LIVE | SC v. Alex Murdaugh. New Trial. Here we go again.

The South Carolina Supreme Court reversed Alex Murdaugh's murder conviction, citing that Colleton County Clerk of Court Rebecca Hill 'placed her fingers on the scales of justice,' denying Murdaugh his right to a fair trial by an impartial jury. The court stated that despite the efforts of attorneys and the trial judge, Hill's improper external influences on the jury necessitated a new trial.

The South Carolina Supreme Court's opinion explicitly states: 'Colton County Clerk of Court Rebecca Hill placed her fingers on the scales of justice... thereby denying Murdoch his right to a fair trial by an impartial jury.'

Rebecca Hill, the Clerk of Court, made several improper comments to jurors, including advising them 'not to be fooled by the evidence presented by Mr. Murdo's attorney,' to 'watch him closely' during testimony, and stating that deliberations 'shouldn't take us long.' Her motivations were rooted in personal gain, as she repeatedly told a colleague she wanted to write a book to 'buy a lakehouse' and believed a guilty verdict would boost sales. She also brokered media appearances for jurors and engaged in other unethical conduct.

Juror Z's affidavit detailed Hill's comments, and Rhonda Meline, Barnwell County Clerk of Court, testified that Hill 'repeatedly told her she wanted to write a book so she could buy a lakehouse and a guilty verdict would be the best way to sell books.'

The South Carolina Supreme Court changed its legal standard, now presuming prejudice when a court official, such as the Clerk of Court, improperly influences a jury. This aligns the state's standard more closely with federal law, where the burden shifts to the prosecution to rebut the presumption of prejudice, rather than requiring the defense to prove it.

The Supreme Court stated: 'We agree with Murdo. Prejudice is presumed from Hill's comments. And while this presumption is rebuttable, the state failed to overcome this presumption.' The host notes this is a change in South Carolina's standard to align with federal law.

Justice Tol, who presided over the post-trial motion, found Rebecca Hill to be an incredible witness, noting her desire for public attention and her willingness to lie under oath. Hill pled guilty to perjury for denying she allowed the press to view sealed exhibits, including graphic images of the victims.

Justice Tol 'determined that Hill's denial of making these statements was not credible,' and Hill 'subsequently plead guilty to perjury stemming from this denial.'

The South Carolina Supreme Court has explicitly changed its case law to adopt the federal Reamer standard, which applies when there is external influence on a jury from a state actor. This means that any private communication, contact, or tampering with a juror during a trial about the pending matter is presumptively prejudicial. The burden then shifts heavily to the prevailing party (the state) to prove there was no reasonable possibility the verdict was influenced.

The court clarifies today that when faced with a third party's improper contact with a juror, our courts should follow the Fourth Circuit's three-step analysis as set forth in Cheek. This case is now binding precedent and changes the standard South Carolina applies when there is external influence on the jury from a state actor.

The Supreme Court found that former Clerk of Court Becky Hill's comments to jurors were 'more than innocuous interventions' and directly undermined the defense. Her statements, such as urging jurors 'not to be fooled by the evidence presented by Murdo's attorneys' and to 'watch Murdo's body language closely,' transformed her into a 'character witness on behalf of the state' and essentially implored jurors to find Murdaugh guilty. The court used strong language like 'breathtaking and disgraceful effort' and 'egregious, improper jury interference.'

We hold that Murdo established Hill made comments that the day Murdified was going to be epic or important and urged jurors not to be fooled, confused, thrown off, or convinced by Murdo and to watch Murdo's body language closely. Hill became a character witness on behalf of the state encouraging the jurors to question Murdo's credibility. Hill's egregious, improper jury interference went to the heart of the case and unquestionably was intended to push the jury to a guilty verdict.

The Supreme Court agreed that evidence of Murdaugh's extensive financial crimes was relevant to establish motive for the murders. However, they unanimously held that the first trial allowed the state to go 'far too long and far too deep' into these details, creating 'considerable danger of unfair prejudice.' This guidance instructs the trial court to restrict the extent of such evidence in the new trial to maintain a fair balance between probative value and potential for prejudice.

We unanimously hold that the trial court allowed the state to go far too long and far too deep into aspect aspects of Murdo's financial crimes that were not probitative of the state's theory of motive which gave rise to considerable danger of unfair prejudice and therefore should have been excluded.

The court clarified that while jurors can testify about improper external comments, they cannot testify about the comments' effects on their deliberative process or mental state in reaching a verdict. The post-trial court erred in questioning a juror about whether Hill's statements or other jurors' conversations were more persuasive, as this violated Rule 606b of the South Carolina rules of evidence.

We find that the plain language of rule 606b authorizers, excuse me, authorizes jurors to testify about improper extraneous comments by a third party but not on the comments effects of the juror's deliberative process. Thus, the portion of Jerz's affidavit in which she disclosed her mental process in reaching her verdict was inadmissible.

The South Carolina Supreme Court found that former Clerk of Court Rebecca Hill 'egregiously attacked Murdo's credibility and his defense,' triggering the 'reamer presumption' of prejudice. This external interference was deemed so severe that it undermined Murdaugh's right to a fair trial, necessitating the reversal of his murder conviction.

The court's conclusion stated Hill's 'shocking jury interference was accomplished outside the presence and knowledge of the outstanding trial judge and the superbly competent and professional council for the state and defense.'

While the Supreme Court criticized the state for spending 12.5 hours on financial crimes testimony, calling it 'inflammatory details with little to no probative value' for the murder motive, this was considered 'dicta'—non-binding advice—rather than a direct cause for overturning the conviction. The court advised efficiency and relevance if this evidence is presented in a retrial.

The court stated, 'We do intend to require, however, that if the trial court decides to admit evidence of Murdo's financial crimes on retrial, the state must complete its introduction of that evidence efficiently without the lengthy presentation or inflammatory details with little to no probative value that was permitted in the first trial.'

Attorney General Alan Wilson confirmed the state's intention to seek a 'speedy retrial' for Murdaugh, aiming for it before the end of 2026. This decision is driven by the commitment to justice for the victims, even though Murdaugh is already serving decades in prison for financial crimes and the retrial will incur significant taxpayer costs.

Wilson stated, 'It is currently my intention to seek a speedy retrial in the case against Alec Murdo.' He also addressed cost concerns by saying, 'When people are murdered... they have a right to have their case adjudicated in court... we're not going to let that be a factor in our decision to move forward.'

Murdaugh's defense attorneys, Dick Harpootlian and Jim Griffin, expressed strong confidence that a new trial, stripped of the prejudicial financial crime evidence and jury tampering, would result in an acquittal. They firmly stated Murdaugh would 'never plead guilty' to the murders. However, they admitted they are not being paid for the second trial and will need to find avenues to fund expert witnesses, which cost $600,000 in the first trial.

Jim Griffin stated, 'He will never plead guilty. Killing his wife and son. I promise you.' When asked about payment, he said, 'We got paid to try the first case... there's no more money left... it's a lost leader right now. We're doing it. We're not getting paid, but we're going to see it through.'