
Why Alex Murdaugh Will be Granted a New Trial
State v. Green: A Precedent for Jury Communication
In the 2020 case State v. Green, Fabian Lamichael Green was convicted of murder and desecration of human remains. During jury deliberations, a juror asked Bailiff Johnny Bolt what would happen if the jury couldn’t reach a unanimous verdict. Bolt responded that the judge would likely issue an Allen charge, instructing the jury to continue deliberations to avoid a mistrial, and might ask them to stay later.
Key Legal Findings:
- The South Carolina Supreme Court acknowledged that the bailiff’s comments were inappropriate but concluded they did not amount to jury tampering because they:
- Were procedural, not substantive.
- Did not pertain to the facts of the case or the jurors’ deliberations.
- Did not prejudice the defendant’s right to a fair trial.
The court emphasized that unauthorized jury communications must demonstrate actual prejudice to justify a mistrial, and in this instance, no such prejudice occurred.
Becky Hill: Allegations of Substantive Interference in the Alex Murdaugh Trial
The allegations against Becky Hill in the Alex Murdaugh trial differ sharply from the procedural nature of the Green case. Hill is accused of engaging in substantive discussions with jurors that could have influenced their deliberations and the trial’s outcome.

What Becky Hill Allegedly Said:
- Juror Myra Crosby (Juror 785, dismissed during the trial) alleges that Hill pressured jurors to return a guilty verdict quickly to secure her personal gain from a book deal. Crosby claims Hill told jurors, “Today is going to be epic! Alex is going to take the stand and we’re going to hear a lot of things, but don’t be fooled by the defense. “Pay close attention to Alex’s body language and watch him closely.”
- Juror Z (Mandy Peirce) has similarly stated that Hill repeatedly commented on Alex Murdaugh’s guilt, undermining the presumption of innocence required during deliberations. She also told Crosby that the allegations of Hill telling the jurors taht there would be “No more smoke breaks until you reach a verdict,” was 100% true. Roughly half of the debating jurors were heavy smokers with an addiction to nicotine. Nicotine is considered one of the most addictive substances, known for its ability to create strong and persistent urges to use. Withholding nicotine from individuals who are dependent on it can lead to withdrawal symptoms that may contribute to rash or impulsive decisions. This is primarily due to the effects nicotine withdrawal has on mood, cognition, and stress levels.
- In contrast, Aimee Williams (Juror 864), when asked about tampering by WTOC’s Tyler Manion in a recent interview, Williams denied seeing any improper influence, stating: ““I don’t see where it was or where we were. I didn’t see where anything was said or done to make me believe that he was guilty or not guilty.” If we breakdown Williams’ statement, she clearly admits that things were said to her, allegedly by Becky Hill. However, Williams goes onto say that what (Hill) said didn’t make Williams believe Murdaugh was guilty or not guilty.
The allegations suggest that Hill’s communications extended beyond procedural clarifications into direct attempts to influence jurors’ views on the evidence and Murdaugh’s credibility.
USA v. Remmer
United States v. Remmer, 347 U.S. 227 (1954), is a landmark case that established the presumption of prejudice in cases of jury tampering or improper communication with jurors. This case remains a critical precedent for addressing allegations of external influence on a jury’s impartiality.
Key Facts of the Case
- During the trial, an individual approached a juror and suggested that the juror could profit by ruling in favor of the defendant. The juror reported this interaction to the trial judge.
- The judge investigated the matter privately, with input from the FBI, but did not inform the defense counsel until after the verdict was delivered.
Supreme Court Ruling
The Supreme Court held that any private communication, contact, or tampering directly or indirectly with a juror during a trial is presumptively prejudicial. It outlined the following key principles:
- Presumption of Prejudice:
- The Court stated that external influences on a juror create a presumption of prejudice.
- This presumption places the burden on the government to prove that the contact or communication did not affect the juror’s impartiality. The state of South Carolina may be able to convince a court that the contact and communication between Hill and Aimee Williams did not affect Williams’ impartiality. But in no way, in any fairytale land anywhere will the state of South Carolina ever be able to convince any court that Hill’s statements did not affect Pierce’s decision, or Crosby’s decision, if she wasn’t thrown off the jury for false statements made about her, as she alleges.
- This is why no matter what Aimee Williams says, or any podcasters rant about, eventually Remmer will be applied to Alex Murdaugh, and he will receive a new trial.

Key Distinctions Between Green and Becky Hill
- Nature of Communication:
- In Green, the bailiff’s comments were procedural and neutral, addressing potential jury deadlock.
- In the allegations against Hill, the comments were substantive, allegedly questioning Alex Murdaugh’s credibility and allegedly encouraging jurors to convict. We also know that Becky Hill desired a Murdaugh conviction to sell more books, as was recited on the stand by Rhonda McElveen, the Clerk of Court for Barnwell County. She testified that Rebecca “Becky” Hill, the Colleton County Clerk of Court, expressed a desire for a guilty verdict, stating it would enhance book sales. McElveen recounted that Hill suggested they co-author a book on the trial, remarking, “because she wanted a lake house and I wanted to retire,” and noted that a guilty verdict would be more profitable.
- Potential for Prejudice:
- The South Carolina Supreme Court in Green ruled that the bailiff’s comments did not prejudice the defendant because they did not pertain to the facts of the case.
- Hill’s alleged comments, if true, directly related to the trial’s core issues, including the defendant’s guilt and credibility, raising the high likelihood of prejudice.
- Intent:
- The bailiff in Green was responding to a juror’s logistical question, with no evidence of intent to influence the trial’s outcome.
- Hill is accused of deliberately attempting to sway jurors for personal or professional reasons, including securing a lucrative book deal, according to Rhonda McElveen.
Implications of Hill’s Alleged Actions
The allegations against Becky Hill have broader implications for the integrity of South Carolina’s judicial system. Juror Myra Crosby’s accusations, combined with Juror Z’s corroboration, suggest a pattern of interference that goes beyond isolated procedural remarks. If proven, such conduct would violate the fundamental principle of impartiality and could justify a mistrial or retrial in the Murdaugh case.
Williams’ Statement Recap
While Aimee Williams, a juror on the Murdaugh trial, has publicly denied witnessing jury tampering, her statement that Hill did talk to jurors raises concerns. Williams said:
“I don’t see where it was or where we were. I didn’t see where anything was said or done to make me believe that he was guilty or not guilty.”
Williams’ comments imply that Hill engaged with jurors but that Williams personally did not perceive it as influencing her decision.
Conclusion: Why Green Doesn’t Apply to Hill
The procedural nature of the bailiff’s comments in State v. Green stands in stark contrast to the substantive allegations against Becky Hill. Green focused on logistical matters, with no intent to influence deliberations or prejudice the defendant. In contrast, Hill is accused of using her position to influence the jury’s decision-making process and undermine the fairness of the trial.
The legal and ethical questions surrounding Hill’s actions demand a thorough investigation. If the allegations are substantiated, they represent a grave breach of judicial integrity, warranting not only legal consequences for Hill but also potential reconsideration of the Murdaugh verdict. As the legal process unfolds, the comparison to State v. Green underscores the heightened seriousness of Hill’s alleged misconduct.

Expect a new trial for Alex Murdaugh. It is only a matter of when, and not, if.
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