
Alex Murdaugh swears to tell the truth before he takes the stand during his trial for murder at the Colleton County Courthouse on Thursday, Feb. 23, 2023 in Walterboro, S.C. (Joshua Boucher/The State via AP, Pool)
The Unraveling of the Murdaugh Case: Why South Carolina Faces a Losing Battle in a Second Trial
By James Seidel, Crime and Cask News Network
Colleton County, S.C. – Alex Murdaugh, the once-powerful attorney whose life crumbled amid the tragic murders of his wife, Maggie, and son, Paul, is on the brink of a new trial. A staggering 132-page defense brief filed before the South Carolina Court of Appeals not only highlights significant legal flaws in Murdaugh’s initial trial but also casts grave doubt on whether the State could even mount a successful case a second time. With shaky evidence at best, questionable investigative practices, and an increasingly scrutinized prosecution strategy, Murdaugh’s future may shift dramatically. Here’s how we break this down.
Jury Tampering: The Catalyst for a New Trial
At the heart of Murdaugh’s appeal lies a compelling argument: jury tampering. The defense alleges that Colleton County Clerk of Court Becky Hill improperly influenced the jury, encouraging a swift guilty verdict. These accusations include claims that Hill made inappropriate comments to jurors about Murdaugh’s guilt and urged deliberations to move quickly.
While the State will likely counter that Hill’s alleged behavior constitutes “harmless error,” precedent suggests otherwise. I wonder how the State would argue this if it went the other way? Courts have historically taken juror tampering and outside influence seriously. If proven, the misconduct would violate Murdaugh’s Sixth Amendment right to an impartial jury, effectively nullifying the verdict.
In their brief, the defense write: On August 1, 2023, the then-Colleton County Clerk of Court, Rebecca Hill, published a book, Behind the Doors of Justice, about Mr. Murdaugh’s trial. She had been planning to write a book about the trial even before it began. Evid. Hr’g Tr. 181:11–183:19. She repeatedly said during the trial that a guilty verdict would sell more books, and that she needed to sell books because “she needed a lake house.” Id. 181:20–183:1. The book caused some jurors to come forward to describe Ms. Hill’s efforts to obtain her desired guilty verdict through jury tampering during trial. Jurors stated that after the State rested and the defense began its case, Ms. Hill entered the jury rooms often, telling jurors not to let the defense “throw you all off,” or “distract you or mislead you,” and telling them “not to be fooled” by Mr. Murdaugh’s testimony in his own defense.
If the Court of Appeals sides with the defense on this issue, which they will, Murdaugh murder convictions will be vacated, and the case would be remanded for a new trial—a devastating blow to a State already struggling with a weakened narrative.
Who Will the State Blame if Murdaugh’s Conviction is Vacated for Tampering?
If Alex Murdaugh secures a new trial due to allegations of jury tampering, the South Carolina Law Enforcement Division (SLED) and the state prosecutors are likely to intensify their scrutiny of key figures connected to the trial. Central to this focus would be Becky Hill, the former Colleton County Clerk of Court, whose alleged interference with jurors has already drawn significant attention.
Investigators may delve into her communications, actions, and any potential motives for influencing the verdict, as well as her ties to other parties involved in the case. Who helped Hill with the fake Facebook post? Who helped cover it up? Who sent the anonymous email to Judge Newman? Who helped the anonymous emailer with the details to get the juror removed? Additionally, the jurors themselves could face extensive questioning to uncover the full extent of any improper contact or influence during deliberations.

Beyond Hill, others in the judicial process, including court staff and even external individuals who may have sought to sway the trial’s outcome, could be subjects of rigorous examination. The state may also revisit evidence presented during the initial trial to determine if any procedural irregularities occurred or if other misconduct could have compromised the case. The stakes are high, and SLED will likely leave no stone unturned to protect the integrity of South Carolina’s judicial system.
We wouldn’t want to be anyone who conspired to tamper with this jury or to get Juror 785 removed from the jury. The State will look deep for their sacrificial lambs, and we believe the State will show no mercy. People involved in such activities may want to come forward now, or soon after Murdaugh’s conviction is vacated, as to avoid further obstruction.
Financial Crimes: Relevance vs. Prejudice
In the first trial, the State leaned heavily on Murdaugh’s financial misdeeds as evidence of motive. Prosecutors argued that Murdaugh murdered Maggie and Paul to deflect attention from his spiraling financial ruin. The introduction of this evidence painted Murdaugh as a corrupt and desperate man—a strategy that undoubtedly influenced the jury.
However, the defense brief raises a critical question: Was the evidence of Murdaugh’s financial crimes more prejudicial than probative? Courts generally allow prior bad acts only when they provide necessary context or establish motive. Yet, as the brief highlights, financial evidence overwhelmed the trial, overshadowing the scant physical evidence of the murders themselves.
“The State’s case relied on character assassination,” the brief argues, “not hard evidence tying Murdaugh to the killings.” The defense contends that without this prejudicial narrative, the jury might have reached a different conclusion.

