Crime Fix with Angenette Levy - Alex Murdaugh Clerk Thrown In Jail For Lying Under Oath: Cops

Episode Date: May 15, 2025

Becky Hill, the former Colleton County Clerk of Court in Alex Murdaugh's double murder trial, has been charged with four felonies. Hill is accused of lying under oath during a hearing for Murdaugh in January 2024 as the disgraced lawyer asked for a new trial. Hill is also accused of using her office to promote her failed book and other crimes. Law&Crime's Angenette Levy talks with Murdaugh's attorney Dick Harpootlian about how Hill's arrest could impact his client's bid for a new trial in this episode of Crime Fix — a daily show covering the biggest stories in crime.PLEASE SUPPORT THE SHOW: If your child, under 21, has been diagnosed with type 2 diabetes or fatty liver disease, visit https://forthepeople.com/food to start a claim now!Host:Angenette Levy  https://twitter.com/Angenette5Guest: Dick Harpootlian  https://x.com/HarpootlianSCProducer:Jordan ChaconCRIME FIX PRODUCTION:Head of Social Media, YouTube - Bobby SzokeSocial Media Management - Vanessa BeinVideo Editing - Daniel CamachoGuest Booking - Alyssa Fisher & Diane KayeSTAY UP-TO-DATE WITH THE LAW&CRIME NETWORK:Watch Law&Crime Network on YouTubeTV: https://bit.ly/3td2e3yWhere To Watch Law&Crime Network: https://bit.ly/3akxLK5Sign Up For Law&Crime's Daily Newsletter: https://bit.ly/LawandCrimeNewsletterRead Fascinating Articles From Law&Crime Network: https://bit.ly/3td2IqoLAW&CRIME NETWORK SOCIAL MEDIA:Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/lawandcrime/Twitter: https://twitter.com/LawCrimeNetworkFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/lawandcrimeTwitch: https://www.twitch.tv/lawandcrimenetworkTikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@lawandcrimeSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Wondery Plus subscribers can binge all episodes of this law and crimes series ad free right now. Join Wondery Plus in the Wondery app, Apple Podcasts or Spotify. Did you ever allow anyone from the press to view these sealed exhibits? No, ma'am. That testimony from Becky Hill, the clerk of court during Alec Murdoch's double murder trial, has landed her in jail charged with perjury. And it's not the only charge Hill is facing. So could this lead to Alec Murdoch getting a new trial? One of Murdoch's attorneys is here.

Welcome to Crime Fix. I'm Anjanette Levy. It's been more than two years since a jury found disgraced lawyer Alec Murdoch guilty of murdering his wife Maggie and son Paul on their lavish hunting estate in South Carolina's Lowcountry. And now the clerk of court, who was intimately involved in overseeing the exhibits in the trial, the planning around it, and the jurors deliberating Murdoch's fate, has been charged with four felonies. Becky Hill is no longer the clerk of court. She declined to run for re-election after she came under a cloud of suspicion after writing a book after Murdoch's conviction. Then she admitted to plagiarizing part of that book, and Amazon pulled it. South

Carolina's law enforcement division began investigating Hill months after the trial, when rumors started swirling that Hill may have used her position as clerk of court to publicize and write her book. Then there was another rumor that she may have used federal funds for bonuses. The rumors were enough to spark ethics complaints and a criminal investigation, and the rumors piqued the interest of Alec Murdoch's attorneys. Then there were rumblings about the jury and the egg lady juror who was dismissed in the middle of closing arguments. It turns out Becky Hill was talking to that juror and asking her a lot of questions. That also piqued the interest of

Murdoch's attorneys. Alec Murdoch is serving two life sentences without the possibility of parole for the murders of Maggie and Paul, but he and his lawyers maintain he did not get a fair trial. They believe Becky Hill tampered with the jury and they point to her book as exhibit A. Here's Justice Jean Toll questioning Becky Hill

at a hearing in January of 2024. Well, in your book, you suggest that the guilty verdict was what you wanted and you were fearful that a guilty verdict would not be rendered. You say that a lot about your feeling about wanting a guilty verdict, do you not? I do agree that that is said in the book. And part of that is because I think it was a guilty verdict. Well, this is way, you were describing a time way before the verdict was rendered, when you wrote about those things in the book. Isn't that correct? It is, yes. And you even have something where you say your eyes met with jurors and others at Moselle

