Legal Precedents in Focus: State v. Green and Remmer v. United States Take Center Stage in Murdaugh Jury Tampering Debate
By James Seidel | CC News Network
COLUMBIA, S.C. — As jury tampering allegations loom over Alex Murdaugh‘s bid for a new trial, two landmark cases have emerged as central to the debate over trial integrity: State v. Green (2020), a binding decision from the South Carolina Supreme Court, and Remmer v. United States (1954), a pivotal federal case that established a presumption of prejudice in cases involving improper juror contact.
State v. Green: South Carolina’s Legal Standard
In State v. Green, the South Carolina Supreme Court addressed whether improper contact with a juror undermined a defendant’s right to a fair trial. The court stressed the importance of evaluating the impact of any external influence and called for thorough scrutiny to determine whether jurors’ impartiality was compromised. As the most recent ruling on the subject in the state, Green provides a framework uniquely tailored to South Carolina’s legal environment.
Key Takeaways from Green:
- Courts must examine whether the juror’s decision-making process was affected.
- Allegations of tampering should trigger a prompt, detailed investigation.
- Courts are expected to weigh the nature and impact of the contact.
Remmer v. United States: The Federal Safeguard
In contrast, Remmer set a higher constitutional bar. The 1954 U.S. Supreme Court ruling established that any private communication or outside influence on a juror is presumed to be prejudicial. The burden then shifts to the government to prove that the interaction was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
Key Takeaways from Remmer:
- Introduces a strong presumption of prejudice.
- Shifts the burden of proof to the prosecution.
- Requires that courts conduct evidentiary hearings when credible allegations arise.
Which Standard Applies in Murdaugh’s Case?
Since Green is a decision of the South Carolina Supreme Court, it serves as binding precedent in the state and will likely be the primary guide for judicial review. However, Remmer remains relevant because its federal protections stem from the U.S. Constitution. Under the Supremacy Clause, federal law overrides conflicting state laws.
Still, unless there is direct conflict, courts often harmonize state and federal rulings. In Murdaugh’s case, the question becomes whether South Carolina’s application of Green adequately protects the constitutional rights emphasized in Remmer.
Harmonizing the Two Cases
Both Green and Remmer stress the need for judicial vigilance when juror integrity is questioned. While Green calls for assessing prejudicial impact, Remmer begins with the assumption that prejudice exists, placing a heavier burden on the state.
Defense Strategy: Why Murdaugh’s Lawyers May Invoke Remmer
Murdaugh’s legal team may argue that:
- Remmer offers superior protections under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments.
- The alleged misconduct by Clerk of Court Becky Hill constitutes outside influence.
- The burden should be on the state to prove no harm occurred, not on the defense to prove otherwise.
They may also seek support from civil rights and legal advocacy organizations to file amicus briefs urging the court to uphold Remmer‘s federal standard.
Public Policy Implications
Applying Remmer would promote uniformity between state and federal courts on the issue of jury tampering. Legal scholars argue that the stronger presumption of prejudice helps maintain public confidence in the judicial process, especially in high-profile cases like Murdaugh’s.
Conclusion
While State v. Green will likely control how South Carolina courts handle jury tampering claims, Remmer v. United States cannot be ignored. Together, these cases form the legal backbone of the ongoing battle over whether Alex Murdaugh received a fair trial. As the South Carolina Supreme Court considers his request for a new trial, it must weigh not only the specifics of the case—but also the constitutional standards that ensure justice is served.
Follow CC News Network for continuing legal analysis and coverage of the Murdaugh proceedings.
