The Richard Alexander Murdaugh saga continues to capture national attention as new legal maneuvers arise in the case. In recent developments, two significant legal filings have been made public, both focusing on the removal of Juror #785 (Myra Crosby) during Murdaugh’s murder trial. These filings bring to the forefront a crucial debate: the need for transparency in the judicial process versus the obligation to maintain confidentiality in certain circumstances.
Both filings—one from Murdaugh’s defense team and the other from the State of South Carolina – offer insight into the ongoing legal battle, one that has gone far beyond the courtroom walls. At the heart of this issue is whether the sealed records surrounding Juror #785’s removal should remain hidden or be unsealed for the public. Let’s delve into these documents and explore what they mean for the justice system, public access, and the integrity of Murdaugh’s trial.
The Context: Murdaugh’s Return and the Intervenors’ Petition
The first document, Richard Alexander Murdaugh’s Return to Intervenors’ Petition for Limited Intervention and Motion to Unseal Record, filed on September 16, 2024, reflects Murdaugh’s position—or rather, lack of a definitive stance—on the ongoing petition to unseal court records. This petition is spearheaded by intervenors, including Juror #785 herself, who seek the unsealing of materials related to her removal.
Murdaugh’s legal team, led by Richard Harpootlian and James Griffin, acknowledges the importance of public access to judicial proceedings, particularly when it comes to understanding how certain decisions were made. They argue that Murdaugh’s financial crimes, which were exposed in part due to public scrutiny, might not have occurred had there been more transparency in the judicial process. Yet, they stop short of fully endorsing the unsealing, stating that Murdaugh has no knowledge of the State’s reasons for opposing the motion and therefore takes no official position.
Murdaugh’s defense subtly raises a serious allegation—that jury tampering occurred during his murder trial, implicating the Clerk of Court in “secret misconduct for personal gain.” While this allegation is not directly related to the petition to unseal the records, it casts a shadow over the integrity of the trial, suggesting that greater transparency might reveal other judicial mishaps.
The State’s Opposition: Upholding Confidentiality
In response, the State of South Carolina filed a strongly worded Response in Opposition to Juror #785’s petition. The State’s filing, also dated September 16, 2024, pushes back on the notion that the records should be made public. Central to their argument is the consent order entered in November 2023, which permitted Juror #785 access to certain court exhibits but explicitly prohibited further dissemination or publication of the materials.
The State, represented by Attorney General Alan Wilson and Deputy Attorney General Donald Zelenka, asserts that Juror #785 entered into a legally binding agreement, one that should not be rescinded simply because she has changed her mind. They argue that the consent decree is akin to a contract and that altering it without a valid reason—such as fraud or coercion—would undermine the integrity of legal agreements.
The State is also concerned that unsealing these records could interfere with the ongoing appeals process. The appeals court, they argue, is the proper venue to address the issues surrounding the juror’s removal. Until the appeals process is complete, the State maintains, these materials should remain sealed to avoid prejudicing any further judicial decisions.
Can Myra Crosby Declare Fraud by the State in the Consent Agreement?
Yes, Myra Crosby could potentially argue fraud in this case if she believes that the State is misrepresenting or lying about the contents of the records in question and making contradictory public statements. In legal terms, fraud occurs when one party makes a false statement of fact with the intention to deceive, which leads to another party’s reliance on that false statement to their detriment. In this case, the core issue would be whether the State has intentionally misrepresented the records, thus harming Crosby’s legal position.
Here’s how she might build a fraud claim:
- Misrepresentation by the State: If the State is publicly asserting one version of the contents of these records but the actual documents tell a different story, Crosby could argue that this is fraudulent misrepresentation. For example, if the State is downplaying or concealing critical details within the documents while publicly denying wrongdoing or jury tampering, Crosby’s legal team could allege that these actions amount to intentional deceit.
- Intent to Deceive: For fraud to hold up in court, Crosby’s team would need to prove that the State’s actions were deliberate—that they knowingly made false statements or concealed facts with the intention of misleading Crosby or the public. If the State knowingly made inaccurate public statements about the content or significance of these sealed documents, this could form the basis of a fraud claim.
