00:00:06
I'm 48 Hours correspondent Anne Marie Green and this is case by case. There was dramatic news this week about
00:00:14
one of the most high-profile murder cases in years. On Wednesday, the South Carolina Supreme Court overturned the
00:00:21
2023 [music] convictions and consecutive life sentences of Alec Murdoch for the murders of his wife Maggie and son Paul
00:00:30
in 2021. Now Murdoch, who had been a prominent and wealthy attorney in the state, will be granted a new trial after
00:00:37
the court found that his original trial was marred by the quote improper influence of Colleton County Clerk
00:00:45
Rebecca Hill. Hill actually read out the jury's verdict in that original trial. Guilty
00:00:52
verdict. Signed by the forelady, 3 2 23. The state Supreme Court's unanimous ruling this week found that Rebecca
00:01:01
Hill, known as Becky, quote placed her fingers on the scales of justice by attacking Murdoch's credibility to the
00:01:08
jurors. Here's one of those jurors who was asked about Hill at a 2024 hearing. Was your verdict
00:01:16
influenced in any way by the communications of the clerk of court in this case? Yes, ma'am. And how was it
00:01:24
influenced? To me, it felt like she made it seem like he was already guilty. But another juror told NBC on
00:01:42
Wednesday that she never felt Hill was trying to push an agenda or push her to a certain verdict. Maggie and Paul
00:01:50
Murdoch were shot and killed on the Murdoch family estate. Murdoch testified in his own defense and has continued to
00:01:57
maintain his innocence. He did plead guilty to financial crimes. Here to discuss the latest developments in the
00:02:03
Murdoch case is University of South Carolina School of Law Professor Colin Miller. Colin, thanks for joining us.
00:02:10
Well, thanks for having me. So, first off, we're going to start off with just how unusual is this to have a
00:02:17
conviction overturned because of the behavior of a a clerk at the courthouse? It is exceedingly rare. I'm currently
00:02:26
working on a wrongful conviction case out of North Carolina. The jury in that case was hung,
00:02:33
and while they were hung, the bailiff for the judge told the jury, "The judge in this case doesn't accept a
00:02:39
hung jury." And so, we're currently appealing, and I looked across the country for cases where comments by a
00:02:45
court official led to a conviction being reversed. I only found one case out of Tennessee where the jury was also hung,
00:02:52
and a bailiff made inappropriate comments to the jury. So, this almost never happens across the country. This
00:02:59
is interesting. In response to the ruling, uh South Carolina's Attorney General said that the clerk's conduct
00:03:06
was inappropriate, but it was ultimately harmless. And some of the jurors sort of spoke about
00:03:12
whether or not they were influenced. But, what's your take on that? My take is the focus of the Attorney
00:03:18
General was the evidence presented at trial, which he was convinced made a compelling case for guilt beyond a
00:03:25
reasonable doubt. In my mind, the State Supreme Court correctly focused upon the inappropriate
00:03:32
nature of a court official telling the jury, "Watch his demeanor while he testifies.
00:03:38
Don't let the prosecution be defeated by kind of the lies of the defense." And so,
00:03:47
the whole goal of the American criminal justice system is a jury of someone's peers impartially deciding the case. And
00:03:53
I think the focus by the court on the inappropriate nature of this was absolutely the correct way to go.
00:03:59
Anyone who's interested in true crime knows about this case. Why do you think um so many people are interested in in
00:04:06
the saga of the Murdaughs? I think there's two parts of it. One, this is something we used to see
00:04:12
historically, we don't see as much now, and that is a very powerful big fish family in a small town here in
00:04:20
Colleton County in South Carolina. And they ruled the roost for decades in terms of government, private business,
00:04:26
etc. And so, there's that part of it. >> [snorts] >> And then second, there's this whole
00:04:31
family dynamic, this kind of a Southern Gothic feel, almost out of a William Faulkner novel, where you have all these
00:04:37
strange relations and crimes committed by this family, and this question of whether it was a smoke and mirrors
00:04:43
attempt by Alec to misdirect from his own crimes to commit these murders. And so, all of that, the salacious nature
00:04:50
and the power imbalance in this county, I think makes for must-watch TV and must-listen podcasts.
