Convicted ex-SC banker Laffitte’s guilty verdict should stand, federal prosecutors say

Government prosecutors say the guilty verdicts against convicted former South Carolina bank executive Russell Laffitte should stand, contending in a new court filing that the defense has no grounds to overturn the jury’s decision.

Challenges to the verdict, handed down Nov. 22 in a Charleston federal courtroom, are “belated and meritless,” government prosecutors said.

Laffitte, 51, who took the stand and testified for some five hours in his own defense, was found guilty on six counts of conspiracy, bank and wire fraud and misapplication of bank funds. Evidence alleged he had illegally spent or extended more than $1.8 million in bank money on Alex Murdaugh’s behalf and earned hundreds of thousands of dollars himself from trust funds he was supposed to oversee.

Laffitte’s attorneys have asked federal Judge Richard Gergel for a new trial, arguing in their own court filings that the judge improperly dismissed two jurors.

“Following nearly ten hours of deliberations, two jurors were improperly dismissed and replaced with alternates, only to have a newly constituted jury return a guilty verdict 40 minutes later,” the defense motion said. “One of those jurors requested removal based on her dissenting status, and the error in her removal constitutes a miscarriage of justice.”

The high-profile white collar trial put disgraced South Carolina lawyer and accused murderer Murdaugh in the spotlight. Murdaugh was an unindicted co-conspirator in Laffitte’s case. Twenty-three witnesses, including lawyers from Murdaugh’s former law firm and employees and board members of Laffitte’s bank, testified over three weeks.

Murdaugh worked for what was formerly Peters Murdaugh Parker Eltzroth & Detrick; Laffitte was CEO of Palmetto State Bank. Both businesses were headquartered in Hampton in the Lowcountry.

Numerous prosecution witnesses testified that frauds committed by Laffitte over an 11-year period were carried out at Murdaugh’s behest.

“None of this would have happened without Alex Murdaugh, but none of it could have happened without (Laffitte),” lead federal prosecutor Emily Limehouse told the jury in her 70-minute closing argument.

Gergel has not yet responded to the lawyers’ requests.

Under court rules, jurors are not supposed to bully or harass other jurors for having an independent opinion of the evidence that doesn’t go along with the majority’s.

In recent court filings, defense lawyers said they have interviewed some of the jurors and are seeking a hearing at which to air information gleaned from those interviews.

Affidavits from the two jurors Gergel removed will describe “improper influences on jury deliberations,” their experiences as jurors, and the circumstances surrounding their removal, according to a defense filing.

Specifically, defense lawyers said, they object to Gergel’s dismissing the two jurors without telling lawyers for the defense and prosecution in advance and explaining his reasons for doing so.

Without announcing his decision, Gergel removed the two jurors, then replaced them with two alternate jurors.

In open court, after the verdict was read, Gergel told defense attorneys that he had explained in advance the procedure by which he might remove jurors.

“You know, folks, to come in after the fact here, after the Court laid it all out and we agreed on a process, I thought it was very clear, and I did — but there’s a record of her I don’t think anybody would really question. It’s all on the record about what she told me,” according to a court transcript of Gergel talking about one of the dismissed jurors.

The court transcript continues with Gergel saying, “I try to be as transparent as I could. ... I interviewed the juror, who was plainly incapable of continuing, and she was in an emotional meltdown. And I removed her. And that’s what I understood y’all — we had agreed that I would interview her and I would make a decision.”

Prosecutors argued, “The Court (Gergel) had more than sufficient factual support to find the two jurors could no longer serve and needed to be replaced with alternates.”

Defense lawyers failed to meet the “heavy burden” needed to show that Laffitte is entitled to a new trial, they argued.

“(Their) motion should be denied,” they said.