Attorneys for Alex Murdaugh, convicted of double homicide, have petitioned the South Carolina Supreme Court to revisit a contentious ruling that denied him a retrial. The request, submitted on July 10, 2024, centers on accusations of jury tampering involving a public official.
The legal team argues that “common sense dictates that when a state official enters a jury room during a murder trial to push for a guilty verdict for personal gain through book sales, it warrants a mistrial.”
The motion calls for the Supreme Court to review the decision by former chief justice Jean Toal, who five months ago denied Murdaugh’s plea for a new trial. Should the Supreme Court reject this request or uphold the existing decision, Murdaugh’s broader appeal will proceed to the South Carolina court of appeals.
Typically, motions for certification are reserved for cases with significant public interest or critical legal principles. According to Murdaugh’s attorneys, his case embodies both. Interestingly, the motion was filed shortly after an exclusive report about a former juror’s filing to unseal records related to her last-minute dismissal from the jury.
Attorney General Alan Wilson’s office has opposed unsealing these files, citing unspecified “ongoing matters.”
Murdaugh’s lawyers emphasize the public interest in determining “whether the verdict from Murdaugh’s highly publicized murder trial should be overturned due to unprecedented jury tampering by the former Colleton County clerk of court.”
They also seek the court’s opinion on a pivotal legal question: “Is it presumptively prejudicial for a state official to secretly push for a guilty verdict through private interactions with jurors, or must a defendant, having shown these interactions occurred, also prove that the verdict would have been different without such influence?”
The case’s origins trace back to a six-week trial that concluded with a Colleton County jury convicting Murdaugh of murdering his wife, Maggie, and son, Paul, on their family property in June 2021.
In September 2023, six months post-verdict, Murdaugh’s attorneys, Dick Harpootlian and Jim Griffin, accused Becky Hill, the former clerk of court, of jury tampering, including efforts to remove a juror from the panel.
Despite these allegations, Toal rejected the motion for a new trial in January, arguing there was no presumption of prejudice from the alleged tampering, and that Murdaugh hadn’t demonstrated that Hill’s actions influenced the jury’s decision. This ruling faced scrutiny when Juror 630, who claimed Hill’s alleged tampering affected her verdict, submitted a supplemental affidavit.
The affidavit stated she “felt influenced to find Murdaugh guilty due to Hill’s remarks, before entering the jury room.”
Nonetheless, Toal concluded Murdaugh did not prove Hill’s comments altered the verdict. Murdaugh’s attorneys contend Toal’s decision disregards the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Remmer v. United States, which considers any juror tampering during a trial presumptively prejudicial.
The motion stresses the gravity of a state diverging from its federal circuit on federal law, arguing such decisions should be made by the highest state court after thorough consideration.
As this legal battle unfolds and the Murdaugh case continues to capture public interest, our news team will provide ongoing coverage and updates.