An infamous South Carolina double murder is back in the spotlight this week as lawyers for former attorney Alex Murdaugh ask the state supreme court for his convictions to be tossed out. The five justices in the state’s top court will hear arguments on Wednesday from Murdaugh’s attorneys, who claim he deserves a new trial.
Murdaugh, 58, was sentenced to life in prison after a jury convicted him in 2023 of murdering his wife, Maggie, and their son, Paul, at their home in June 2021.
Download the SAN app today to stay up-to-date with Unbiased. Straight Facts™.
Point phone camera here
A court clerk who worked on Murdaugh’s trial was convicted of perjury for showing court-sealed exhibits to a photographer and then lying about it. Her actions are at the center of the appeal.
Original Murdaugh trial
Prosecutors said Murdaugh committed the murders to cover up his own financial crimes. During the trial, Murdaugh admitted to stealing millions of dollars from former clients at his law firm.
Still, a clear motive never emerged during the trial. Murdaugh maintained, however, that he did not kill his wife and son.
Why defense is seeking a new trial
Murdaugh’s lead attorney, Dick Harpootlian, said Wednesday’s appeal is part of an effort to convince the world that Murdaugh did not kill his family.
“He insists that he did not kill his wife and child, and he wants the world to know that,” Mr. Harpootlian said. “And the way that you get that is a new trial.”
Murdaugh’s lawyers will argue that the trial judge, Clifton Newman, should not have allowed prosecutors to introduce evidence of Murdaugh’s financial crimes in the murder trial. They say those crimes were connected to the murders only through the prosecutor’s “illogical, implausible” theory about Murdaugh’s motive. The attorneys added that the evidence unfairly prejudiced the jury against Murdaugh.
Jurors deliberated for just three hours before convicting Murdaugh.
Attorneys have also taken issue with testimony from two police officers, as well as the fact that four guns were introduced during the trial as evidence, even though none was the murder weapon.
Court clerk’s impact
The main argument, however, centers on the court clerk, who spoke to the jurors about the case. According to The New York Times, one juror said the clerk, Rebecca Hill, told them they should watch Murdaugh closely. Other allegations include Hill telling jurors to deliberate quickly.
Hill also wrote a book on the trial and was charged with two counts of misconduct in office for taking bonuses and promoting her book through her public office. She also struck a deal with a documentary filmmaker, whom she allowed to use the county courtroom in exchange for promoting her book.
She later admitted the book plagiarized passages. Hill pleaded guilty in December and was sentenced to one year of probation.
State responds
In a statement, the state attorney’s office said it would fight Murdaugh’s request for a new trial. The statement noted that Hill’s actions were inappropriate but argued that the jurors told a judge they based their verdict on the evidence and testimony, not on Hill’s comments.
“The verdict in this case was the product of six intense weeks of trial,” the statement said. “There was superb advocacy on both sides. An eminent trial judge presided over the proceedings. No rational juror could have received the evidence in this case and concluded [Murdaugh] was not guilty.”
Should the murder convictions be tossed, Murdaugh would still have to serve the rest of his 40-year sentence for his financial crimes.
