Alex Murdaugh after being denied a new trial on Jan. 29, 2024. (Law&Crime Network)
A South Carolina judge has denied a new trial for disgraced lawyer Alex Murdaugh, who was convicted of killing his wife and son.
Retired State Supreme Court Justice Jean Toal heard testimony from the jury panel at Murdaugh’s first trial, including one juror who said her decision was directly influenced by comments from Colleton County Clerk of Court Rebecca “Becky” Hill.
Hill testified on Monday that she did not make any comments to jurors implying Murdaugh’s guilt.
The court did not believe certain aspects of the elected court clerk’s testimony – but ultimately denied the defendant’s bid for a new trial on the basis that Hill did not actually influence the jury.
“This case is unique,” Toal said before the ruling – saying allegations of improper contact typically occur during or shortly after a trial. Here, the judge said, it was now 10 months later – and only being raised on appeal. Nothing like this had ever occurred in her 35 years serving on the Palmetto State’s highest court, she added.
The court, rubbishing standards of review advanced by both the state and defense, said the law she consulted to reach her decision would only grant a new trial if Hill made an “improper comment” and if Murdaugh suffered “prejudice” due to the comment. Here, Toal admitted, an appellate court might apply a different standard.
“I find that the clerk of court is not completely credible as a witness,” Toal said, adding that Hill made improper comments before and during the trial because she was “attracted by the siren call of celebrity.”
During the evidentiary hearing, a woman who served as a juror during Alex Murdaugh‘s double murder trial testified that her decision to find the disgraced lawyer guilty was based on comments made by Hill. Remarking upon that claim, Toal said the juror was “somewhat ambivalent” and, in any event, had accepted the verdict as her own when asked under oath on numerous occasions.
The Murdaugh jurors take the stand
“Did you hear Miss Becky Hill make any comment about this case before your verdict?” Toal asked.
“Yes, ma’am,” the woman identified as “Juror Z” replied.
Continuing to read from a standard list of questions asked of each juror testifying, the judge asked: “If yes, what did Miss Hill say?”
Juror Z replied that Hill told the jury “to watch his actions” and “to watch him closely.” The woman went on to say that Hill made other comments about Murdaugh, but, she did not remember them.
The judge then moved on to the heart of the matter.
The juror replied: “Yes, ma’am.”
The judge then clarified the question-and-answer. Again the juror replied with an affirmative answer.
“And how was it influenced?” the judge pressed.
“To me, it made it seem like he was already guilty,” the juror said.
“I understand that,” Toal replied. “That’s the tenor of the remarks she made. Did that affect your finding of ‘guilty’ in this case?”
“Yes, ma’am,” the juror said.
After some back-and-forth between the state and the defense about alleged distinctions between Juror Z’s Monday testimony and an earlier affidavit outlining her experience during the trial, the bailiff came up to the judge to relay some relevant information.
“Counsel, I have to report this to you,” Toal said, standing up and visibly upset. “And I am very very unhappy about it. But there’s nothing to do but put it on the record and then I will proceed with questioning the rest of the jurors. The jurors’ cellphones were not confiscated or taken from them. And they just — tuned this thing in on Court TV and listened to all what went on.”
A brief recess was called after the phone mishap was shared. Toal, for her part, said she was not going to cancel the day’s proceedings.
During the remainder of the hearing, 10 additional jurors were called to the stand. Each of those jurors were asked whether they heard Hill make any comments about the case prior to deliberations.
One man, identified for Monday’s purposes as “Juror P,” said he did hear Hill make comments to “watch his body language” on the day Murdaugh testified in his own defense over the murder allegations.
The other jurors were also asked whether Hill had any impact on their verdict. Each juror, in turn, including Juror P, answered in the negative.
Taking stock of the cellular phone issue, most of the other jurors were asked if they used their phones to view Juror Z’s prior testimony. Two jurors said they did; most of those asked said they did not.
Murdaugh’s defense team is pushing for a new trial on the premise Hill made several prejudicial remarks about their client while exercising the authority of her office. Attorneys Dick Harpootlian and Jim Griffin also claim Hill manufactured an elaborate hoax to have a clearly pro-Murdaugh juror booted from the jury on the eve of deliberations.
On March 2, 2023, after a trial taking up the better part of six weeks, Murdaugh’s peers found him guilty on all counts against him in the Colleton County Courthouse, where he long practiced law.
In that proceeding, he was ultimately convicted of killing his wife, Margaret “Maggie” Murdaugh, 52, with an AR-style rifle and their youngest son, Paul Murdaugh, 22, with a shotgun in the dog kennels at the family’s expansive hunting lodge known as Moselle.
In September 2023, in a press conference and court filings, Harpootlian and Griffin highlighted several alleged instances of jury tampering by the court official during Murdaugh’s trial.
South Carolina case law leans heavily toward the convicted criminal defendant in such instances. And if the allegations are substantiated and found true, the once-powerful trial lawyer will likely be entitled to a new trial. A major procedural hurdle was cleared in October 2023.
More Law&Crime coverage: ‘A calamity of errors’: Defense gripes as juror is tossed from Alex Murdaugh trial on eve of deliberations
On Friday last week, the foreperson of the Murdaugh jury testified that Hill spoke to them prior to the defendant’s testimony. The foreperson said Hill framed the since-convicted lawyer’s time on the stand as likely to be “epic” or something along those lines.
