Crime and Cask Investigation: Becky Hill’s Alleged Jury Tampering and Possible Judicial Findings of Obstruction of Justice

The controversy surrounding Becky Hill’s alleged tampering with the jury in the Alex Murdaugh trial has gained significant attention, particularly following Judge Clifton Newman’s judicial finding regarding her conduct. The question of whether Hill obstructed justice by interrogating jurors, specifically Myra Crosby, without the judge’s knowledge or presence has sparked debate over the legality and fairness of her actions.
Alex Murdaugh, a disbarred South Carolina attorney, was convicted in March 2023 of the murders of his wife, Maggie, and son, Paul, after a highly publicized trial that revealed his financial crimes and opioid addiction. He is also facing numerous charges related to financial fraud, embezzlement, and conspiracy, stemming from millions of dollars stolen from clients and his law firm over several years. Additionally, allegations of jury tampering and misconduct by court officials have raised questions about the fairness of his trial and the possibility of a retrial.
Table of Contents
ToggleThe Allegations: Jury Tampering and Summarization of Transcripts
According to Myra Crosby and her attorney, Joe McCulloch, what was presented in camera during the trial was a summarized version of events. As Myra detailed in her book, Because Enough is Enough, she alleges that the state used the term “summarizing” to mislead or downplay the full scope of what was actually said. In fact the direct quote from Crosby from her book is, When the State says “Summarize,” it means “We’re going to make up what we want.” This raises the question: what does Myra know that isn’t fully reflected in the transcript?
The in camera session, which was conducted in private with Judge Newman, defense, and prosecution, included a critical discussion where state prosecutor Creighton Waters exclaimed to have a name—Clifford Dandridge—that could provide further insights into the juror’s conduct. The SLED interviews with Dandridge and another juror, Webb, were recorded via body cams and, according to McCulloch, the full transcript of the video is under seal and the prosecution is not releasing it. Given Waters’ involvement, can one assume that he ordered SLED to conduct these interviews? If so, it raises potential conflicts of interest that may undermine the fairness of the trial. The State of South Carolina has many attorneys working for them. Another could have easily made the same request. This was in reference to the anonymous email sent to Newman about Crosby and the now debunked Facebook post said seen by Becky Hill.
Additionally, both Dandridge and Webb have stated that the affidavits they signed at the courthouse do not align with what they told SLED during their recorded interviews. This discrepancy leads to one simple solution: release the sealed video to the public. Webb is the person who worked at Domino’s Pizza.
Judge Newman’s Finding of Fact: Hill’s Interrogation of Crosby
One of the key turning points came when Judge Newman made a judicial determination on the record that Clerk Becky Hill had interrogated juror Myra Crosby without notifying the court or allowing the judge to be present. Under South Carolina law, such actions can be significant.
According to South Carolina Code § 16-9-340, obstruction of justice is defined as an attempt to “intimidate or impede” any court officer, juror, or witness. The statute further criminalizes any actions meant to “obstruct or impede the administration of justice.” Judge Newman’s finding of fact that Hill conducted this interrogation outside of legal protocol signals a possible breach of this law. If Hill’s actions can be construed as trying to influence Crosby’s thoughts on the case without judicial oversight, this could potentially rise to the level of jury tampering, which is a felony punishable by up to ten years in prison.
When a judge is in camera with the defense and the prosecution and makes a statement on the record as fact, it is generally referred to as a judicial finding or judicial determination. The term in camera refers to a private or closed hearing, often done to protect sensitive information, such as in the case of minors, confidential matters, or private juror information.
Why would Clerk Hill want to influence Myra Crosby’s verdict or have her removed? According to Rhonda McElveen, the Clerk of Court for Barnwell County told Justice Toal, under oath, that Becky Hill told her, “A guilty verdict would sell more books.” McElveen was called to help Colleton County during the Alex Murdaugh trial.
Justice Toal stated for the record that the then Colleton County Clerk of Court Rebecca Hill was “attracted by the siren call of celebrity,” Toal said in her announcement of the ruling. “She wanted to write a book about the trial and expressed that as early as November 2022, long before the trial began,” the judge said.
