Murdaugh Murder Movie: Mistake?

On Oct. 14 and 15, 2023, Lifetime TV premiered "Murdaugh Murders: The Movie." The two-part series was a dramatization of the sensational true-life story of Alex Murdaugh, the scion of a well-established South Carolina legal dynasty, who was convicted of killing his wife and son and sentenced to life in prison.

That the movie played a mere seven weeks after the conviction was due as much to the imminence of a Hollywood writers' strike, as it was to the salacious nature of the story. And the story was indeed salacious. Murdaugh was found guilty of the double homicide while also facing more than 100 other criminal charges. He has vowed to appeal his conviction to the Supreme Court.

A number of questions have emerged among the movie's interested audience. How might the made-for-TV drama affect the ongoing case? Could producers, directors, actors, and others involved in the production face liability? By releasing a dramatized, casted film of the case on the heels of Murdaugh's conviction, have those parties put Murdaugh's chances at a successful appeal at risk?

While the movie is a dramatic reenactment of actual events, it is a fictionalized account of those events. The producers posted prominent disclaimers at the start of the movie to protect themselves from charges that the film was not entirely truthful or accurate. Yes, they took creative liberties to spice things up and keep the audience riveted, but they also went to great lengths to ensure that the on-screen story was as true to the actual facts as possible - without losing viewers. It was an intricate bit of choreography.

As did the real-life trial, the TV movie focuses on the disconnects and inconsistencies in Murdaugh's stories. It injects doubts about Murdaugh's claims of innocence, referencing video evidence, blood spatters and a mysterious blue jacket. The audience cannot help but conclude, as did the jury, that Murdaugh is guilty. Ultimately, the movie places him squarely at the crime scene. As the court clerk reads "guilty," the camera zooms in on Murdaugh's face the night of the murders. He is wearing a blue raincoat and holding a weapon.

This is certainly not the first time Hollywood has rushed to capitalize on a sensational crime. Lifetime initiated a movie shoot even before the trial ended in 2013's "Prosecuting Casey Anthony." As with the Murdaugh movie, it was a fictionalized view of the case featuring actors and a prominent disclaimer. Rarely have such movies had a meaningful impact on a case, even one - such as Murdaugh's - for which an appeal was still pending.

Only if the true-crime movie actually introduced new evidence that could change the trial outcome might it impact the legal process. In the Murdaugh case, such evidence is highly unlikely, given the amount of material presented at trial. Given that Murdaugh has already been charged with the crimes and will likely spend the rest of his life behind bars, he could not be further harmed by any new evidence.

In contrast, the 2015 documentary about Robert Durst introduced new evidence that likely played a key role in murder charges subsequently being filed against him. "The Jinx" was not a fictionalized dramatization of the subject but a serious documentary that included Durst's own words on camera. The Netflix docuseries "Surviving R. Kelly" similarly provided material that was later used by prosecutors to bring charges against the musician. These were actual interviews with and statements from Kelly's alleged victims - not material written for the movie and read by actors.

By portraying Murdaugh as a fallen man who struggled with drugs and debt, and ultimately murdered his loved ones, could the producers of the TV movie face a defamation claim? When HBO aired "Winning Time," about the Los Angeles Lakers organization, many took exception to how they were depicted. But when a disclaimer is broad enough and clearly indicates that the project is fiction, there should be no serious risk of liability. Additionally, there was huge public interest in the Murdaugh story, making him a public figure for which the defamation bar would be much higher.

Lifetime, Netflix and other networks will not look a gift horse in the mouth. True crime pays off in ratings and other important metrics. As long as counsel makes sure that clear disclaimers are posted at the start of each episode and poetic license is properly restrained, expect to see a steady menu of sensational made-for-TV movies.

Camron Dowlatshahi is a founding partner at Mills Sadat Dowlat LLP.