Murdaugh defense cautiously optimistic as clerk’s alleged misconduct could pave way for new trial, SC Supreme Court set to hear February arguments

Columbia, S.C. — The South Carolina Supreme Court will hear two consolidated appeals on February 11, 2024, a pairing the defense argues could open the door to a new trial for Alex Murdaugh, the former attorney who was convicted in 2023 of murdering his wife and son. At issue are both standard appellate questions about a trial’s legal rulings and a highly unusual claim that a court clerk may have attempted to influence the jury.

The first appeal challenges the underlying trial-specific legal rulings — the kinds of issues that routinely appear in post-conviction reviews, from evidentiary rulings to instructions given to jurors. The second appeal centers on Becky Hill, the Colleton County Clerk of Court, who has been charged in connection with alleged jury-tampering related to the Murdaugh proceedings. Hill pleaded guilty to four charges in Colleton County Circuit Court — obstruction of justice and perjury for showing a reporter photographs of sealed exhibits and two counts of misconduct in office for promoting a book she wrote about the trial and receiving bonuses tied to that book. The defense contends her conduct calls into question the integrity of the trial process and the reliability of the verdict.

Murdaugh, a member of a prominent South Carolina family, was found guilty in March 2023 of fatally shooting his wife Maggie and son Paul in June 2021 at the family’s rural hunting estate in the Lowcountry. He was sentenced to life in prison without parole. The appeals come as his defense team, led by Dick Harpootlian and Jim Griffin, argues that issues raised in the two petitions could collectively amount to grounds for a new trial, or at minimum a significant reexamination of the case on appeal.

Harpootlian has described the appellate process as complex, noting that some arguments hinge on standards set by higher courts that prosecutors and defense lawyers must navigate differently in state reviews. He told Fox News Digital that the appeals consist of “two basic appeals that have been consolidated.” One centers on the trial’s legal rulings; the other focuses on Hill’s conduct and whether it could have affected jurors’ votes. He has been careful to frame the appeals as a test of the system’s integrity rather than a defense on criminal missteps.

The Hill matter has drawn intense scrutiny because juror influence, if proven, could undermine confidence in a verdict reached in a highly publicized case. Hill’s guilty plea to perjury and obstruction, plus the misconduct charges tied to a book she promoted and bonuses she received, provides the defense with a notable credibility issue to argue before the high court. Harpootlian asserted that Hill’s admission of lying under oath and her subsequent sentence — a year of probation — bolster the defense’s claim that her statements to jurors could not be trusted to reflect the truth, which, in turn, could cast doubt on the verdict.

"She pled guilty to perjuring herself, to lying under oath during that hearing," Harpootlian said. "I think that goes a long way to showing in appellate court that whatever she said shouldn’t be believed." Prosecutors have maintained that Hill’s comments during the trial did not meet the standard for juror influence in the legal sense, and Judge Jean Toal previously ruled that the defense did not prove the comments affected the verdict. Harpootlian, however, has signaled a willingness to push the argument on broader grounds — that a juror’s exposure to statements could be reasonably viewed as influential even if it cannot be proven to alter a vote.

The United States Supreme Court and appellate precedents in the Fourth Circuit have suggested that proving actual influence is not always necessary to establish a due-process concern, Harpootlian said. The defense contends that the standard used in the state was too stringent and that the appellate court should consider whether Hill’s conduct was capable of influencing a juror, not merely whether a juror’s vote was changed as a direct result.

Harpootlian’s comments come as he promotes his new book, Dig Me a Grave: The Inside Story of the Serial Killer Who Seduced the South, co-authored with Shaun Assael, which explores a separate high-profile case in which he previously prosecuted a notorious killer. He has said the experience has given him perspective on how juries arrive at verdicts, and he has used examples from decades of courtroom work to frame his view on prosecutorial and judicial integrity. The book and the case intersect in ways that underscore the broader question at stake: whether a single actor’s misdeed can cast doubt on the entire process.

The Murdaugh case has kept a national spotlight trained on South Carolina’s judiciary, with critics and supporters alike watching closely as the state’s highest court weighs whether procedural flaws or misconduct allegations warrant a retrial. While the likelihood of a successful reversal or a new trial remains uncertain, legal scholars and practitioners note that state supreme courts frequently address unusual records in high-profile cases when there is a credible claim about the integrity of the proceedings.

The timeline ahead is narrow. If the court schedules oral arguments for February 11, 2024, it would be among the earliest opportunities for the justices to signal how they intend to treat a landmark appeal that blends traditional trial-error questions with a highly unusual accountability component tied to a court clerk. A ruling could set a significant precedent within South Carolina’s appellate practice and, more broadly, influence how courts handle claims of procedural irregularities that could affect jurors’ perceptions of the case.

Harpootlian closed the discussion with a measured note on the role of the appellate system. "The integrity of the system matters," he said. "And that’s what this appeal is really about." As the state prepares for oral arguments, the legal community will be watching not only for a potential path to a new trial for Murdaugh but also for how the court weighs the boundaries between routine appellate review and extraordinary claims of juror influence.

The case remains a focal point in discussions of how legal processes adapt to allegations of misconduct and how appeals courts balance procedural standards with notions of fairness and public confidence. Whether the February hearing yields a path to a new trial will depend on how the justices parse two intertwined questions: whether the trial was legally sound, and whether Becky Hill’s conduct could have plausibly swayed jurors in a way that undermines the verdict.