I ended up watching this because I noticed the Murdaugh trial was being broadcast live on YouTube, so I tuned in. After seeing about thirty minutes of the actual trial proceedings, I looked for some background information with this series. It strikes me as strange to present a show about an intricate situation like this before key elements have been brought before a court. Could it possibly compromise the jury pool? Perhaps it wouldn’t matter if legal processes didn't sometimes move so deliberately. The backstory was captivating, though. The appeal of scandal is difficult to ignore. I am hoping that the information presented is largely correct, because it does present a particular viewpoint and identifies individuals, and accuracy should be prioritized over sensationalism in a documentary about criminal allegations. It’s true that the jury's decision appeared to confirm one of the documentary’s suggestions, but beyond that, it’s hard to say for sure. It’s simple to jump to negative conclusions regarding affluent and influential families. Is it really necessary to have a preliminary judgment through a documentary before everything is resolved? I don’t know.

Source on TMDB