Jurors in Murdaugh Trial Express Concerns Amid Defense Allegations Against Clerk, Fueling Controversy
Just minutes before Alex Murdaugh’s defense team held a press conference, dropping bombshell allegations about misconduct by the trial’s Clerk of Court, some jurors were already bracing for the inevitable media storm. “The wildfire is gonna start up again,” one of them reportedly said, referring to the wave of media attention expected to follow the defense’s announcement.
In private discussions, some jurors had been talking about the media’s attempts to contact them. One juror, apparently reflecting the sentiment of the group, said, “I don’t think [lead prosecutor] Creighton Waters wants us talking to them.” This juror added, “I have nothing to say to the defense, so if they call me, I will not answer.” But what could make a juror believe the prosecution wouldn’t want them speaking to the defense, especially after the trial had concluded?
The answer may lie in the overall atmosphere of the case, where the scrutiny on every move by both sides seemed to heighten jurors’ perception of what was appropriate conduct. While jurors are under no obligation to speak with attorneys after a case, any indirect cues they received may have left them believing the prosecution didn’t want them engaging with the defense, further muddling the already complex post-trial environment.
For those skeptical of these claims, the skepticism is understandable. The entire Murdaugh trial has been clouded by twists, allegations, and behind-the-scenes maneuvers. The idea that the prosecution might subtly discourage jurors from speaking to the defense is just one more piece of the puzzle. But those hoping to find any direct evidence of such communications in public records are likely to be disappointed. The State has kept certain documents sealed concerning Juror 785, Myra Crosby, leading to public frustration and calls for more transparency.
One of the most controversial aspects in the aftermath of the trial involves Attorney Eric Bland, who offered pro bono representation to several jurors. While Bland did not charge for his services, some observers have raised questions about the propriety of his involvement, particularly given the jurors’ subsequent appearances on national television. Shortly after offering his legal help, these jurors appeared on national television, which raised public discussion about the timing and nature of their appearances. Whether the jurors were paid for these interviews or simply reimbursed for travel. The situation has led to public discussions about whether it was appropriate for the jurors to appear on television so soon after the trial.
It’s important to note that, under the American Bar Association (ABA) Model Rules of Professional Conduct, attorneys generally cannot solicit clients directly for legal services, whether for financial gain or pro bono. Rule 7.3 governs this practice, barring direct personal contact with the purpose of soliciting clients if the attorney stands to benefit financially. Even though pro bono work doesn’t fall under that financial gain provision, attorneys still must tread carefully. They are required to ensure their actions aren’t coercive or driven by self-interest, and must respect the rules of communication and advertising. Any violations of these rules could result in consequences ranging from reprimand to suspension, or in extreme cases, disbarment.
This alleged ethical backdrop adds to the controversy surrounding Bland’s involvement. While his representation may have been free, his role in bringing jurors on national TV raises questions by many about the true nature of his pro bono efforts. Should an attorney really be putting clients in such a public spotlight, especially when the case they’re involved in is already a media circus?
Adding yet another layer of complexity, juror 785, Myra Crosby—one of the central figures in recent defense claims—was notably absent from the juror group chat where much of this discussion occurred. Her absence adds to the growing sense that all is not as it seems with the post-trial handling of the jury.
As the case continues to unfold, the public is left to wonder: Were the jurors truly free from outside influence? What role did attorneys and the media play in shaping their post-trial behavior? And as new revelations emerge, will we ever get a full and transparent picture of the events surrounding one of the most publicized trials in recent history?