00:04:56
>> Absolutely. I think if you would were to write the tale of them, you would say it was too unbelievable.
00:05:03
Um just to remind people, he did plead guilty. Alex Murdaugh did plead guilty to financial charges. Uh he was charged
00:05:13
There was a an array of charges, defrauding victims to the tune of $12 million. Um so he pled guilty to these
00:05:21
charges, and that's why he's actually not going to be released even though this murder conviction had been overturned.
00:05:27
He's currently serving um concurrent state and federal sentences of 27 and 40 years for those charges. But Murdaugh
00:05:36
has also maintained that he never killed his wife, and he never killed his son. What's important to know
00:05:43
before we move forward about where where are right now, what's important to know
00:05:46
about the original murder trial in 2023? The state would say the most critical piece of evidence was this.
00:05:53
Alec Murdoch claimed at the time of the murders he was with his mother, who I believe is suffering from dementia.
00:06:03
Shortly before the murders the son Paul had done a Snapchat recording and the prosecution argued to the jury that
00:06:11
Alec's voice was on that Snapchat recording at the family compounds by the dog kennels where these murders took
00:06:18
place. And so for the state, this was the critical piece of evidence showing he lied about his location and in fact
00:06:25
he was at the scene of the crime shortly before the murders. Right, and that's the defense argues that that's actually
00:06:31
pretty weak and I don't think they ever found the murder weapon or anything anything like that. And so the defense
00:06:39
does appeal. And what they claim is that the county clerk of court tampered with the jury.
00:06:50
What I should ask you is of course what does the county clerk do? Yeah, the county clerk they're kind of the command
00:06:56
center of the courtroom. They are managing what's going on, subpoenas being sent out so witnesses can appear,
00:07:04
reading the verdict which Becky Hill did in this case, managing the jury, is doing all of the administrative duties
00:07:11
that help the courtroom run. So in that role is it conceivable that you would chitchat with the jury, you
00:07:20
would have like some sort of casual conversation or is that normally not done at all?
00:07:28
Normally not done at all other than giving them their marching orders, right? So anything administrative
00:07:34
fair game for communications between the clerk and the jurors. Beyond that anything having to do with the evidence,
00:07:41
the testimony, the parties, strictly forbidden. So, can we talk a little bit about
00:07:49
though what the clerk is accused of saying, right? There's like several different instances when Alec Murdaugh
00:07:56
is going to testify, she says something like, "Oh, this is going to be epic." Something along those lines. Um
00:08:03
and she says, I don't know if she says it to all the jurors, but she says, "Watch his body language."
00:08:08
>> Mhm. What What could she be inferring and why could that be problematic? Yeah, and so in addition to the comments
00:08:17
you mentioned, another juror said a comment about don't let the defense fool you. Mhm. And so I think in combination
00:08:24
with the comments and demeanor and behavior, I think at least some jurors interpreted that to
00:08:31
mean his body language is going to show the lies across his forehead and it's going to [clears throat] show that the
00:08:38
defense is smoke and mirrors and this is a guilty man trying to prove his innocence to you.
00:08:45
And that, according to the defense and the state Supreme Court, likely led to the jury
00:08:51
not being impartial in assessing his testimony. And I think the defense also suggested that Hill, the clerk, had an
00:08:58
ulterior motive, right? She was planning on writing a book, which she did. Absolutely. And so their claim by the
00:09:06
defense is she was incentivized to grease the wheels on a guilty verdict because that would allow her to publish
00:09:15
this book, which she did and profit from it. Of course, she denies this, but that
00:09:19
was absolutely the allegation by the defense. Right. So, the defense uh presented their allegations in September
00:09:26
of 2023. At first, it looked like it was going to be an uphill battle for the defense. In early 2024, a state judge
00:09:33
set a very high bar for evidence that Hill tampered with the jury and then ruled that the defense couldn't prove
00:09:41
that anything Hill had done had actually influenced the jury or prejudiced the jury in any way. But then over the
00:09:48
course of the next year, a lot came to light about Hill's actions and this is when we're really learning the details.
