Later status: South Carolina ordered a new murder trial in May 2026. These interviews concern the earlier verdict and should be read as historical accounts. [1]

After Alex Murdaugh’s first trial, several jurors spoke publicly about the evidence and their experience. The interviews added individual voices to the record. They did not turn the verdict into a written explanation from the whole jury, and they did not settle questions that later reached the courts.

Craig Moyer and the kennel video

In his March 3 ABC News interview, juror Craig Moyer identified the cellphone video recorded near the family’s dog kennels as central to his decision. He said he recognized Alex’s voice. Moyer also described Alex’s later admission on the witness stand that he had been there, despite earlier denials. [2]

Moyer gave his own account of the start of deliberations: nine jurors initially favored guilt, two favored innocence and one was unsure. He said the discussion changed the holdouts’ positions in about 45 minutes. Those figures are attributed to Moyer’s interview. They are not an official record of the full time between the jury beginning its discussion and returning its verdict. [2]

Three jurors spoke with TODAY

On March 6, TODAY published an interview with James McDowell, Gwen Generette and Amie Williams. The program identified the conversation as covering the trial, deliberations, the speed of the guilty verdict and Alex’s decision to testify. The original broadcast link gives readers a route to those public accounts. [3]

James McDowell’s Court TV interview

Court TV then published its interview with McDowell. Its description identifies discussion of the verdict’s speed, possible motive, the missing weapons, clothing and other disputed trial details. These were topics in a juror interview. A topic appearing in that conversation does not, by itself, establish where a missing object went or what happened to it. [4]

Personal accounts and the court record

A juror can explain what stood out to them, but the formal verdict records the jury’s answers to the charges. Interviews may be selective, edited, or focused on a host’s questions. Readers can learn from them while keeping the speaker, date and setting attached to each statement.

The later new-trial decision is a separate legal development. The state announced that it would prosecute the murder charges again, and that Alex would remain imprisoned for his separate financial convictions. These earlier interviews do not replace that later status or supply a verdict in the new proceeding. [1]

Why It Matters

These interviews show which parts of the first trial some jurors chose to discuss publicly. Careful attribution preserves their voices without turning a recollection into an official finding. It also protects readers from hearing an old interview and mistaking it for a statement about the retrial.

What Happens Next

The current case record must follow the new proceeding on its own terms. Visit the Maggie and Paul case page for the present legal status and the case timeline for the distinction between the first trial, these interviews and the later appeal.