Can Alex Murdaugh Sue Becky Hill? Federal Judge Faces Rare Legal Questions

Even when South Carolina’s lawyers know that some national eyes will be on what they say in,, and/or write to, a court in South Carolina, most SC lawyers apparently cannot resist sneaking in factual inaccuracies and/or misstatements of the law, hoping no one will notice.
Well, I noticed.
At page 3, Becky Hill’s defense team writes: “Plaintiff, then, received the full benefit of his legal defense; even in the Plaintiff’s own factual recitation, Plaintiff concedes that eleven jurors voted to convict him based solely on the evidence properly admitted at trial – a verdict of “not guilty” was not in the offing regardless of any actions of Defendant.”
Whether Alex Murdaugh’s team conceded it or not, SC’s Supreme Court did NOT rule that 11 “jurors voted to convict based solely on the evidence properly admitted at trial.” In fact, the Court ruled THE OPPOSITE. The Court ruled that the evidence of Gloria Satterfield’s younger son being supposedly mentally challenged was IMPROPERLY offered and admitted. Therefore, without it and without Becky Hill’s augmenting to the jury the ill will generated by the improperly-admitted evidence, a NOT guilty verdict WAS “in the offing” but for Becky Hill’s actions.
And Becky Hill’s defense team ignores the other half of their client’s conduct which Jurist Toal specifically ignored to the puzzlement of SC’s Supreme Court. That half being the machinations to exclude Juror 785, aka the egg juror.
That such conduct was clearly established as unconstitutional at the time Becky Hill engaged in it is evident in Judge Clifton Newman’s TRANSCRIBED comment that he was not happy that Becky talked to the egg juror instead of going to the judge first about any concerns around the egg juror.
No jurist in SC or elsewhere has ever held formally or informally that it is okay for a clerk of court to initiate and maintain such contact with a juror as Becky undeniably had with the egg juror.
No jurist in SC or elsewhere ever held that it is okay or “innocuous” for a clerk of court to confabulate a non-existent FaceBook page and confront a sitting juror with it.
It is also accepted that whoever WRONGFULLY causes a mistrial is responsible for the costs of the retrial, although I hastened to write this comment before researching the law on it. After all, that is the job of Alex’s team, not my job.
My job, which I gave myself as a physician committed to Prevention and to the spread of Science and of scientific thinking, is to advocate for scientific thinking over legal thinking. And my job has, thank God, produced better results for myself WITHOUT A LAWYER than Alex’s entire team has so far produced for him.
I shall, God willing and FITS permitting, comment on an element of damages to Alex which his defense team does not see, perhaps because subconsciously they cannot bring themselves to acknowledge that Alex should not have been made to make decisions about the so-called “financial crimes” while in the throes of grief over Paul and Maggie’s demise and the despair of having been wrongly convicted of their shootings.