The South Carolina Supreme Court has overturned the 2023 murder convictions of Alex Murdaugh, the disgraced lawyer found guilty of killing his wife and son. The court ordered a new trial for the June 2021 killings.
Murdaugh is currently serving two life sentences for the murders of Maggie and Paul Murdaugh. He is also serving additional 27- and 40-year sentences for state and federal financial crimes.
Once a powerful attorney, the 56-year-old Murdaugh and his legal troubles captivated a global audience, inspiring documentaries, podcasts, and book deals. The trial itself was televised.
In a unanimous 5-0 ruling, the state's highest court said Murdaugh deserved a new trial because Colleton County Clerk of Court Rebecca Hill had unfairly biased the jury against him.
The justices wrote: "Both the State and Murdaugh's defense skillfully presented their cases to the jury as the trial court deftly presided over this complicated and high-profile matter. However, their efforts were in vain because Colleton County Clerk of Court Rebecca Hill placed her fingers on the scales of justice, thereby denying Murdaugh his right to a fair trial by an impartial jury."
South Carolina Attorney General Alan Wilson said in a statement that his office would "aggressively seek to retry Alex Murdaugh for the murders of Maggie and Paul as soon as possible."
Murdaugh's lawyers told US media that their client "has said from day one that he did not kill his wife and son."
Last December, Hill pleaded guilty to charges of misconduct in office, obstruction of justice, and perjury over allegations that she misused public funds as a clerk and shared sealed court information with a reporter, among other claims.
Wednesday's ruling cites several comments Hill allegedly made to jurors during the trial. One juror wrote in an affidavit that Hill told jurors to "watch [Murdaugh] closely," which she said influenced her decision to find him guilty because she thought the clerk was implying he was.
A jury found Murdaugh guilty of murdering his wife and son, who were shot at close range near the family's dog kennels, after a six-week trial. He was sentenced to life in prison.
In their bid to overturn his conviction, Murdaugh's lawyers argued that Hill tampered with the jury, telling them not to trust his testimony and to speed up the verdict. The ruling cites testimony from jurors who said Hill told them "not to be fooled" by defense evidence and said when deliberations began: "[T]his shouldn't take us long."
Months after Murdaugh's trial, Hill published a tell-all book titled "Behind the Doors of Justice: The Murdaugh Murders." The justices noted the book, writing: "As her book's title suggests, it turns out Hill was quite busy behind the doors of justice, thwarting the integrity of the justice system she was sworn to protect and uphold." The book was pulled from publication due to plagiarism.
The justices said Hill denied making most of the comments jurors claimed, though she admitted that on the day of Murdaugh's testimony, "within earshot of some jurors," she spoke to the bailiff about his decision to take the stand and told jurors it was a "big day."
During the murder trial, the jury heard allegations that Murdaugh had been stealing from his law partners and clients for years to fund an addiction to painkillers and an extravagant lifestyle. Prosecutors argued he killed his wife and son to conceal years of financial corruption. Murdaugh pleaded not guilty.
The following year, Murdaugh was sentenced to 40 years in prison at a separate trial for federal financial crimes. The Supreme Court did not take up his financial crimes case but said too much evidence from that case was allowed in his murder trial, creating "considerable danger of unfair prejudice."
A new trial date has yet to be set, but legal experts say jury selection in such a high-profile case could be an uphill battle. New York Law School professor Anna Cominsky said: "Finding fair and impartial jurors that can leave anything they may have seen or heard outside of the courtroom will be difficult. It will be the rare juror that knows nothing about the case, rather they will be looking for jurors that can contain their analysis to only the evidence in front of them during the new trial."
Source: www.bbc.com