00:09:54
What did we learn about some of what Hill not what she said, but something that she did that really caused her
00:10:03
uh I guess caused the focus to sort of zoom in on her. She inappropriately shared photos connected to the crime
00:10:14
disclosed information that was supposed to remain under seal. And to the point you raised earlier,
00:10:20
when this first judge heard the case, this was interesting actually, the former Chief Justice of the South
00:10:26
Carolina Supreme Court, Jean Toal, and it was found that she lied during her testimony before Justice Toal regarding
00:10:33
how she had handled the evidence when in fact she had improperly leaked this and
00:10:38
presented it to the public when it was supposed to remain under seal. Mhm. She showed a member of the media, I think,
00:10:44
right? And then lied about it. So then then there's perjury as well. Um she eventually pleaded guilty to those
00:10:51
charges, uh the charges obstruction of justice and perjury for lying, as well as two counts of misconduct in office
00:10:58
and taking bonuses and promoting through her public office a book that she wrote
00:11:04
on the trial. All of these charges were felonies. She did plead guilty. She apologized for her behavior. We should
00:11:12
also tell listeners what happened with this book. Um Becky Hill apparently said in kind of a casual conversation to
00:11:18
somebody in the courthouse that uh she hopes that there's a guilty verdict cuz it it would be really good for her book
00:11:23
sales. So she did write the book. It's called Behind the Doors of Justice, The Murdaugh Murders. But she was hoping to
00:11:31
maybe use the proceeds to buy a lake house, she said. Probably not going to happen. Becky
00:11:36
Hill's book was pulled from publication after her co-author discovered that she actually plagiarized portions of the
00:11:43
text. Have you come across many clerks who've written books about the trials they have worked? Never. There's been a
00:11:49
few judges who have handled high-profile cases who have written about it. I've never heard of a bailiff or a clerk of
00:11:54
court doing so. It's not a good look for the clerk, but it doesn't necessarily prove that she tampered with the jury,
00:12:02
right? >> Correct. Um there was a hearing earlier this year. I want to play some of what they argued.
00:12:09
This is Murdaugh's defense attorney. His name is Dick Harpootlian. So, this matter we're discussing this morning,
00:12:18
a fair trial, a jury not poisoned by outside influences. I would submit to you is 51 years ago as
00:12:30
I stood there, I did not realize what I was swearing to do, but I do today. And that is to defend Alex Murdaugh's
00:12:38
right to a fair trial. And I've got to admit in the 51 years since then, I've never seen a factual
00:12:45
pattern like this where the clerk of court >> [clears throat] >> where the clerk of court sets out to
00:12:53
influence the verdict to get a guilty verdict for financial gain. So, Colin, I think the last line there,
00:13:00
you know, where he says, you know, a clerk of court sets out to influence the verdict to get a guilty verdict for
00:13:07
financial gain is kind of like the crux of their argument. She did this for the money. She did this to to sell a book.
00:13:15
Um But, there needs to be proof that the jury was actually influenced. It's one thing,
00:13:22
I think, to have loose talk, but it's another thing for the jury to say that affected the outcome of the case, which
00:13:29
I think is a little harder to prove. But then this week, the Supreme Court handed
00:13:34
down its unanimous ruling overturning the convictions. What did the Supreme Court find?
00:13:39
Yeah, and this is critical to the point you just raised, which is to say Justice Toll found the defense had not
00:13:46
proven the comments by Becky Hill influenced the jury. The State Supreme Court and they correctly applied Supreme
00:13:53
Court precedent. They found if a court official makes inappropriate comments to the jury, our baseline
00:14:01
presumption is that that improperly influenced the jury and facilitated a guilty verdict, and it is up to the
00:14:10
state to rebut that presumption and prove it didn't influence the jury. And so by shifting
00:14:17
that presumption pursuant to precedent, I think the State Supreme Court correctly found that presumption was not
00:14:24
rebutted. And we have every reason to believe this had influence in the jury. So then there's another layer as well,
00:14:36
right? In addition to the findings about how the clerk of court allegedly tried to influence the jury, the justices also
00:14:43
came to some conclusions about the original judge in the trial and whether or not that judge had allowed a fair
00:14:50
trial. Can you tell us more about that ruling? So what we had here, as you noted earlier, was a litany of financial
00:14:58
crimes that Alec Murdoch committed. He fell behind, accrued debts, and stole money from his
00:15:07
clients. And the state's theory was because he had fallen into debt and committed these
00:15:13
crimes, these killings were kind of a Wizard of Oz scenario. Don't look behind the curtain, shifting the attention
00:15:20
somewhere else. And at trial the judge openly allowed very detailed evidence about all these financial crimes to come
00:15:31
in and the theory was we're not proving that Alec Murdoch is a bad guy, we're showing the motive for the killings in
00:15:38
this case. And the State Supreme Court unanimously said, "Look, we're reversing based upon the comments
00:15:45
by Becky Hill, but for the retrial at a minimum you should limit that character evidence." And some of the
00:15:52
justices even said it shouldn't come in at all. Mhm. So then what happens now? We're talking
00:16:00
about a retrial all the way back to square one. I suppose if there's evidence all of all new evidence can come up
00:16:07
whether it's for the prosecution side or the defense's side. Absolutely. And it's
00:16:11
interesting because if we look to the first trial the defense was all about telling the
00:16:18
jury there's an absence of evidence of guilt. You noted earlier the firearms weren't found.