and y'all have a understanding unspoken that he was guilty you said that in the book did you not I did say that in the book and I would consider that part of the literary the word that we just said but that was there was nothing spoken with a juror at all at Moselle or anywhere else at the courthouse or anywhere. I think that's part of that poetic license that we write to make something more apparent. But at no time did I read or try to read someone else's eyes. That was just one of those gut feelings that that I wrote in the book. In the end, Justice Toll determined that anything Becky Hill said didn't influence the jury with the comments she made to them. But Murdoch's attorneys disagree,

and they're appealing to South Carolina's Supreme Court. So why is Becky Hill facing criminal charges? Well, investigators with SLED say she committed perjury in another exchange with Justice Toll about sealed exhibits for Murdoch's trial. Did you ever allow anyone from the press to view these sealed exhibits? No, ma'am. Did you allow Netflix to ever examine the exhibits of the trial? No, ma'am. This is a law and crime legal alert. Did you know that children are being diagnosed with serious conditions like type 2 diabetes and non-alcoholic fatty liver disease?

And research is potentially linking ultra-processed foods to these outcomes. Morgan & Morgan is stepping in to fight to hold food companies accountable. With decades of experience fighting large corporations, they are ready to stand up for families who deserve justice. If your child under the age of 21 has been diagnosed with type 2 diabetes or fatty liver disease, visit www.forthepeople.com slash food or scan the QR code on your screen to learn more. Investigators with SLED say that statement by Hill was a lie. Justice Toll pressed Becky Hill about the sealed exhibits because some members of the media received copies of them.

How did you handle exhibits? Because you did have the press have great access to the exhibits. You say several times in your book that you had to stay after to be sure that you interacted with the press about these exhibits. That's true, is it not? That is true. We had Mr. J. Bender, then we had the pool photographers and someone from maybe the state, I believe, or the posting courier, along with the court reporters, someone from court administration, and then someone from the clerk's office every night that would go over the exhibits to make sure everything was correct and within our domain. Were any press people ever allowed to view the exhibits, even the sealed exhibits, that you had on file?

No, ma'am. No, ma'am. What was the methodology for allowing them to examine the exhibits? How did you handle that? I wasn't there a whole lot with when we did this every night, but it's my understanding that the people that were involved with the exhibits and especially the court reporters, and there was a certain time frame that they were allowed to take their pictures and everything was, certain time frame that they were allowed to take their pictures. And everything was, all of the pictures were looked at by the court reporters that were there and the ladies from the court administration along with someone from my office and Mr. J. Fender

to make sure that everything was done correctly. What I'm asking is how you handled having them, the press, view these exhibits. If I remember correctly, the press, we had certain designated photographers and then someone, I think, from the state or the post and career, and they were responsible for putting it out on a stream for the rest of the media to access. Would they do that by photographing the exhibits as they were in your possession after court was over that day? That is correct. All right.

And how did you handle the sealed exhibits in terms of their availability when these press people were there photographing exhibits? They stayed sealed. And so you think that you're aware of the fact that some of these on-the-scene photographs of the two decedents found their way into the public press. You're aware of that, are you not? Yes, I am. Yes. After that testimony, Murdoch's lawyer, Dick Harpootlian, pulled up an email showing that Becky Hill knew that the media had received sealed exhibits. But what it is is an email from Rebecca Hill to Miho Takahuchi. Takachuchi, something. Miho, first name.

The Buford McDowell body cam should not have gone to you. Please get rid of it. Do not use it. The judge, Judge Newman, specifically ordered the body cam not be used if it got out. Apparently it is still on the videos we were saying. I appreciate your attention. What about the other body cam video we could see on many news documentaries? Can you provide it?

It seems the camera was on the other police personnel. I mean, here she's having e-mails between this Japanese production company about body cams, telling them to get rid of it. I think that's important, and I can have a copy of this printed out for you when we can get it to a printer for the record. That would be fine. Do you want to offer it as an exhibit? I do.

Mr. Waters? I have no objection. If I could just ask the date of that. The date is July 17, 2023. Show on it. Yeah, July 17. All right. That's one thing.

