Jury Tampering
Revisiting the Alleged Jury Tampering Battle That is Still Ongoing from Fallout from the Alex Murdaugh Trial
By James Seidel | CC News Network
COLUMBIA, S.C. — Jury tampering? Attorneys for convicted killer Alex Murdaugh have alleged jury tampering by Colleton County Clerk of Court Rebecca “Becky” Hill in their high-profile motion for a new trial to the S.C. Supreme Court, but prosecutors argue the defense has failed to meet even the basic legal threshold for an evidentiary hearing.
In a previous filing, South Carolina Attorney General Alan Wilson’s office responded forcefully, stating Murdaugh’s team has not made the “prima facie showing necessary” for the court to grant their request. The response includes a sworn affidavit from Hill and multiple voluntary statements from jurors affirming they were not influenced by her conduct.
Murdaugh was convicted in March 2023 of murdering his wife, Maggie Murdaugh, and son, Paul Murdaugh, on June 7, 2021, at the family’s Moselle estate. He is currently serving two life sentences without parole.
Prosecutors Moved to Strike Sensational Claims
The state moved to strike portions of the defense motion, labeling them “immaterial, impertinent, and scandalous.” This includes claims related to a disputed Facebook post, Hill’s book deal, and her post-trial media appearances. They argue there was no jury tampering.
According to the defense, Hill orchestrated the removal of “Juror 785” using a fabricated Facebook post and allegedly told jurors to quickly convict Murdaugh. In their motion, attorneys Dick Harpootlian and Jim Griffin cited affidavits from Juror 785 and Juror 630, among others, alleging jury tampering.
Hill denies these jury tampering claims in her sworn affidavit, stating she never told jurors “not to be fooled,” to “watch Murdaugh closely,” or that the trial “shouldn’t take long.” She also denies fabricating the Facebook post or discussing reinstating a restraining order against her ex-husband.
The Facebook Post Controversy
The Facebook post in question was falsely stated by Hill that it was authored by Juror 785’s ex-husband. Hill testified she briefly saw it on the “Walterboro Word of Mouth” group but was unable to locate it again. A follow-up post, apparently from the same man, apologized for the original post and claimed he had been “drunk and possessed by Satan.”
The court considered tracking the author of the Facebook post down, but Harpootlian declined, instead asking to bring Juror 785 back for questioning.
However, in her book Because Enough Is Enough, Juror 785 describes a very different version of events. She claims that on February 28, 2023, bailiff Bill Polk—referred to as “Mr. Bill”—came into the jury room and asked her to speak privately with Hill. In a closed-door meeting, Hill allegedly confronted her about the Facebook post, claiming her ex-husband had written that she expressed an opinion about Murdaugh’s guilt while drinking with him.
Juror 785 says she denied the claim, told Hill she hadn’t seen her ex in over a decade, and even logged into her Facebook account to show she had blocked him. Hill, according to the juror, then asked her outright which way she was leaning on the verdict—a statement the juror found deeply inappropriate and suspicious.
Juror 785 says she was rattled by the exchange, and when she later asked Hill if the post had been verified, Hill allegedly claimed that SLED had spoken to the ex-husband and confirmed he made the post while drunk. According to Juror 785, this too turned out to be false, as a later review of the ex-husband’s Facebook activity revealed no such post ever existed.
She alleges that this was the first of several attempts by Hill to have her removed from the jury, possibly due to her perceived neutrality or empathy toward Murdaugh. She recounts being summoned by Judge Clifton Newman later that day to answer questions about the post—unaware at the time that the information she relayed to the judge may have been fabricated by Hill.
Juror 785 further alleges that the intimidation extended beyond Hill, pointing to comments made by attorney Eric Bland on YouTube the same night as her meeting with the judge. Bland, a known associate of prosecutor Creighton Waters, made reference to a note sent to the judge about a juror making a comment and implied knowledge of discussions from inside the jury room.
The role of bailiff Bill Polk, who was present during Hill’s initial removal of Juror 785 from the jury room, has never been fully explored. Despite being a central figure in these alleged exchanges, he has yet to be called to testify in this massive, alleged jury tampering issue.
According to Myra Crosby, Mr. Bill Polk is the key to all of this. In her book she wrote again about Mr. Bill knowing everything: “On March 2nd, when I got to the Jury room, Mr. Bill came out and got me, once again. He had the clerk of court on the phone for me. I took the phone and let the clerk know that my ex-husband had tried calling me several times and I was really upset. I told her I was unaware that restraining orders expired and that I was scared. She said, “The Murdaugh’s probably got to him.” I said, “Why would they do that? She asked me again if I was leaning one way or another in the case and I told her that Creighton’s closing was good, but I still had questions. She asked what kind of questions, and I replied, “Questions about the guns.”
She then said, “Well, what makes you think he’s guilty?” and I didn’t know what to say so I blurted out, “Well, Paul’s video.” She then stated, “Everything he has said has been lies and you should forget about the guns, they will never be seen again.” She then asked, “Well, what about the rest of the Jury?” Meaning, what is their vote? She said if the foreman, (her friend) would just go in and ask for a show of hands vote, this would be over and done with. She said everyone needs to be on the same page.
She then said she was going to call the sheriff’s office and reinstate the restraining order on my ex-husband, and that she was going to call the judge. She told me to drink some coffee and stay strong, that she would be there after she was done with her husband as he had a medical issue.”
Juror Testimonies Undermine Defense?