- Crosby’s Reliance on the State’s Statements: If Crosby relied on the State’s initial assertions or legal agreements when entering into the consent order, only to discover later that the records contain significantly different information, she could argue that her consent was based on fraudulent misrepresentation. In other words, she could claim that had she known the full truth, she would not have agreed to the nondisclosure terms.
- Damages and Harm: To succeed in a fraud claim, Crosby would need to show how the alleged misrepresentation caused her harm. This could include damage to her reputation, legal standing, or other personal or professional consequences resulting from the State’s alleged dishonesty.
See the State’s Response Here
Judge Newman’s Role and the Removal of Juror #785
Both filings reference Judge Clifton B. Newman’s decision to remove Juror #785 during the trial. On March 2, 2023, Judge Newman addressed the removal, explaining that the juror had engaged in improper conversations with non-jurors, in violation of his instructions. While the conversations were reportedly not extensive, they included the juror expressing opinions about the case—enough for the court to conclude that her presence on the jury could compromise the trial’s fairness.
In his decision, Judge Newman took care to protect the identities of the jurors and ensure that the removal process was conducted with discretion. The removal proceedings, affidavits, and interviews with the parties involved were sealed to preserve the confidentiality of the trial process. Juror #785, despite being an attentive and engaged juror, was ultimately removed to protect the integrity of the trial.
The Need for Transparency
Both sides of the debate—those advocating for unsealing the records and those opposing it—make compelling arguments. On one hand, the argument for transparency is rooted in the First Amendment and the public’s right to know how judicial decisions are made. Courts are not only venues for legal resolutions but also symbols of accountability in a democratic society. In high-profile cases like Murdaugh’s, public interest is particularly strong, and withholding information can erode trust in the legal system.
In Murdaugh’s case, the removal of a juror is no small matter. Given the widespread attention the trial received and the allegations of jury tampering that have since emerged, unsealing the records could shed light on whether any improper actions influenced the outcome of the trial. Transparency, in this sense, serves the broader goal of ensuring that justice is not only done but also seen to be done.
Furthermore, Murdaugh’s defense team makes a valid point when they argue that greater public scrutiny might have prevented his financial crimes from continuing unchecked. If transparency is seen as a safeguard against judicial or governmental misconduct, then unsealing the records may indeed be in the public interest.
The Case for Confidentiality
On the other hand, the State’s insistence on maintaining the seal is not without merit. They say there are legitimate reasons for keeping certain aspects of a trial confidential, particularly when it involves sensitive matters like juror deliberations or witness testimony. In this case, Judge Newman sealed the records to protect the integrity of the trial process and the identities of the jurors involved. But that juror has openly come out into the light and away from the judge’s protection order.
Moreover, the State argues that Juror #785 willingly entered into a consent order agreeing to the confidentiality of these materials. Allowing her to rescind that agreement could set a dangerous precedent, where legal agreements are overturned on a whim. The state may believe that this could lead to chaos in the judicial system, where court orders are no longer seen as binding. However, you’ve read her possible stance on fraud by the State.
The State also emphasizes that the case is under appeal, and unsealing the records at this stage could interfere with that process. Until the appeals court has ruled on the issues raised during the trial, maintaining the seal ensures that the legal process is not prematurely disrupted. We’re not sure what dismissing a juror has to do with any appeal unless it doesn’t look good for the state.
Conclusion: Balancing Transparency and Justice
The debate over whether to unseal the records related to Juror #785’s removal highlights the tension between the need for transparency and the importance of maintaining judicial integrity. Murdaugh’s defense gestures towards transparency as a means to expose potential misconduct, while the **State of South Carolina** emphasizes the importance of honoring legal agreements and preserving the appeals process.
As the Supreme Court of South Carolina and appellate courts consider the case, it remains to be seen whether the public will gain access to these sealed records. What is clear, however, is that the Murdaugh trial, already a landmark case in the South Carolina legal system, will continue to stir questions about how justice is administered—and how much of it the public is entitled to see.
If you want to read Myra Crosby’s new book on being Juror 785, buy it here on Amazon.
Crime and Cask News will continue to monitor these developments closely, as the pursuit of truth and justice in the Murdaugh case enters yet another chapter.
