Alex Murdaugh’s Attorneys Bolster His Case For A New Trial

Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...

Attorneys for convicted killer Alex Murdaugh bolstered his bid for a new trial on Wednesday by submitting a detailed pre-hearing brief with the South Carolina supreme court. The filing – which refuted several arguments made by the state in its opposition to Murdaugh’s request for a new trial – was submitted in anticipation of a public status conference in the case scheduled for Tuesday, January 16, 2024 in front of former S.C. chief justice Jean Toal.

Toal – who led the high court from 2000-2015 – was appointed to hear the Murdaugh matter last month by her successor, current chief justice Donald Beatty, after circuit court judge Clifton Newman recused himself from hearing further motions related to the case.

The evidentiary hearing to determine whether Murdaugh should receive a new trial is set to begin on Monday, January 29, 2024.

Beatty also issued an order (.pdf) on Wednesday removing embattled Colleton County clerk of court Becky Hill as the clerk of record in the Murdaugh case, transferring those responsibilities to the clerk’s office in the supreme court. According to Beatty, “it would be inappropriate for documents to be filed in Colleton County” given that the entire case now revolves around allegations against Hill.

Following a six-week, internationally watched spectacle dubbed the “Trial of the Century” in South Carolina, Murdaugh was convicted on March 2, 2023 of killing his wife, 52-year-old Maggie Murdaugh, and younger son, 22-year-old Paul Murdaugh, at the family’s hunting property. The following day – March 3, 2023 – he was sentenced to consecutive life terms for those crimes by Newman.

Those sentences are now in jeopardy after Hill was accused of tampering with the jury – ostensibly in order to sell copies of her book, Behind the Doors of Justice.

***

According to Wednesday’s brief (.pdf), Murdaugh’s argument is simple: If Hill improperly communicated with jurors about the case – as they alleged in a bombshell motion originally submitted last September – that’s the ballgame. Her alleged tampering – described as “extensive, deliberate, and self-interested” – wouldn’t necessarily have had to create an acknowledged bias in the minds of jurors.

“Mr. Murdaugh does not need to show actual bias on the part of any juror to obtain a new trial.” attorneys Dick Harpootlian, Jim Griffin, Phillip Barber and Margaret Fox argued in the brief. “If Mr. Murdaugh proves his allegation that Ms. Hill communicated with the jury about the evidence presented by the defense during his murder trial, South Carolina and federal law require that Mr. Murdaugh receive a new trial, irrespective of whether the court believes the outcome of the trial would have been the same had Ms. Hill’s jury tampering not occurred.”

“If Mr. Murdaugh proves that (Hill) engaged in surreptitious advocacy on the merits during trial, there is nothing for the state to rebut,” they argued in another section of the brief. “A new trial is required.”

Prosecutors in the office of S.C. attorney general Alan Wilson have argued the contrary – stating that no juror has come forward claiming that Hill’s alleged tampering swayed their views of Murdaugh’s guilt or innocence. Wilson’s office has maintained for Murdaugh to receive a new trial, he must prove that tampering occurred – and that it influence the jury’s deliberations.

According to Murdaugh’s lawyers, that’s not the standard – and furthermore they alleged the state “can cite no authority supporting that position.” According to them, the issue isn’t what jurors did (or didn’t do) with any information allegedly received from Hill – it’s that they heard from Hill about the case in the first place. And specifically, that they heard from her on matters related to the case.

“A state official argued the merits of the evidence presented to jurors during trial outside of the presence of the court, the defendant, and his counsel, and in other ways deliberately and surreptitiously used her official authority to direct the verdict to her preferred outcome,” Murdaugh’s attorneys alleged. “Even if every juror were to testify that he or she would have reached the same verdict regardless of Ms. Hill’s tampering, a new trial is required if it is proven that Ms. Hill communicated with jurors about the merits of the evidence presented.”

(Click to View)

***

Defense attorneys cited multiple cases previously referenced by prosecutors – including State v. Green (.pdf) – offering additional context on those decisions. In the Green case, which was filed in November 2020, a bailiff in a murder trial weighed in on a procedural question asked by a juror – a communication which was ultimately deemed harmless because it addressed court processes and did not go to the merits of the case.

“(Green) has no relevance here because Ms. Hill’s alleged statements to jurors indisputably bore on the merits,” defense attorneys argued. “There is no suggestion in Green that a comment by a state official that did bear on the merits of the case could also be harmless.”

In addition to zeroing in on the case law, defense attorneys took direct aim at Hill – who has seen her credibility collapse over the last few months amid swirling ethics probes, criminal investigations and related allegations.

“The state’s rhetoric about Ms. Hill being ‘a dedicated public servant’ unfairly maligned has not aged well in the two months since (it) filed its response, to put it mildly,” Murdaugh’s attorneys wrote. “Ms. Hill is alleged to have stolen money, illegally sold access to the courthouse, conspired with her son to conduct illegal wiretaps, and even had her book removed from publication because of her plagiarism.”

The filing further referenced emails obtained by this media outlet in a recent Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request from Colleton County – emails which revealed Hill was communicating with prosecutors during the trial.

“Emails released to journalists in response to FOIA requests show that Ms. Hill was sending emails directly to prosecutors and law enforcement witnesses for the state during trial about the merits of testimony from defense witnesses under examination at that moment,” the filing noted.

An exhibit (.pdf) submitted with the complaint documented two such emails, in which Hill forwarded observations about the testimony of a defense expert to lead prosecutor Creighton Waters, his paralegal Carly Jewell and S.C. State Law Enforcement Division (SLED) Charles Ghent.

(Click to View)

(Via: S.C. Supreme Court)

These emails are significant because they indicate Hill was not only eager to assist the prosecution – thus invalidating her claim to be a neutral party (i.e. “Switzerland”) – but that she assisted them in a manner eerily consistent with the improper statements she is alleged to have made to jurors.

Not only that, Hill’s cooperation with prosecutors took place at the precise moment during the trial when she was alleged to have told at least one juror “not to be fooled by the evidence presented by Murdaugh’s attorneys,” according to an affidavit they submitted along with Murdaugh’s original motion for a new trial.

Further complicating matters, Hill’s emails to Waters, et al. could also raise the possibility of each of these individuals being compelled to appear as fact witnesses in the case.

Murdaugh’s attorneys also raised the question of whether Hill would invoke Fifth Amendment right not to incriminate herself and refuse to testify – thus dealing a potentially fatal blow to the state’s position that Murdaugh does not deserve a new trial.

“If she asserts the Fifth Amendment in response to any question, she should be instructed to answer the question, and if she refuses, her testimony should be struck in its entirety,” they wrote. “If the court were to decide pre-hearing that it cannot credit Ms. Hill over the sworn testimony of any juror, it is likely that the hearing would consist only of court-conducted in camera examination of jurors. This would also avoid potential Fifth Amendment issues regarding Ms. Hill. It is unlikely the state would agree to that since it is likely the state can prevail only if the court finds Ms. Hill to be credible.”

Wilson’s office had no comment on the latest defense filing.

“We won’t comment outside of court filings and comments made inside the courtroom,” Wilson spokeswoman Claire Brady said.

***

THE FILING …

(Via: S.C. Supreme Court)