What else? I will admit it. I will admit it. I will allow it. That is an impeachment of her testimony to me that she did not send any e-mails or release anything. In fact, she changed that testimony on redirect when she said she did so-called by accident releasing things. That doesn't appear to be by accident. So we'd like that made part of the record. Secondly, I have sitting outside the courtroom the Cork of Court for Barnwell County, Rhonda McElvey. She specifically denied saying certain things to the Cork of Court of Barnwell County

and denied doing certain things to the Corker Court of Barnwell County, and denied doing certain things, I think you're going to find her testimony extraordinarily instructive and educational. And it shouldn't take, I would be shocked if it took 20 minutes. Well, in light of the answers she gave to my questions and some of yours in that regard, I'm going to allow it. After Hill's testimony, Murdoch sat grasping his hands. Then the clerk of court from Barnwell County testified. During that, before the trial, before we ever picked a jury, did she ever discuss with you that she was going to write a book?

Yes, sir. She wanted to write a book. She wanted to write a book. Did she indicate what the book was going to be about? About the trial. About the Murdoch trial? Yes, sir. And did she discuss with you, what, if anything, did she discuss with you

about how she felt the verdict should turn out to be in the Murdoch trial, vis-a-vis, in reference to the book. What would help the book? A guilty verdict. And tell us, tell the judge and me, what exactly she said to you that you remember. This is prior to the trial. Okay, well, first of all, she said we might want to write a book because she needed a lake house and I needed to retire. And then for the conversations, a guilty verdict would sell more books. And we looked at that. We discussed it before, even in December. And when did she ever say that again to you during the weeks you spent there?

Several times. It could be said it was amongst friends in her office or we might be having dinner, that kind of stuff, but that's about it. That she needed a guilty verdict to sell more books. That would be the best way to sell books, yes, sir. The best way to sell books, yes, sir. The best way to sell books. Now, during this process, did she ever express to you an opinion on whether or not, in fact, was Mr. Murdoch guilty of the murders of his son and his wife? Yes, sir. Tell me what she said and if you remember when.

I don't exactly remember when. I know over half of the trial had already happened, but the evidence was coming forth that it looked like he might be guilty. And she made a comment that he guilty verdict would be better for the sale of books. Rhonda McElveen's testimony then turned to contact that Becky Hill had with the jurors. Okay. Now, as a result of a conversation you had sometime during the trial, I don't want you to relay to me what was told you. Did you have a discussion with the clerk, Becky Hill, about her being with jurors on her own. Yes, sir, I did.

One morning I showed up to Collin County, and I was told that she had taken a juror home the night before. And I was in the courtroom, and I saw her. It was between the pews and where the back row pews are. And I mentioned to Ms. Baker, I said, please tell me you didn't take a juror home last night. And she told me, she says, I did, but I didn't talk about the case. I had a bailiff with me. Mr. Bill was with me. I said, Becky, you don't do things like that. I thought we had stopped everything. It wasn't far enough along to really cause a major problem or I would have told

Judge Newman. But I thought we had to understand that you did not spend time alone with the jurors. Now, at the end of the hearing, Justice Toll found that Becky Hill was not credible. Those were her words. But she denied Alec Murdoch's request for a new trial, as I mentioned earlier. But SLED's investigation was not over. And this week, Becky Hill was charged with felonies, including perjury and misconduct in office. A warrant states, in Richland County, South Carolina, on or about January 29th, 2024, Mary Rebecca H. Hill, being the elected clerk of court of Colleton County,

did willfully and unlawfully give false misleading or incomplete testimony while under oath in a court of record. During the hearing, former Clerk Hill did willfully and unlawfully give false and misleading testimony when Chief Justice Jean Toll asked former Clerk Hill, did you allow anyone from the press to view the sealed exhibits? And Hill responded, no ma'am. This statement was inconsistent with the events of February 28, 2023, when former clerk Hill did release or make available sealed evidence, photographs to a third party or parties. Hill also faces misconduct in office charges and obstruction charges, one involving an allegation that she failed to protect the sealed exhibits, and another about her book. The warrant states, on or about June 7, 2023, Mary Rebecca Hill did promote a book in which she was an author,

Behind the Doors of Justice, the Murdoch Murders, while using her public office to promote the aforesaid book on social media, such act being for her own financial gain and in violation of her duties, in violation of the laws of the state of South Carolina. Affiant's belief is based upon video evidence, statements, and SLED investigation. Hill is also accused of using federal funds meant to support child support enforcement to give herself a bonus. The warrant states, on or about September 1, 2021, through March 5, 2024, Mary Rebecca Hill, being the elected clerk of court of Colleton County, Hill requested and then received $9,880.10 in financial bonuses for herself that were paid from the Title IV-D incentive funds. Such funds were obtained by Hill and utilized for her own financial gain.

