Crime Fix with Angenette Levy - Alex Murdaugh Gets New Trial in Bombshell Court Ruling

Episode Date: May 13, 2026

The South Carolina Supreme Court has overturned Alex Murdaugh’s murder convictions and ordered a new trial, ruling that improper influence by former court clerk Becky Hill tainted the jury during the dramatic 2023 proceedings. Murdaugh, originally convicted of brutally killing his wife, Maggie Murdaugh, and son, Paul Murdaugh, in 2021, has fiercely denied committing the murders, even after admitting to a web of financial crimes and lying to investigators about his whereabouts the night they died. Law&Crime’s Angenette Levy has the breaking news on this episode of Crime Fix.Host:Angenette Levy  https://twitter.com/Angenette5CRIME 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.

You say that a lot about your feeling about warning 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. Breaking news out of South Carolina, Alec Murdoch, the privileged son of a legal dynasty, is getting a new trial based largely on the actions of one woman. Former Colleton County Clerk of Court, Becky Hill, you just heard from her. I will go through the breaking details. I'm Ann Jeanette Levy.

This is Crime Fix. Alec Murdoch, the disgraced South Carolina attorney once convicted of murdering his wife Maggie and some Paul. You know, he's been serving two life sentences, but today everything has changed. The South Carolina Supreme Court has just issued an opinion, vacating Murdoch's conviction and remanding the case for further proceedings in a new trial. Let me read to you directly from this opinion that we just got our hands on. because this language is extraordinary. It reads, for six weeks in early 2023, the eyes of the nation focused on Colleton County, where the state prosecuted notorious former attorney Richard Alexander Murdoch for the murders of his wife Maggie and son Paul. Both the state and Murdoch'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 Murdoch his right to a fair trial by an impartial jury. That's straight from the South Carolina Supreme Court. In this opinion, it's unanimous. The court found, per this opinion, that Colleton County Clerk of Court, Becky Hill, the woman who actually read the guilty verdict in this case,

made improper statements to the jurors, she told them to, quote, watch his body language, told them to not be fooled by Alec Murdoch's defense, all because the court said she wanted a guilty verdict to sell more copies of a book she was writing. The justices wrote, Hill egregiously attacked Murdoch's credibility and his defense, thus triggering the presumption of prejudice, which the state was unable to rebut. Hill's shocking jury interference was accomplished outside the presence and knowledge of the outstanding trial judge and superbly competent and professional counsel for the state and the defense, we are accordingly constrained to reverse the post-trial court's denial of Murdoch's motion

and remand for a new trial consistent with this opinion. Mind you, nobody knew about any of this at the time, not the judge, prosecutors, not the defense. Nope, this all came out after the trial. And Becky Hill later pleaded guilty to crimes related to the trial, including misconduct in public office and perjury. She served no jail time, but she was never charged with jury tampering. Now Murdoch isn't walking free. We should be clear about that. He's still serving 27 years for financial crimes, but the murder convictions, he's getting a new trial. The court said, we have no choice but to reverse the denial of Murdoch's motion for a new trial due to Hill's improper external influences on the jury and remand for a new trial. The state tried to

fight this, of course. They argued evidence against Murdoch was overwhelming. The Hill's comments were just foolish and fleeting. But the Supreme Court said the burden was on the prosecution to prove there was no reasonable possibility that the jury was influenced. And the state, they couldn't meet that burden. The prosecution also argued the defense was using the wrong standard when asking for a new trial. But the state's high court disagreed. The justices wrote, as the Fourth Circuit declared, the Remmer presumption is live 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 Murdoch's credibility and his defense, thus triggering the presumption of prejudice,

which the state was unable to rebut. As noted at the outset, Hill's shocking jury interference was accomplished outside the presence and knowledge of the outstanding trial judge and superbly competent and professional counsel for the state and the defense. We are accordingly constrained to reverse the post-trial court's denial of Murdoch's motion and remand for a new trial consistent with this opinion, reversed and remanded. Now, I spoke briefly with Alec Murdoch's attorney Dick Harputlian right after this opinion was released. He was still reading it, but he was on the phone with Alec Murdoch when we spoke telling him about the news. So what happens now? I want to bring in Eric Blan, he is an attorney in South Carolina who represented many of Alec Murdoch's financial crimes victims.

And Eric, I want your reaction right off the bat to this ruling by the South Carolina Supreme Court. I'm not surprised by it, are you? No, not based on the oral arguments that we heard in February. I think the oral arguments were a little shocking because I didn't foresee that the South Carolina Supreme Court would go so hard. Justice Toll, the former Chief Justice, and I didn't think they would go as hard as they did on their questioning about Judge Newman letting in the financial crimes. It was shocking to hear how hard they went against the state and how really gentle they went against Tarputley and in Griffin and Phil Barber. But the decision now is not surprising based on those oral arguments. We always

thought that Alex would get relief on the federal level because it did implicate his Sixth Amendment constitutional right to a fair jury trial, but not surprising based on the oral arguments. Why did you think that they went, why were you surprised that they went so hard at Justice Toll? I ask you that because I remember very clearly, Eric, standing outside of that courthouse in Richland County, and you telling me, after. after that motion for a new trial was heard, that one day hearing that I told you he wasn't going to get a new trial. Why were you so shocked? Because I think a lot of us watching who aren't tied emotionally to this case saw that there were definitely some issues during that hearing. Even Justice Toll said that Becky Hill had credibility issues.