The Monday hearing went to recess for lunch just after 11:45 a.m. EST. Hill herself took the stand later on Monday afternoon.
The embattle clerk of court testifies
Under direct examination by lead prosecutor Creighton Waters, Hill denied ever speaking with jurors about the facts or merits of the case.
The state made references to several specific phrases the clerk allegedly used to influence jurors. Those phrases include: “not to be fooled,” “watch him closely and look at his actions,” and “look at his movements.” Each time, Hill said she never said any such thing.
When asked if she ever made any comment about whether the defendant was going to testify, Hill acknowledged that she did but with the caveat that her comments were not “directly related to the jurors.” Rather, Hill said she was talking to the bailiff for the jurors. During this recalled conversation, Hill said she was discussing how the judge allowed the introduction of additional financial evidence “which would prolong the testimony in the trial a little bit” and that Murdaugh himself had decided to testify. She acknowledged jurors were standing in line in the hallway while she talked with the bailiff.
On cross-examination, Harpootlian began by noting that Hill was friendly and helpful to him during the six-week-long trial. Hill agreed. Murdaugh’s lead attorney put a point on that line of inquiry to say he just wanted to “disabuse” the clerk of the notion that his questioning was in any way antagonistic towards her.
The cross-examination spanned several topics including the book Hill co-wrote with a journalist after the trial – with the suggestion that she made comments during the trial about planning to write the book in order to make a lot of money. Hill denied making such comments. In the end, she said, she made around $100,000 from the book.
Harpootlian’s questioning repeatedly struck on the notion that Hill had told Barnwell County Clerk of Court Rhonda McElveen that if Murdaugh was found guilty she would sell more books. Again, Hill denied ever making any comments to that effect.
One line of questioning likely to be reprised in later witness testimony during the hearing concerns an allegation that Hill and a bailiff gave a juror a ride in a car on one occasion. In response to several permutations of the question, Hill adamantly denied she had done so.
The defense also outlined several instances in Hill’s book where certain facts are “made up” or assumed. Hill attributed those claims to “poetic license” and “literary ease” while Harpootlian put on a show of righteous indignation about the clerk’s alleged “lies.”
Over an objection from the state, the defense was finally able to raise the allegation that Hill had created controversy where none existed over a Facebook post that resulted in the pro-Murdaugh juror being tossed. Toal advised Harpootlian that this line of questioning was to be limited but substantial time was dedicated to the issue. In the end, Hill admitted to bringing the post to the court’s attention.
Indeed, the judge herself later raised the issue of the Facebook post and the allegations against the removed juror with Hill at length.
Oftentimes appearing to struggle, Hill was repeatedly accused by the judge of asking the juror questions about the posts – or otherwise speaking with the juror – before speaking with the judge about the claims made in a Facebook group. The clerk, sometimes struggling to account for specifics, insisted she did not.
“Do you have any more books in the works?” Harpootlian asked the witness penultimately.
“No, sir,” she replied.
“Wouldn’t this make a good book?” the attorney asked again.
Hill did not answer.
Another clerk of court testifies
Late in the afternoon, McElveen took the stand and directly contradicted several things Hill had testified to earlier in the day.
“Did she ever discuss with you that she was going to write a book?” Harpootlian asked.
“Yes, sir,” McElveen replied. “That she wanted to write a book.”
The Barnwell County clerk said the subject matter of the book would be the Murdaugh trial – adding that Hill said, prior to the start of the trial, that a guilty verdict would help with book sales.
“She said we might want to write a book because she needed a lake house and I needed to retire.” McElveen testified.
During “further conversations,” the second court averred, and “several times,” Hill said that a guilty verdict would sell more books.
Earlier in the day, Hill had been asked directly by Harpootlian if she ever made a comment about writing the book in order to buy herself a lake house. Hill told the attorney she never said that.
McElveen also contradicted another denial of improper behavior – this time involving a juror in the trial.
“One morning, I showed up to Colleton County and I was told that she had taken a juror home the night before,” she testified. “And I was in the courtroom and I saw her. And it was between the pews and where the back row pews are. And I mentioned to Miss Becky, I said: ‘Please tell me you didn’t take a juror home last night.’ And she told me, she said: ‘I did. But I didn’t talk about the case. I had a bailiff with me. Mr. Bill was with me.’ I said, ‘Becky, you don’t do things like that.””
What’s next
At least some of Murdaugh’s allegations were borne out on the record to a shocked Palmetto State gallery. And, though the convicted man did not convince the judge on the governing law on Monday, they took the development in stride by saying that the judge accepted their version of the facts – or at least a large number of those facts.
The immediate impact of the ruling will be to unpause the appeals process in the case – which had been stalled while the new trial motion played out. Murdaugh’s attorneys will then fold their new trial request into their appeal before the South Carolina Court of Appeals.
“She made it very clear that the law in this area is unsettled at best and that means it’s ripe for appeal.” Harpootlian said during a press conference on the courthouse steps after the bench ruling.
“So, the facts are settled. Becky Hill – not credible,” the attorney went on. “The judge found in fact that the statements were made to the jurors. She just found that we couldn’t show prejudice but conceded that we may not have to show that if she’s wrong about the law and the law is unsettled.”