If Becky Hill’s motivation for influencing the jury was driven by the desire for money and fame from writing a book, this raises serious concerns about the integrity of the judicial process. Under South Carolina Code § 16-9-340, obstruction of justice includes any attempt to “intimidate or impede” a juror or obstruct the administration of justice, and Judge Clifton Newman’s finding of fact that Hill interrogated Myra Crosby outside of legal protocols signals a possible breach of this law. If Hill’s actions were aimed at securing a guilty verdict to enhance the value of her book and public profile, her conduct could be seen as jury tampering, a felony punishable by up to ten years in prison. Such behavior would suggest that Hill used her position to manipulate the trial outcome for personal gain, which not only jeopardizes the fairness of the trial but also undermines public trust in the judicial system.
Eric Bland’s Agreement with Jury Misconduct
In an appearance on CourtTV, attorney Eric Bland may have inadvertently supported the conclusion that Becky Hill may have tampered with Myra by stating that Myra Crosby was rightly removed from the jury if she had engaged in improper discussions with Hill. Bland’s position is notable, as it indirectly affirms the seriousness of the allegations against Hill. He argued that Myra’s potential bias or discussions with Hill could have tainted the trial. However, it was Judge Newman who highlighted that Hill’s conduct in interrogating a juror without his knowledge was inappropriate, reinforcing the idea that Crosby’s removal alone does not address the deeper issue of potential jury manipulation.
Attorney and law professor at Temple University, Matt Siembieda, commented on this on the podcast, Impact of Influence that he believes attorney Bland is not correct on this. Hill was a person that dealt with the jury on a daily basis, and clearly was talking to many jurors, including her friend the jury foreperson. It is Siembieda’s belief that Crosby should not have had red flags going off like Bland asserts she should have.
Eric Bland, a self-proclaimed friend and confidante of Creighton Waters, the Assistant Attorney General of South Carolina, has publicly mentioned that he and Waters frequently communicated during the Murdaugh trial, often talking and texting in the early morning hours. Bland has stated that he offered questions and advice to Waters throughout the trial. In addition to representing clients who won millions in settlements related to Alex Murdaugh, Bland also represents six jurors from the Murdaugh trial on a pro bono basis. Notably, it has been reported that the jurors he now represents claim Bland initiated the conversation to become their attorney. If true, this raises potential ethical concerns, as most states, including South Carolina, follow the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct, which prohibit attorneys from directly soliciting potential clients unless there is a prior relationship.
What Does Myra’s Testimony Tell Us?
In her book, Myra recounts the moment Judge Newman asked her during the in camera hearing whether Hill had spoken to any other jurors. Myra’s response, “Not that I’m aware of,” has since been clarified. At the time, Myra was the only juror who had been called out of the jury room to meet with Hill privately. She did not know whether Hill was having similar conversations with other jurors. However, Myra later recounted how Hill often instructed the jury, telling them not to believe the defense or Alex Murdaugh. Myra’s testimony suggests a broader pattern of Hill’s involvement with the jury, potentially outside the bounds of her role.
Had Judge Newman asked whether Hill had discussed the case openly with the jury, Myra stated her answer would have been a “definite yes,” implying a potential misunderstanding of the original question.
The Smoking Gun: Witness Testimony
Multiple witnesses, including Bailiff Bill, other jurors, and court staff, may have seen Hill’s interactions with the jury. Their testimonies could be crucial in determining the extent of Hill’s conduct and whether her actions meet the legal threshold for obstruction of justice. Mr. Bill’s testimony, along with other jurors, may shed light on Hill’s behind-the-scenes activities and provide further evidence of misconduct.
Juror Conversations and Missed Signals
Finally, Myra raises a separate issue regarding the jury’s behavior during smoke breaks. She explains that jurors frequently discussed the case among themselves, sometimes in the presence of the bailiff, who was often nearby and seemingly aware of the discussions. Another juror, Mandy Pearce, reported similar issues in the jury room. These accounts from multiple jurors suggest that discussions outside the formal deliberation process may have been more common than previously believed, further complicating the case.
Conclusion: The Need for Transparency
The combination of Judge Newman’s finding of fact, South Carolina’s obstruction of justice laws, and the sealed SLED video paints a picture of potential jury tampering that demands further scrutiny. Becky Hill’s actions as described by multiple witnesses may have overstepped the boundaries of her role, potentially compromising the fairness of the Murdaugh trial.
As the details continue to unfold, the public, as well as legal experts, are calling for the release of the sealed transcripts and video recordings. Until then, questions of fairness, impartiality, and legality will continue to cast a shadow over this case.