Murdaugh Defense Cautiously Optimistic clerk misconduct could pave way for new trial

The defense for Alex Murdaugh expressed cautious optimism that a new trial could be possible if the South Carolina Supreme Court finds merit in questions surrounding a court clerk’s alleged misconduct during the former attorney’s 2021 murder trial. Two consolidated appeals will be argued before the state Supreme Court in February, one challenging a legal ruling from the murder trial and the other addressing alleged juror-influencing conduct by Colleton County Court Clerk Rebecca Hill. The defense says the combination of issues could create enough error or irregularity to warrant a new look at the conviction and sentence.

Murdaugh was convicted in March 2023 of murdering his wife, Maggie, and son, Paul, at the family’s rural hunting estate and was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole. His trial drew intense national attention in a case that captivated South Carolina and beyond, highlighting questions about wealth, power, and the administration of justice in a small, insular community. Dick Harpootlian, who has led the defense team alongside Jim Griffin, described the forthcoming proceedings as an opportunity for the court to address concerns about both the legal framework of the trial and the integrity of the process itself. "There’s two basic appeals that have been consolidated," Harpootlian said in a interview with Fox News Digital. "One is the underlying trial — the legal technical issues that you see in every appeal. And there’s an additional appeal that’s very unusual: did the clerk of court say things or do things in an effort to have the jury vote guilty?"

The core of the two-issue appeal rests on different questions about how the trial was conducted and how its verdict was reached. The first appeal Centers on the murder trial itself, including the legal rulings that accompanied its presentation and the handling of evidentiary questions that defense lawyers say may have misapplied the law or misled the jury. The second, more unusual arm of the case, scrutinizes the conduct of Hill, a longtime public official in Colleton County who faced charges related to alleged attempts to influence jurors during the trial. Hill pleaded guilty in Colleton County Circuit Court to four charges — obstruction of justice and perjury for showing a reporter photographs that were sealed court exhibits and then lying about it — as well as two counts of misconduct in office for taking bonuses and promoting through her public office a book she wrote about the trial. Hill received a year of probation from Judge Heath Taylor; prosecutors said it would have been harsher if evidence suggested she tampered with the jury, but the judge found no such impact on the verdict.

Harpootlian argued that the equity of the appellate process could depend on how the courts view Hill’s conduct and its possible effect on jurors. He contends that the case may require a standard different from what the trial court applied. "The United States Supreme Court and the Fourth Circuit have indicated we don’t have to show that it actually influenced somebody," he said. "We just need to show that she said things that reasonably, objectively could have influenced a juror." The defense maintains that Hill’s comments about Murdaugh’s demeanor and testimony, made during the trial, could have swayed jurors, and the at-issue standard for evaluating jury-influence claims should account for the possibility of influence even if a direct link to a verdict is not proven.

The March 2023 verdict and the ensuing sentences occurred after a high-profile, six-week trial in Walterboro that laid bare deep tensions surrounding the Murdaugh family saga in rural South Carolina. The case has continued to reverberate in the state’s legal community, where questions about the boundaries of judicial ethics and the protection of jurors from outside influence remain at the heart of ongoing appellate discussions. Harpootlian noted that the case has touched him personally and professionally, including his recent work promoting a book that revisits South Carolina’s complex criminal history and the man he once prosecuted, Pee Wee Gaskins, a notorious killer who haunted the state’s collective memory. In his remarks, Harpootlian framed the broader implications of the appeals as a test of the justice system’s integrity, a theme he said underpins the defense’s effort to secure a new trial if error can be demonstrated.

The two consolidated appeals come as the defense tries to thread the intersection of trial law and administrative conduct into a single pathway toward relief. If the Supreme Court agrees that errors occurred at trial or that Hill’s conduct undermined the jury’s independence, a new trial could be ordered, or in a more limited fashion, certain charges could be revisited. In this case, a new trial would not be guaranteed, but the defense has argued that multiple issues, even if not dispositive on their own, could cumulatively justify a fresh examination of the case. Harpootlian emphasized that the prospects are far from certain but that the possibility remains meaningful for the integrity of the process. "There are a couple dozen different issues that have to be addressed," he said. "Any one of which could give us a new trial. We’re cautiously optimistic, but you don’t know until you get there and hear their questions."