The defense would be correct in their assessment of Murdaugh’s character assassination. According to Myra Crosby, Juror 785, or the Egg Lady Juror in the Alex Murdaugh trial wrote a book called, Because Enough is Enough. In the best selling book she describes hearing jurors who were smokers discuss Alex’s complete innocence all during the trial. However, after a week’s worth of financial crimes testimony, Crosby told CC News Network publisher, James Seidel, that those same jurors did a 180 turn and changed their minds from innocent to guilty, solely based on the financial data presented.
On retrial, the State’s use of financial evidence should not be allowed back into evidence, potentially forcing prosecutors to scale back a tactic that was central to their first conviction. Without it, the State’s case becomes alarmingly thin.
In South Carolina, as in other jurisdictions, the admission of prior bad acts into evidence is governed by Rule 404(b) of the South Carolina Rules of Evidence, which aligns with the federal rules. This rule generally prohibits the use of evidence about a person’s prior bad acts to prove that they acted in conformity with those acts during the incident in question. However, there are exceptions that allow such evidence to be admitted for specific purposes other than to show bad character or propensity.
The .300 Blackout Shell Casings: Junk Science in the Courtroom?
One of the prosecution’s most pivotal pieces of evidence involved the .300 Blackout shell casings found near Maggie Murdaugh’s body. SLED Agent Paul Greer testified that these casings matched casings found in two locations on the Murdaugh property: outside the gun room and at the family shooting range. Greer, a member of the Association of Firearm and Tool Mark Examiners (AFTE), claimed the shell casings shared unique markings that tied them to a family firearm.
But the defense brief dismantles Greer’s assertions, pointing to widespread criticism of firearms identification science. Experts argue that AFTE methods lack standardized protocols and produce disturbingly high error rates. Studies show that when “inconclusive” findings are properly accounted for, error rates skyrocket from the claimed 1% to as high as 52%.
Donald Kennedy, former editor-in-chief of Science, once labeled forensic science an “oxymoron,” and the Murdaugh trial is a chilling case study. Greer’s testimony gave jurors a false sense of certainty, yet the defense brief highlights a gaping hole: Without the missing murder weapons, how can the State definitively link the casings to a family firearm?
The defense wrote in their brief: “Indeed, the field of tool mark analysis is inherently subjective and not scientifically valid. Because the conclusions drawn by the firearms examiner are not based on methods that are scientifically valid or reliable, such evidence should have been excluded under Rule 702 of the South Carolina Rules of Evidence. Additionally, given the unreliable nature of such evidence and the import a jury attributes to expert testimony, such evidence should have also been excluded because any probative value it might offer is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, and misleading the jury. See Rule 403, SCRE.”
James Seidel, publisher of CC News Network is also known as Crime and Cask, authored a book called, Defending Alex Murdaugh. In it, Seidel wrote extensively in chapter 11 how the AFTE methods were called, “Extremely flawed” by American Scientific in an article from May of 2022.
Post-Miranda Silence: Constitutional Violation
The State’s use of Murdaugh’s post-Miranda silence to imply guilt is another glaring constitutional violation outlined in the defense brief. Under the Fifth Amendment, a defendant has the right to remain silent without that silence being used against them. Yet, prosecutors highlighted Murdaugh’s failure to disclose his presence at the dog kennels—a revelation proven through a video recorded on Paul’s phone.
While the State will argue Murdaugh opened the door to this line of questioning by testifying, appellate courts have historically ruled in favor of defendants when silence is weaponized. This issue alone could justify overturning the conviction.
The defense wrote in their brief: The trial court allowed the State to use Alex’s post-Miranda silence after being arrested on the murder charges to impeach the exculpatory trial testimony that Alex offered about being at the kennels in violation of Alex’s due process rights, as recognized in Doyle v. Ohio, 426 U.S. 610 (1976). During cross-examination, Alex was questioned about Maggie finding pills in his vehicle in May 2021. Murdaugh denied that Maggie insisted he go back to detox after this discovery. Alex testified that Paul convinced Maggie that Alex had gotten the pills in anticipation of dental surgery, and that Alex had not relapsed. Alex further explained that he previously admitted to Paul that Alex was back on the pills, but struck an agreement with Paul that he would go back to detox as soon as Pauls’ criminal charges arising from the boating accident were resolved.

The prosecutor then sought to impeach Alex by questioning whether this was the first time the State had heard his explanation. Alex responded, A. “Well, you asked me this. Mr. Waters, you keep making the issue about the first time I—you hearing these things. When, when I got arrested and I went to jail, we began reaching out to you to talk to you about all of these things, to try to tell you everything that I had done, to give you all these details, to help y’all go through the financial things. And up until the time y’all charged me with murdering my wife and child, you would never give Jim Griffin a response to our invitation to sit down and meet with you.” Trial Tr. 4923:20–24:3. The prosecutor then switched the line of questioning to impeach Alex about remaining silent after his arrest for the murders of Maggie and Paul. Q. “Are you saying that you ever before yesterday reached out to anyone through yourself or through your attorneys and reached out to anyone in law enforcement or the prosecution and told them the story about the kennels? Are you telling me that?” A. “I’m—what I’m telling you Mr. Waters”— Q. “Would you answer my question first. Did you ever reach out to anyone in law enforcement or the prosecution and tell that story you told this jury yesterday about the kennels before yesterday?” Trial Tr. 4924:8–18.
