding the May retrial in the Greenville, Columbia or Florence divisions.
The motion adds that "the media coverage in this case in Areas A, B, and D has been much less pervasive than the coverage in Area C. Therefore, the transfer of venue to another division will increase the likelihood of assuring Mr. Laffitte receives a fair trial."
Of the options, Laffitte's lawyers appeared to favor the Columbia area, as it would be a closer drive for witnesses from the Lowcountry region, and many of Laffitte's attorneys are located in the area, as well as attorneys for Murdaugh's former law firm and Laffitte's former bank, Palmetto State Bank.
On Feb. 4, Judge Gergel filed an order giving federal prosecutors 10 days to file a motion opposing Laffitte's latest motion.
Federal court filings also reveal that Laffitte has added new attorneys to his legal defense team.
Laffitte is currently represented by Mark C. Moore, Michael A. Parente, Cheryl D. Shoun, and Jada T. Wilson of Maynard Nexsen PC of Columbia, according to the latest motion.
A Feb. 3 notice of appearance filing added another attorney, Shaun C. Kent of the Kent Law Firm LLC of Manning, S.C., to the legal team.
In addition to the federal trial in May, a state criminal trial is also expected for Laffitte in mid-October for state indictments that mirror the federal charges.
Editor's Note: Kent is the attorney representing Richard Alexander "Buster" Murdaugh Jr., the surviving son of Alex Murdaugh, who has filed a defamation lawsuit against several documentary producers who covered the Murdaugh crime saga and related stories. This reporter and Gannett, the ultimate parent of the Guardian, have also been named as defendants.
This article originally appeared on Greenville News: Former Murdaugh banker Laffitte moves for statewide jury, venue change
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
38 minutes ago
- Yahoo
New Jersey Rep. LaMonica McIver indicted following ICE protest
A grand jury indicted Rep. LaMonica McIver (D-N.J.) on a trio of charges, interim U.S. Attorney for New Jersey Alina Habba said Tuesday. The indictment continues the Trump administration's legal attacks against opponents of its immigration policies. And it comes as the administration has sent troops into Los Angeles over immigration protests. The indictment is a required step for prosecutors to keep pressing felony charges announced last month following a scuffle outside an immigration detention facility in Newark involving McIver, two other Democratic members of the New Jersey congressional delegation, the city's mayor and a group of federal law enforcement agents. The three counts, which allege McIver forcibly interfered with law enforcement officials, come with a maximum sentence of 17 years in prison. 'As I have stated in the past, it is my Constitutional obligation as the Chief Federal Law Enforcement Officer for New Jersey to ensure that our federal partners are protected when executing their duties,' Habba said in a social media post. 'While people are free to express their views for or against particular policies, they must not do so in a manner that endangers law enforcement and the communities those officers serve.' In response, McIver said the legal case was 'an effort by Trump's administration to dodge accountability for the chaos ICE caused and scare me out of doing the work I was elected to do.' 'The facts of this case will prove I was simply doing my job and will expose these proceedings for what they are: a brazen attempt at political intimidation,' she said in a statement. The indictment follows a previously announced pair of charges against McIver. It was not immediately available on Tuesday night from a website for the federal courts. Habba's office previously charged Mayor Ras Baraka with a misdemeanor trespassing charge that it has since dropped. A federal judge criticized Habba's office for 'worrisome' and 'embarrassing' blunders in that case. Baraka is now suing Habba. Habba's announcement of the indictment came as polls in the New Jersey gubernatorial primary were about to close, with Baraka on the ballot as a Democratic candidate for governor. A criminal complaint that telegraphed the indictment, filed last month in U.S. District Court in Newark, alleged McIver 'slammed her forearm' into one agent and 'forcibly' grabbed him after they moved to arrest Baraka. The mayor had been invited into a gated area then told to leave it. After he left the gated area, the indictment alleges McIver went outside towards the agents and attempted to thwart the arrest. McIver was also accused of using 'each of her forearms to forcibly strike' another officer, according to the previous complaint, which included multiple photos from video cameras worn by officers, as well as others mounted outside the facility. Reps. Bonnie Watson Coleman and Rob Menendez were also there. Menendez said he saw an Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent shove McIver, a moment which was also filmed. The new charges add a misdemeanor count that appears to cover McIver's alleged interference with other federal officers during the May 9 incident beyond the two identified in the criminal complaint last month. While the Justice Department under President Donald Trump has publicly vowed not to engage in plea bargains in some cases, Habba's post Tuesday did not say her office would push for McIver's conviction on all charges. Instead, she called the indictment 'the next step in a process that my office will pursue to a just end.'
