The South Carolina Supreme Court on Wednesday overturned Alex Murdaugh’s murder convictions and ordered a new trial in the killing of his wife and son in June 2021, saying the trial was marred by the “improper” influence of the county clerk, Becky Hill. In a 5-0 ruling, the court said Hill “placed her fingers on the scales of justice, thereby denying Murdaugh his right to a fair trial by an impartial jury.”
“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,” the justices wrote. With its ruling, the court also vacated the two life sentences Murdaugh had received for the murder charges. Still, he separately pleaded guilty to dozens of financial crimes and will remain behind bars on concurrent state and federal sentences of 27 and 40 years.
The ruling is the latest twist in the sprawling Murdaugh saga that has riveted the public and spawned true crime documentaries, podcasts, and books. Murdaugh, a prominent attorney from a South Carolina Lowcountry legal dynasty, was convicted by a jury of the murders of his wife, Maggie, and 22-year-old son, Paul, in March 2023. The six-week trial featured extensive testimony about Murdaugh stealing millions of dollars from vulnerable clients and his own law firm. He took the stand in his own defense. He denied he killed his wife and son – a position he maintains – even as he admitted to massive financial theft and admitted he had lied to investigators about his whereabouts just before the killings.
Murdaugh’s appeal also challenged whether the prosecution’s extensive focus on his financial crimes was appropriate in a murder trial.
At the trial, a series of witnesses testified about Murdaugh’s history of financial crimes as prosecutors sought to show he killed his wife and son to fend off a “gathering storm” that he believed would soon expose him as a fraud. This evidence was key to their theory of his motive, prosecutors said. However, Murdaugh’s attorneys argued this motive did not make logical sense. They said the prosecution improperly used the financial crimes evidence to malign Murdaugh’s character and argued it should have been limited or excluded from the trial.
The appeals court said it ordered a new trial based on Hill’s influence on the jury, and so did not officially rule on the evidentiary issues. Still, the justices offered “guidance” for a potential retrial, saying the trial court “allowed the state to go far too long and far too deep into aspects of Murdaugh’s financial crimes.”
