SC Supreme Court officially remits Murdaugh murder case back for retrial

• The South Carolina Supreme Court has ordered a retrial for Alex Murdaugh in his double murder case.
• Murdaugh's 2023 conviction was overturned due to improper jury communication by the court clerk.
• The court found that Clerk of Court Becky Hill tampered with the jury, denying Murdaugh a fair trial.

The South Carolina Supreme Court has officially remitted the Alex Murdaugh double murder case back to the lower state circuit court for a retrial, and now a lengthy criminal justice system process starts anew.

On May 29, after ruling on an appeal, the S.C. Supreme Court officially filed its "Remittitur," remitting the case of The State Vs. Richard A. Murdaugh back to the Colleton County Court of General Sessions in the 14th Judicial Circuit.

The Supreme Court overturned Murdaugh’s 2023 murder convictions and ordered a new trial on Wednesday, May 13, citing improper jury communication and tampering by former Colleton County Clerk of Court Becky Hill, among other legal issues.

The next step in this formal legal process will be for Supreme Court Chief Justice John W. Kittredge to sign an administrative order appointing a circuit court judge to oversee the case, which isn't expected to be scheduled for trial until at least 2027.

While the Murdaugh case is back on the Colleton County docket, the retrial is unlikely to be held there. While the S.C. Attorney General's Office has announced it will "aggressively" retry the case, Murdaugh's defense attorneys have indicated they will be seeking a change of venue.

Why was the Alex Murdaugh murder conviction overturned?

Murdaugh, a former Hampton attorney also convicted of multiple fraud-related crimes worth millions of dollars, was convicted in March 2023 for the June 2021 murders of his wife, Maggie, and younger son, Paul, before Circuit Judge Clifton Newman in Walterboro.

Following the jury trial conviction, Newman sentenced Murdaugh to two consecutive life sentences, but the disbarred lawyer, who admitted the fraud but denied the killings, almost immediately appealed his case to the Supreme Court over allegations of jury tampering and other legal grounds to be argued before the high court.

After hearing oral arguments on Feb. 11 in the high-profile, double-murder conviction appeal of Murdaugh, the S.C. Supreme Court on May 13 reversed the denial of Murdaugh's motion for a new trial by an appeals court and remanded the case back to the S.C. Circuit Court system for a new trial.

In its 29-page ruling, the high court's position is summarized clearly in its "per curiam," or unanimous introductory summary:

"... Both the State and Murdaugh's defense skillfully presented their cases to the jury as the trial court deftly presided over this complicated and high-profile matter. However, their efforts were in vain because Colleton County Clerk of Court Rebecca Hill placed her fingers on the scales of justice, thereby denying Murdaugh his right to a fair trial by an impartial jury."

Citing the constitutional right to a fair trial by an impartial jury "untainted by external forces," and noting the length and expense of the first, six-week trial, the court's ruling added: "Although we are aware of the time, money, and effort expended for this lengthy trial, we have no choice but to reverse the denial of Murdaugh's motion for a new trial due to Hill's improper external influences on the jury and remand for a new trial."

During deliberations, the high court considered a massive amount of documentation, including the recent appellate briefs and replies, the entire court transcript from Murdaugh's six-week, double-murder trial in 2023, the transcript of the previous appeal hearing held before Justice Jean H. Toal, and the indictments and guilty plea documents pertaining to former clerk Hill.

The high court did not consider Murdaugh's guilt or innocence, as would occur in a lower court criminal trial, but ruled only on matters of law and procedure.

The S.C. Supreme Court is currently composed of Chief Justice John W. Kittredge and Justices John Cannon Few, George C. James Jr., D. Garrison Hill, and Letitia H. Verdin, who were all present for the Feb. 11 hearing.

What did Clerk Becky Hill do to warrant a new trial?

On Oct. 27, 2023, Murdaugh filed a motion for a new trial, with attached affidavits from several jurors, claiming Hill tampered with the jury by "advising it not to believe Murdaugh's testimony and other defense evidence, pressuring it to reach a quick guilty verdict; and misrepresenting information to the trial court in an attempt to have the court remove a juror she believed to favor the defense," cited the court.

Supreme Court Chief Justice Beatty then appointed former Chief Justice Toal to preside over this motion in a post-trial appellate hearing held Jan. 26 and Jan. 29, 2024, after which Toal denied Murdaugh's motion for a new trial.

After reviewing the trial exhibits and transcript, and testimony from the appeals hearing, the high court disagreed with Toal and noted that one juror testified that, as Murdaugh prepared to take the stand in his defense, Hill said "Watch his body language," and another juror testified that Hill instructed her "to watch his actions" and to "watch him closely."

This juror, identified as Juror Z, added that Hill's statements influenced her in finding Murdaugh guilty and "it felt like she made it seem like he was already guilty," as cited in the court's ruling.

Juror Z also testified that, upon jury deliberations, Hill told the jury, "This shouldn't take us long," and added, "I had questions about Mr. Murdaugh's guilt but voted guilty because I felt pressured by the other jurors."

The court also considered that another juror, who was dismissed before deliberations, claimed that, before Murdaugh testified, Hill told the jurors not to be "fooled by" the evidence presented by Murdaugh's attorneys.

That juror also claimed that "Hill asked her whether she and the other jurors were inclined to vote guilty or not and told her that everything Murdaugh said had been lies," the court's ruling cited.

The court also noted another juror testified that, as Murdaugh's team began to present its defense, Hill said, "They're going to say things that will try to confuse you. Don't let them confuse you or convince you or throw you off."

Finally, the court's ruling noted that during the appeal hearing, Hill denied the allegations, was found not credible, and was later charged with perjury. The court also noted that Hill appeared motivated to secure a guilty verdict to help sell a book she co-authored, which was later unpublished amid allegations of plagiarism.

In his appeal, Murdaugh's team cited Remmer v. United States, 347 U.S. 227 (1954) (Remmer I), which contends that "prejudice should be presumed from Hill's comments to the jury and that the presumption is irrebuttable."

While the State argued that Hill's comments were "foolish and fleeting," but had no real impact on the verdict, the high court cited Remmer, as well as several other state and federal precedents, and stated: "We agree with Murdaugh. Prejudice is presumed from Hill's comments, and while this presumption is rebuttable, the State failed to overcome this presumption."

In the ruling's conclusion, the S.C. Supreme Court called Hill's jury interference "shocking" and stated:

"As the Fourth Circuit declared, the Remmer presumption is (alive and well)... It serves to protect the right to a fair trial by an impartial jury for all defendants. Here, Hill, the Colleton County Clerk of Court, egregiously attacked Murdaugh's credibility and his defense, thus triggering the presumption of prejudice, which the State was unable to rebut..."