Furthermore, on or about March 5th, 2024, Hill received a financial gift and or bonus in the amount of $2,000 paid by a check from the Colleton County Clerk of Court's office funds and utilized for her own financial gain in violation of her duties. So to discuss this major development, I want to bring in Dick Harpootlian. He is one of Alec Murdoch's attorneys. So, Dick, I want to know, how are you feeling about this development with Becky Hill's arrest? She has now been charged formally with perjury. Basically, they believe she lied to Justice Toll. You believe at the time last year during the hearing that she lied to Justice Toll when you presented that email from the Japanese film crew.

So how is this going to impact the appeal? Well, I think clearly Justice Toll didn't find her credible, but not being credible and lying under oath are two different things. She not only, I mean, she'd been charged, a prosecutor believes beyond a reasonable doubt, she lied under oath about giving certain sealed materials to a Japanese film crew or other people. She testified during that proceeding that she never said anything to either one of the jurors that testified. They say she attempted to influence them. One of them said it did influence her. She said never happened. So it just seems to me that for any shred of credibility or any shred of giving a decision that relies on anything she said ought to go out the window. So Jim Griffin and I talked after we had a chance to examine the

warrants yesterday, and we believe that this should help us in our appeal. Going to file anything with the South Carolina Supreme Court, some type of addendum or something like that, because she now has been formally charged? Well, so the process is on January 8th, we filed our formal appeal briefs and exhibits. They have till August 8th, they, the state, till August 8th to respond to that. And then we get 30 days after that to respond to their response. So in that response to their

response, we will obviously fold this in. Were you surprised at how long it took for the charges to be filed? Because we knew for a very long time, you know, from at least before you filed your motion for a new trial back in September of 2023, that she was under suspicion for ethics violations, that there was a lot circulating out there. There were a lot of rumors about what she was doing with the book. And even at the end of the trial, you know, I remember hearing very clearly that she was talking with the foreperson, the forewoman on the jury. You know, there was a lot out there. And then we knew there was a criminal investigation. Are you surprised that it took this long for charges to be filed? We know that these investigations can take a long time, but it's been well over a year since the hearing. You know, that was January of 2024 when you guys had your hearing for the motion for a new trial.

Well, it has taken a very long time. Fortunately, something has happened prior to us having to file that final brief. But as I told a reporter yesterday, I think this is a good start. I mean, I'm hoping this isn't the end all be all. Remember now, and this, this concerns us. The agency investigating her is the same agency that did the investigation on the murder case and the witnesses on the murder case. Um, it raises severe and significant questions about whether there's a conflict. Now, they'll say,

well, it's a different division and whatever. Well, we're a small state. That's a small agency. It's the same chief supervising both investigations. And I mean, I'm sure they're there. I'm not questioning anybody's integrity. What I am questioning is the ability to focus on Becky Hill and look in areas that might further jeopardize that conviction. There's a whole series of events I was a part of before the judge ultimately dismissed the juror we all know as Eglady. There were a series of conferences in chambers concerning allegations Becky Hill was making before her more than a week or 10 days prior to her actually being excused, involving some email that we find out didn't exist. But what she said was egg lady's former husband, which it wasn't, it was a guy in Georgia. It had nothing to do with the case. Why was she stirring the pot on that?

Obviously intentionally, you know, a week or more before egg lady was, when she came in with more evidence. I mean, she was out to get, clearly out to get the egg lady excuse from the jury. Did that mean that she had inside information on her egg lady's position? I mean, apparently she did indicate in her testimony and affidavits that she had severe questions about whether the state approved beyond a reasonable doubt. How did she know that? Why was she after that? Those are the questions that need to be asked and investigated. And, you know, there are folks who were witnesses

to that process that I don't know have been interviewed. I know they, like last week or week before last, a couple of sweat agents interviewed the two jurors that testified. And Joe McCullough, their lawyer, I think he issued a statement yesterday, indicated it was perfunctory at best, and it wasn't a real effort to get to the bottom of the matter. So I'm concerned about that. All we really want is for Alec Murdoch to get a fair trial. Now, and people say, well, you know, he's going to get, he's pled guilty to stealing millions of dollars from his clients. If he got a new trial and was acquitted, he would not get out until he's 75 or older and he's 52 now. So this isn't a walk, this isn't a free walk for Alec Murdoch. It's a trial based on the facts, not on a jury that somebody's tried to fix.