00:16:24
It was all about saying we can't prove Alec Murdoch's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. If in fact they do have evidence
00:16:32
of an alternate suspect or affirmative evidence of innocence, that could be a game-changer, but of course they're
00:16:38
keeping it close to the vest and we're not sure whether they're just posturing or whether they actually have something.
00:16:42
>> Yeah, they certainly spoke like they were enthusiastically looking forward to
00:16:47
a retrial. Like any good defense attorney would do. But I mean to go back now and start all over again, it has to
00:16:54
be a challenge for the prosecution or or is it more of a challenge for the defense? From my research it's more of a
00:17:01
challenge to the defense. I published an article a couple of years ago called Stand by Judges in the Florida State Law
00:17:08
Review and I did extensive research on what happens when there is a reversal and we have a retrial.
00:17:16
And it's interesting because going into a first trial, the defense actually knows a lot more
00:17:22
about the prosecution case than the prosecution knows about the defense case. And so the studies and the numbers
00:17:28
I've seen all show the prosecution tends to fare better on a retrial than the defense. There are some advantages to
00:17:34
the defense, but overall prosecution is the major beneficiary. So in this case though, we're talking
00:17:41
about an incredibly high-profile case. How difficult is it going to be to hold a new trial with a jury that has not
00:17:51
seen or heard anything about this case? I mean, it's been everywhere. It's sort of a cottage industry talking about it.
00:17:57
There have been countless podcasts, documentaries, even a scripted drama. Yeah, and so two
00:18:04
things have been discussed. One is actually shipping in jurors from out of Colleton County into that county to hear
00:18:10
the case. And the second is transferring the case out of Colleton County to another area
00:18:16
in South Carolina. But beyond that to your question, and there's a lot of controversy around
00:18:21
this, the Supreme Court has said, "We don't require ignorance by jurors coming into a trial. Generally, if jurors say,
00:18:30
'I've heard some things about this case, but I can set aside what I've heard and
00:18:35
decide the case solely based upon the evidence in the courtroom,' usually we take the jurors at their
00:18:40
word. In this case, given the publicity you mentioned, that might be more difficult to accept than in most cases.
00:18:47
I mean, as you look at how this continues to unfold, I mean, what is the lesson to be learned here? The lesson to
00:18:55
be learned here, I think, is I would like to say this is the exception rather than the rule.
00:19:01
The overwhelming majority of court officials take their jobs seriously. They're not seeking financial gain, and
00:19:08
they are dutifully performing in a way we expect them to do so. Unfortunately, in this case we had a
00:19:15
rogue clerk of court and perhaps based upon wanting financial gain, she took matters into her own hands and she made
00:19:22
comments that arguably led to the jury being influenced. And so, I think this speaks both to the respect
00:19:31
we have for court officials as well as thankfully seeing the the system correct itself when we had a rogue clerk acting
00:19:37
improperly. So, there's a really strong likelihood um calling that I will be talking to you again about the Murdoch
00:19:45
case because we could be looking at a retrial in our future. Thank you so much for your insight and uh and thank you
00:19:52
everyone else for listening. All right, thanks so much. And you can follow Case by Case wherever
00:19:57
you get your podcast and be sure to tell us what cases you are following. >> [music]