James Seidel 
South Carolina Supreme Court
South Carolina Supreme Court Bars Retrial in Charleston Murder Case, Raising Parallels to Alex Murdaugh’s Bid for New Trial
By James Seidel | CC News Network | Crime and Cask Investigations
COLUMBIA, S.C. — The South Carolina Supreme Court has ruled that Charleston man John Joseph Erb cannot be retried for murder or voluntary manslaughter after a jury deadlock led to a mistrial in 2023, finding that constitutional protections against double jeopardy were violated. The decision, filed Sept. 3, 2025, highlights judicial missteps during jury polling and has potential echoes in Alex Murdaugh’s ongoing fight for a new trial in the state’s most notorious double homicide case.
The Erb Case: Polling Error and Improper Mistrial
Erb was arrested in March 2020 for the killing of Donald Blake by blunt force trauma. After delays, his trial began in September 2023 before Circuit Judge Bentley Price. Jurors deliberated for more than five hours before returning verdicts: not guilty on the murder charge and guilty on the lesser offense of voluntary manslaughter.
Defense attorneys requested a jury poll. Ten jurors confirmed the verdicts, but the eleventh—Juror 16—said her decision had changed, explaining she had been pressured in the jury room. Rather than instructing the panel to resume deliberations, Judge Price questioned the juror privately, then abruptly declared a mistrial.
Within a week, prosecutors placed Erb’s case back on the trial roster for murder. His attorneys filed habeas petitions and argued that jeopardy had already attached, barring retrial. The trial court disagreed, and the Court of Appeals declined to intervene.
In reversing, the South Carolina Supreme Court held that the “not guilty” verdict on murder was final once read into the record and that Judge Price’s unilateral mistrial lacked the “manifest necessity” required under the Constitution. “Jeopardy attached to both murder and voluntary manslaughter,” Justice John James wrote, meaning the state may not retry Erb on either count.
Double Jeopardy and Judicial Discretion
The opinion criticized the trial court’s handling of jury polling, emphasizing that both prosecutors and defense attorneys warned against questioning a single juror. “Had the trial court simply instructed the jury to continue deliberating, the situation we face would likely have been avoided,” the justices wrote.
By declaring a mistrial without exploring alternatives, Judge Price effectively ended the case, and the justices ruled that retrying Erb would amount to unconstitutional double jeopardy. The ruling underscores that once a jury renders a not-guilty verdict, even on a greater charge while disagreeing on a lesser offense, that acquittal cannot be undone by procedural missteps.
Implications for Alex Murdaugh
While Erb’s case hinged on double jeopardy, the Supreme Court’s reasoning about jury management and judicial error resonates with Alex Murdaugh’s motion for a new trial. Murdaugh’s defense team has alleged jury tampering by former Colleton County Clerk of Court Becky Hill, claiming that jurors were pressured toward a guilty verdict.
In both cases, the integrity of jury deliberations—and whether outside influence or judicial error compromised them—stands at the center. For Erb, mishandled polling led to a mistrial that should never have been declared. For Murdaugh, the allegation is that jurors were improperly influenced before reaching a verdict.
The South Carolina Supreme Court in Erb stressed that “manifest necessity” must guide a judge’s decision to override jury proceedings. Murdaugh’s attorneys are making a parallel claim: that the sanctity of the jury process was violated, and the only remedy is to start over.
A Broader Warning for South Carolina Courts
Legal observers say the Erb decision will likely be cited in appellate filings far beyond Charleston. It reaffirms that defendants are shielded not just from prosecutorial overreach but also from judicial shortcuts that undermine the jury system.
For Murdaugh, whose case has already reshaped South Carolina’s judicial and political landscape, the Erb ruling provides fresh precedent for how seriously the state’s highest court views jury irregularities. While the contexts differ—double jeopardy versus jury tampering—the underlying message is the same: the constitutional right to a fair trial is paramount, and mismanagement at trial cannot be overlooked.
Bottom line: The South Carolina Supreme Court’s decision in State v. Erb is a sharp rebuke of trial court error and a reminder of constitutional limits. Whether it strengthens Alex Murdaugh’s quest for retrial remains to be seen, but it adds weight to arguments that flawed jury processes demand judicial correction.
###
Connect with CC News Network
Over 1,600,000 Million likes of Tiktok alone!
Join Our 140,000+ Followers Across all Social Media
Stay informed. Stay curious. Stay connected.
Telegram News Alerts (Free – Just Click to Add Us) https://t.me/+zfTsM89U2Mo4MDlh
X (Twitter): @CCNewsNetwork
TikTok: @CCNewsNetwork
Facebook: CC News Network
- Instagram: Crime and Cask (@crimeandcask) • Instagram photos and videos
Talk Radio: Listen Live on 97.7FM WVFF – Cottageville, SC
Amazon Author Page: James Seidel & CC News Books
Cameo: Book us @ CC News Network
Spotify: CC Records
Bluesky: @ccnewsnetwork.bsky.social
About the Author