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
Iowa egg supplier denies allegations of human trafficking
Six Guatemalans filed a lawsuit alleging a Centrum Valley Farms supervisor kept this gun displayed in his office and threatened them with deportation as part of a human trafficking operation at the Clarion egg farm. (Main photo courtesy Wright County Assessor's Office; inset photo from federal court filings) An Iowa industrial egg supplier is denying allegations that it engaged in human trafficking or threatened immigrant workers with deportation in retaliation for their complaints. In March, attorneys for six Guatemalan citizens sued Iowa's Centrum Valley Farms and company manager Jose Cornejo in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Iowa. The plaintiffs, all of whom lived in Belmond, Eagle Grove, Clarion or Webster City while working for Centrum Valley Farms, seeks unspecified damages for harassment, discrimination and retaliation; wrongful discharge; human trafficking related to forced labor; violations of wage-and-hour laws related to overtime pay, and violations of the federal Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act. The plaintiffs — Kenny Augusto Tetzaguic Lux, Gerver Noel Marroquin Argueta, Isaias Tevalan Lopez, Consuelo Esperanza Lux Tepaz, Cecilia Angelica Bernal Cobo and Juan Carlos Tetzaguic Lux – claim Centrum Valley Farms recruited them to work at the company's Clarion egg farm and packaging facility and helped them obtain work-authorization documents from the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, with Cornejo acting as their supervisor. On a daily basis, Cornejo, who is Mexican, made 'repeated unwelcome comments disparaging the plaintiffs for their Guatemalan national origin,' the lawsuit claims. Cornejo is accused of telling the plaintiffs all Guatemalans were lazy and that he wanted to replace them with Mexicans or Americans. When the Guatemalans complained about Cornejo to other managers, the lawsuit claims, the harassment allegedly grew worse with Cornejo threatening to have them deported. 'Cornejo even brought a firearm to work, showed it to the plaintiffs, and displayed it in his office to intimidate the plaintiffs and silence their complaints,' the lawsuit claims. Cornejo also is accused of threatening to turn the Guatemalans in to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement if they tried to voluntarily leave their positions at the company. The company eventually terminated the Guatemalans' employment 'in retaliation for their complaints,' the lawsuit adds. On Jan. 25, 2023, Cornejo allegedly brought a firearm to his office and displayed it on his desk to intimidate Lux and the other Guatemalans, according to the lawsuit. One of the other plaintiffs alleges Cornejo referred to him as his 'faithful dog,' his 'slave' and as his 'Guatemalan wetback,' while making him apply pesticides in chicken houses without the necessary protective equipment. In response to the lawsuit, Centrum Valley Farms has denied any wrongdoing and claimed more than a dozen affirmative defenses. For example, the company alleges the plaintiffs failed to take advantage of corrective or preventative opportunities to avoid any harm, and that the Guatemalans' claims of harassment are barred because the workers cannot show that any such conduct was so severe or pervasive that it affected their employment. To the extent that any discriminatory or retaliatory conduct was committed by an employee of Centrum Valley Farms, the company states, the conduct fell outside the scope of the employee's authority and was contrary to Centrum Valley Farm's 'good-faith efforts to comply with state and federal law.' A trial date has yet to be scheduled. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
He Fell Behind on His Taxes. So the Government Seized His Home, Sold It, and Kept the $258,000 Profit.
First the government seized Kenneth Michael Sikorsky's home and all of its equity over a tax debt worth far less than what it took. Now a federal court has ruled that Sikorsky has successfully stated a claim for a taking—an early sign that the legal landscape is shifting since the Supreme Court weighed in on these sorts of seizures two years ago. In 2012, the city of Newburgh, New York, foreclosed on Sikorsky's house after he fell behind on his property taxes. The parties were later able to broker an agreement that allowed him to repurchase the home for the price of his outstanding debt. But he was unable to satisfy those regular installments, prompting the city to cancel the sale. The government later found another buyer who could pay much more than the value of Sikorsky's debt, which with penalties, interest, and fees stood at $92,786.24. The sale went through in June 2021 for $350,500. The city then pocketed the profit: $257,713.76. Sikorsky is far from the first person to experience this nightmare scenario. But his case coincided with a petition that would upend the practice nationwide. Geraldine Tyler argued that the practice was unconstitutional after Hennepin County, Minnesota, seized her Minneapolis condo over a modest tax debt, sold it, and kept the profit. This worked its way through the court system until 2023, when the Supreme Court sided with Tyler. "A taxpayer who loses her $40,000 house to the State to fulfill a $15,000 tax debt has made a far greater contribution to the public fisc than she owed," wrote Chief Justice John Roberts for the unanimous Court. "The taxpayer must render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, but no more." The decision centered around the Takings Clause of the 5th Amendment, which says the government cannot take private property without providing "just compensation." So foreclosing on a property to collect a debt is constitutional, but pocketing the profit is not. Sikorsky's suit made it to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York shortly after that ruling. Sounds like perfect timing, yet the court ruled against him. But now the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has ruled that he can, in fact, sue for his equity under the Takings Clause, resuscitating his suit and sending it back to the district court for review. While the high court ruled the practice unconstitutional, several states—including Arizona, Alabama, New Jersey, and Sikorsky's home of New York—responded by passing labyrinthine debt collection statutes that seek to technically comply with the law while simultaneously making it difficult for property owners to collect their surplus equity. Michigander Chelsea Koetter, for example, lost her house in 2021 over a $3,863.40 tax debt. Manistee County, Michigan, then auctioned it off and kept the $102,636 profit. But the state's supreme court had already ruled the practice illegal in 2020—after which the Legislature approved a debt-collection law that sends owners on an obstacle course should they want to get their leftover equity back. Koetter, according to her complaint, submitted a form 8 days late, which the government said justified its decision to keep her six figures of equity. In Sikorsky's case, New York's new statute applies only to people whose properties were sold on or after May 25, 2023, so he will get to proceed under the Takings Clause of the U.S. Constitution instead. But future plaintiffs who lose everything after falling on hard times may find it much harder to recover their money. The post He Fell Behind on His Taxes. So the Government Seized His Home, Sold It, and Kept the $258,000 Profit. appeared first on