Counsel for Murdaugh objected to this questioning citing Alex’s Fifth Amendment right to remain silent and Doyle v. Ohio, 426 U.S. 610 (1976). Trial Tr. 4924:23–25:5, 5015:16–16:19. The State conceded that it would have been precluded from this line of questioning if Murdaugh “had claimed his right to silence from the beginning and had kept silent throughout,” Trial Tr. 5017:7–10, but argued 89 that Alex waived any Doyle violation by giving statements on multiple occasions. The State, however, did not identify any statements Murdaugh gave after his arrest. Trial Tr. 5017:21–18:15. The trial court overruled the Doyle objection, stating: Doyle primarily addresses the issue of post-arrest silence. If an accused is silent following an arrest, then it’s improper to comment on a post arrest silence. It does not allow a person, an accused or a person who’s suspected to give contradictory information or to voluntarily give a statement or to voluntarily give a misstate, as has been acknowledged here. I do not find any Doyle violation. Trial Tr. 5017:16–23. The trial court was factually and legally incorrect.
The State’s Uphill Battle: What’s Left Without Financial Evidence?
If Murdaugh’s conviction is overturned, and we believe it will be, the State faces a daunting task in securing another guilty verdict. The first trial relied heavily on a circumstantial narrative: financial pressure, firearms identification, and inconsistencies in Murdaugh’s alibi. Yet, upon closer examination, each pillar of the State’s case appears riddled with weaknesses.
Without financial evidence dominating the retrial, the prosecution must rely on:
- The kennel video: Placing Murdaugh at the scene nearly 5 minutes before the time of the murders. However, being present 5 minutes before, does not equate to automatic guilt.
- Murdaugh’s inconsistent statements: These raise questions but fall well short of proving murder.
- The missing murder weapons: Their absence leaves the State without definitive physical evidence.
- The trial court erred: by allowing the State to introduce gunshot residue results of a raincoat into evidence when no evidence linked the raincoat to Murdaugh. The State then argued in closing that Murdaugh disposed of the murder weapons by wrapping them in the blue raincoat. Trial Tr. 5827:18–31:3 (“Gunshot residue inside, inside the rain jacket, that blue type garment that Shelley said I saw him carrying something like that. And he got rid of the guns and he’s hiding it there for some reason. Thank goodness he did, and thank goodness for Shelley for bringing that in. That’s what he disposed of the guns with.”).
The defense will argue these elements create reasonable doubt, a standard the State may struggle to overcome a second time.

Conclusion: Justice in the Balance
Alex Murdaugh’s defense team has laid bare the profound flaws in his initial trial—flaws that may soon force South Carolina to try him again. Or will they? Yet, with juror misconduct looming, financial evidence under fire, and junk science exposed, the State finds itself on precarious ground.
Should Murdaugh’s conviction be overturned, South Carolina faces a stark reality: without the narrative that won the first trial, the weak evidence may not be enough to secure a second conviction. For a man who has become a symbol of both privilege and scandal, the pursuit of justice now hinges on whether the State’s case can withstand the scrutiny of a new jury, especially with the speculation that Alan Wilson, the Attorney General of South Carolina who led the trial against Murdaugh, is assumed to be the republican candidate and run to be governor of the state of South Carolina. Will Wilson risk losing at trial of this magnitude in front of potential voters? Or will Wilson choose not to pursue a second trial knowing that Murdaugh will spend 30 plus years in prison for state and federal financial crimes he admitted guilt to?
The defense concluded their brief by stating: Any person accused of a crime—even Alex Murdaugh—has a constitutional right to a fair trial. When a fair trial is denied, he is entitled to a new, fair trial—he is not required to earn it by proving he would have been acquitted had he been given a fair trial the first time. Judges’ opinions regarding the strength of the State’s evidence against the accused are not a substitute for the presentation of that evidence at a fair trial. The Court should therefore reverse the trial court’s denial of Murdaugh’s motion for a new trial and vacate his murder and firearms convictions. Additionally, the Court should vacate Murdaugh’s convictions because the(y) improperly admitted evidence, deprived Murdaugh of a fair trial and its consideration by the jury was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
Connect with CC News Network
Over 1,400,000 Million likes of Tiktok alone!
Join Our Close to 100,000 Social Media Fans:
- X: @CCNewsNetwork
- TikTok: @CCNewsNetwork
- Facebook: CC News Network
- Talk Radio: 97.7FM WVFF – airs in the Low Country
- Amazon Books: Click here to follow
- Cameo: @CC News Network
- Spotify: @CC Records
- Bluesky: @ccnewsnetwork.bsky.social
- Unnamed Network: New True Crime Drama Series