I feel like there are several things that could happen here with the South Carolina Supreme Court. Is it possible that they feel that could they find that Justice Toll erred in not hearing testimony from the egg lady and then kick it back to the lower court for further proceedings? No. Is that one possibility? No. Look, the record Tolmay, Justice Tolmay, is pretty damn good, except we think there's federal cases that say you don't ask the juror would have it have changed the verdict or did they change the verdict? The question is, did somebody in authority say things to them that could have objectively influenced their verdict? Not whether it did or didn't. She applied a state case called Green, which we would respectfully disagree with her on what it means, but it doesn't mean that. There's a federal case which says that if the record,

under the record she made, which was the court talked to them, the court said things that could have influenced, we get a new trial. So, and if the state Supreme Court does not adopt that federal standard, we'll ask a federal court to hear this. what is misconduct and what level of conduct by that court of court or bailiff or some court official requires a new trial. And they could give us a new trial without ever having to deal with the myriad of evidentiary issues that were raised during the trial. There's all kinds of issues about what we would call, as you know, technically 404 evidence, 403 evidence, expert evidence, whether they were qualified to testify or not. I mean, our brief is well over 100 pages,

and it just scratches the surface. So I'm not confident it's the wrong word, but I'm optimistic that our Supreme Court will allow us to come back and give out a opportunity to defend himself on the murder charges. So if you're filing your response in September, your response to the state's response, when do you expect the South Carolina Supreme Court to issue a decision? Well, they you know, they could have oral argument. I suspect they will in this case. They don't have to. I think the briefing and the record on the work's misconduct is enough that they could issue an order without oral argument. But, you know, they called the Supreme Court for a reason. There's no higher court in this state, and they'll hear it when they want to hear it,

and they'll issue a decision when they want to issue a decision. So I've seen cases take five years to get a decision. I've seen cases in which five days a decision was issued. So that's all internal. It's like Judge U.S. Justice Alva Wendell Holmes once said, the law is what we say it is. I mean, it's not arrogant. It is that is there in the final court in this case, in this case, the state's final court. So they'll do it when they're ready to do it. You're optimistic that you will get some relief at the state Supreme Court level. Have you spoken to Alec Murdoch about this latest development with Becky Hill being charged? No, we talk every Friday. So I'll talk to him tomorrow. Jim and I'll talk to him, Jim or I, or both of us will talk to him tomorrow and we'll let him,

he gets it, but he does have access to internet. I'm sure he's seen the story, but access to a phone is another matter altogether. So it's somewhat limited. Well, it's certainly an interesting turn of events. I'm not really sure it's that surprising. I think what's surprising is that it took this long because we've heard nothing about how this investigation was progressing. And I think a lot of people were wondering if anything was going to happen. So were you surprised when the charges were actually filed? I was. I mean, I knew because they interviewed those two jurors a couple weeks ago, something was going on. I didn't know when or what. And, you know, of course,

I'm a little disappointed they haven't borne down on the obstruction of justice charge that might be there. I'm not saying she did as to attempted obstruction in reference to the jurors. I'm hoping that that investigation and, you know, they may conclude there's no charges to be brought. But I think it does merit extraordinarily close scrutiny by an objective investigator. Have you received any response from the public after Hill's arrest? I think we've gotten hundreds of emails in the last 12 hours from people around the country expressing what you've just said, which is why it takes so long. But this is a good thing. Alex should get a fair trial.

I'm really sort of buoyed by the sort of overwhelming amount of opinion and emails and texts and posts that we're getting, that people believe in the rule of law. I mean, these times, especially, it's important to understand no matter how bad and how egregious the accusations are, everybody should get a fair trial. Everyone deserves a fair trial. Every person in this country deserves a fair trial. Thank you so much, Dick Harpootlian. We will keep a close eye on this country deserves a fair trial. Thank you so much, Dick Harpootlian. We will keep a close eye on this. We appreciate your time. Great. Thank you. Dick Harpootlian is also writing a book about prosecuting Pee Wee Gaskins,

a serial killer in South Carolina. That book will be released later this year. And that's it for this episode of Crime Fix. I'm Janette Levy. Thanks so much for being with me. I'll see you back here next time.