Supreme Court makes ‘crazy’ decision to toss conviction for grisly double murder after clerk ‘influenced trial,’ but a juror insists this wasn’t true

The South Carolina Supreme Court has officially granted Alex Murdaugh a new trial in the 2021 double murder of his wife and son, sending shockwaves through the legal community. This unexpected ruling was a unanimous decision by the state’s highest court, which determined that the original 2023 trial was compromised by improper jury tampering. 

Per the NY Post, the court found that former Colleton County Clerk of Court Becky Hill meddled with the jury, denying Murdaugh his right to a fair and impartial trial. Murdaugh was previously sentenced to two consecutive life terms for the murders of his wife, Maggie, and their 22-year-old son, Paul. Even with a new trial, he will not be walking out of prison anytime soon since he’s currently serving concurrent prison sentences for a series of financial crimes.

Juror Ami Williams, who helped convict Murdaugh, expressed complete disbelief at the news. She told the media that she was never swayed by the clerk and felt no pressure to arrive at a specific verdict. In fact, Williams described the Supreme Court’s decision to toss the convictions as “crazy.” 

The Murdaugh killings were insane, and even without interference, the jurors would have likely voted against him

Williams noted that she never felt that the clerk of court was pushing an agenda or trying to push her to come to a certain verdict. Williams actually praised Hill for being “so gracious” and “super helpful” during the six-week trial.

The legal reality, however, is much more complicated than one juror’s perspective. The South Carolina Supreme Court, in a 27-page opinion, stated that Hill “egregiously attacked Murdaugh’s credibility and his defense, thus triggering the presumption of prejudice.” 

The justices were particularly concerned that Hill “placed her fingers on the scales of justice” without the knowledge of the trial judge or the attorneys involved. The ruling highlights that Hill allegedly urged jurors not to be “thrown off” or fooled by Murdaugh, specifically telling them to watch his body language closely.

The motivation behind Hill’s actions, however, appears to be linked to personal gain. Testimony from a colleague of Hill suggested that the clerk was interested in writing a book about the trial to pay for a lake house, and she reportedly believed a guilty verdict would help those efforts. 

Hill later pleaded guilty to obstruction of justice, perjury, and misconduct in office. She admitted to promoting her book through her public office and even showing sealed crime scene photos to a reporter.

The defense team, led by Dick Harpootlian and Jim Griffin, has welcomed the ruling. In a statement to NPR, they said, “Alex has said from day one that he did not kill his wife and son.” They added, “We look forward to a new trial conducted consistent with the Constitution and the guidance this Court has provided.” Prosecution and the police have failed to establish a motive, which has not only kept speculation alive, but it’s kept Murdaugh’s argument alive.

They are already signaling that a second trial would look very different, specifically regarding the financial evidence that was allowed in the first trial. They argued that the previous focus on Murdaugh’s financial crimes went far beyond what was necessary and created unfair prejudice.

For now, the state Attorney General, Alan Wilson, has made it clear that the state is not backing down. He stated that his office “will aggressively seek to retry Alex Murdaugh for the murders of Maggie and Paul as soon as possible.” While the legal system resets for what will surely be another intense legal battle, the public is left to grapple with the reality that the “eyes of the nation,” as the court put it, remain fixed on this case. 

Whether or not this new trial will lead to a different outcome remains to be seen, but it is clear that the original trial’s integrity has been permanently called into question. The justices concluded that the clerk’s behavior was a “breathtaking and disgraceful effort” to undermine the jury process, which they noted is “unprecedented in South Carolina.”