Statements from some jurors collected by the South Carolina Law Enforcement Division (SLED) appear to support the state’s position. Jurors, including Juror 254, said they felt no pressure from Hill and were not swayed by any comments. One juror recalled only a single comment about watching Murdaugh’s body language but said it had no impact on their decision.
Prosecutors emphasized that no juror has stated that their verdict was influenced by Hill or any outside factor.
“Even if Clerk Hill made any improper comments to the jury, the State has found no juror who will aver that anything she said or did influenced their verdict,” the filing read.
This is why Remmer v. United States, which is the law of the land, must be applied to this situation. Remmer states unequivocally on this issue: In Remmer v. United States, the Supreme Court held that jurors are allowed to testify and that the trial court is not required to interview every juror to determine if they were swayed by a comment. The court emphasized that the trial court must assess the circumstances and the impact of the comment on the juror, rather than requiring a juror to be swayed by a comment to establish bias. Game over for the State of South Carolina, Murdaugh gets a new trial.
Becky Hill’s Coauthor Speaks Out
Adding further complexity to the controversy, Hill’s former coauthor, Neil Gordon, spoke candidly during an interview on Court TV. Gordon, who helped write Hill’s post-trial book Behind the Doors of Justice: The Murdaugh Murders, expressed surprise over the allegations.
“Sometimes you don’t know somebody until you allow enough time to go by,” Gordon said. “I was really shocked by a lot of these allegations. Of course, nothing has been proven to be true, but… some things have been pretty concerning as it relates to me. And of course, an inordinate amount of charges and criminal investigation [is] underway. So, very concerning.”
When asked whether Hill had ever confided in him about the jury interactions, Gordon stated:
“I did ask her, of course… is what they’re saying true? The only thing that she mentioned is that she did have some conversations… with one of the jurors. It had to do with a very confusing Facebook post and whether or not this juror was speaking to people about the case when she was outside of the Colleton County Courthouse.”
Gordon added that Hill also mentioned issues involving the juror’s ex-husband and a restraining order, but did not disclose anything that suggested direct interference with the jury’s deliberations.
On Monday February 27, Becky Hill spoke with Judge Clifton Newman “about a Facebook posting she said she saw on the evening of Friday, February 24.” The post in question was “purportedly by Juror No. 785’s ex-husband Tim Stone,” and made in a group called “Walterboro Word of Mouth,” the motion goes on. In that post, Stone allegedly complained that “his ex-wife was saying that she was on the jury and saying stuff about how her verdict was going to be.”
It’s important to note here that the person named Tim Stone who did post about his ex-wife on Facebook, posted an apology for said post on February 16th, 2023. How could Hill have seen a post on February 24th if it was deleted on February 16th? Because the Facebook post in question was never on Walterboro Word of Mouth, and deleted on February 16th, then that means Becky Hill must have allegedly lied to Judge Newman, and to Justice Toal when she reiterated that she saw that post on Walterboro Word of Mouth on Friday February 24th, 2023.
“Judge Newman asked [Hill] to produce a copy of the posting,” the new trial motion claimed. “Hill could not produce a copy,” (Because it didn’t exist). Judge Newman interviewed Juror 785 about this at the end of the day. Nothing became of it and Crosby was allowed to be back on the jury. Side note, the alleged Facebook post from Hill was proven as false at the Murdaugh re-trial hearing with Justice Toal.
Jury Tampering: What Happens Next
While the defense claims misconduct and coercion, the state maintains that the evidence doesn’t rise to the level necessary to warrant a new trial. Prosecutors argue that even if all defense allegations were true, they would not have altered the outcome of the case. But they need to read Remmer v. United States.
Murdaugh’s attorneys, former state senator Dick Harpootlian and former federal prosecutor Jim Griffin — submitted a 132-page appellate brief to the S.C. Supreme Court. The filing consolidates Murdaugh’s previous appeals before the South Carolina Court of Appeals and raises legal challenges related to both the state’s investigation and the high-profile six-week trial held in Walterboro during spring 2023.
The document lays the foundation for what could be a prolonged battle in the state’s highest court, as Murdaugh seeks to overturn his March 2023 conviction for the murders of his wife, Maggie Murdaugh, and son, Paul Murdaugh. The state of S.C. asked for a 90-day extension, which is expiring in early April 2025. If the S.C. Supreme Court makes the correct legal decision, it will be that Murdaugh’s conviction of murder will be overturned and sent back to the state to retry if they so choose to.
Follow CC News Network for continuing coverage of the Murdaugh appeals, alleged jury tampering and all major developments in South Carolina courts.
James Seidel – Publisher, Journalist, Author. Investigator, Podcaster, Radio Talk Show Host, and Music Producer.
Connect with CC News Network
Over 1,500,000 Million likes of Tiktok alone!
Join Our 100,000+ Social Media Fans:
- Follow Us on X: @CCNewsNetwork
- Follow Us on TikTok: @CCNewsNetwork
- Facebook: CC News Network
- Talk Radio: 97.7FM WVFF – Listen to Our Hit True Crime Talk Radio Show
- Follow Us on Amazon Books: Click here to follow
- Hire Us on Cameo: @CC News Network
- Follow Us on Spotify: @CC Records
- Follow Us on Bluesky: @ccnewsnetwork.bsky.social
- Follow Us on Mastadon: @CrimeandCask
- New Book: Trumped Up, by Josh Pruitt and James Seidel