Right. And she ultimately didn't plead guilty to have it that had anything to do with her interfering. with the trial. The question was, did Justice Toll apply the state standard? And she felt that State v. Green was the right standard. She felt that 11 of the jurors had definitely said that their verdict was not influenced by anything that Becky Hill said or did. Certainly the six jurors that I represented said that they never heard her say anything. And she found that juror Z was not credible because of her conflict. affidavits. I just didn't see as a lawyer that our Supreme Court would be going so hard

against the former Chief Justice when they really put her in a position to make a difficult ruling. I always again thought that there would be relief for Alex, possibly on the federal level, but not the state level, but I clearly was wrong. This ruling, and I want to read exactly what the justices wrote in this opinion. They wrote that basically, you know, Colleton County Clerk of Court, Rebecca Hill, placed her fingers on the scale of just scales of justice, thereby denying Murdoch his right to a fair trial by an impartial jury. These justices are saying Justice Toll was wrong. Well, they're also believing jurors Z over the 11 other jurors. So, and possibly a little bit of

what the egg lady has said, but they placed a big emphasis on the other clerk of court that testified what Becky had said to her about a book, about that it would be better if Alex was convicted as opposed to a hung jury or held not guilty. I just think that the Supreme Court erred on the side of that our justice system needs to work equally for the work. of us, not just for the best of us. And they felt that it was too much of a constitutional Sixth Amendment right. Can't fault them for that. But I thought that Justice Toll had a full and complete hearing. And, you know, I was not overly concerned that Justice Judge Newman would be reversed as well based on that he went, as the Supreme Court said, too far and too deep

into the financial crimes. They did not say that it was wrong for him to use his discretion to admit them, but he went too far too deep. And they cited Tony Satterfield, my client's testimony about his brother being a vulnerable adult, that that really bore no relationship to motive. I disagree on that. They did say that he went too far and too deep. They said he was within his discretion to admit it, but it was just too much. And it was almost like a trial within a trial. You'd have to agree, Eric, you know, that there was a lot of testimony. It extended the length of the trial with all of that testimony from the witnesses on the financial crimes.

Yeah, but he linked it, the state, Creighton Wooders and the judge linked it to proximity to the murder, that it essentially began in April and May when Tony Satterfield called. then when Alex got the loan from the banking and Maggie wouldn't guarantee it to the morning of the murders where Jeannie Secondger approached him about the $795,000 missing to Mark Tensley's June 10th hearing to hold Alex in contempt. That was the link. And it seems like that the court agreed that that was okay. It's just the breadth of the testimony regarding those. for different financial events was troublesome to the Supreme Court. I want to go back to the jurors. You said the jurors you represented didn't hear these things. There was really some testimony, though, at that hearing for the motion for a new trial,

that they were in separate rooms. And would you not concede, though, that maybe just because Becky said things to certain jurors, you know, she may have said certain things to the egg juror and other jurors, maybe she didn't say it to other jurors? Absolutely. She may not have made a general statement, but my jurors were not all in the same room. They were in separate rooms from each other. So they were in both of the jury rooms.

But you are 100% correct that we can't know for sure that Becky didn't have a private conversation with one of the jurors that she didn't have with all the jurors. Well, Alec Murdoch is getting a new trial. If Alan Wilson or his predecessor decides to retry this, what is your pretext? because a lot of these people who are running for Attorney General right now say that they will retry him. Well, sure. I mean, Maggie and Paul deserve justice. Justice has no time limits. Justice has no geography of how far you're going to chase it. I have heard from Stephen Goldfinch because I was the first person to raise the issue. Hey, the next Attorney General, Alex's successor is going to have to, I mean, Alan's successor is going to have to make this decision. Do we put the resources of our office in the state and wherever this trial may be had if it's not going to be back in Claren County?

It'll be somewhere else. And the answer I got from Stephen Goldfish, one of the candidates is, yes, I absolutely would do it. He told me that day. And since then, all of the candidates, David Pascoe and Stumbo said that they would do it as well. unfortunately, you know, this happens. You have situations where there are multiple trials. I mean, John Gotti had, you know, five trials with his mistrials. But this is going to be a different trial because the Supreme Court is definitely admonishing whoever this trial judge is.

If you're going to let in some of these 404 character issues and you do your 403 prejudicial balancing test, if you let them in, do the, Do not let them go so far that they permeate the trial and possibly affect the outcome of the trial because is Alex being convicted of murder or is he being convicted of murder because he was a dastardly financial thief. Well, we will stay tuned. Thank you, Eric Land. Thank you for having me on. We just got statements in from the Murdoch defense team and South Carolina Attorney General Alan Wilson. First from Murdoch's defense. The statement says, Supreme Court's decision today affirms that the rule of law remains strong in South Carolina. The court found that Becky Hill's conduct during the trial attacked Alec Murdoch's credibility

and his defense. The court rightly described her conduct as breathtaking, disgraceful, and unprecedented in South Carolina. We respect the decision that made clear that the retrial must look very different from the first. The initial jury heard more than 12 hours of testimony about Alex's financial crimes. The court held that this evidence went far beyond what was necessary and gave rise to unfair prejudice on retrial that will not be permitted. Alec has said from day one that he did not kill his wife and son. We look forward to a new trial conducted consistent with the Constitution and the guidance this court has provided. And Attorney General Alan Wilson, who's running for governor now, says he will retry Alec Murdoch. Wilson's

statement reads, while we respectfully disagree with the court's decision, my office will aggressively seek to retry Alec Murdoch for the murders of Maggie and Paul as soon as possible. Let me be clear. This decision does not mean Murdoch will be released. He will remain in prison for his financial crimes. No one is above the law. And as always, we will continue to fight for justice. Stay with law and crime for all the new developments regarding Alec Murdoch's win at the South Carolina Supreme Court and the movement toward his new trial. And that's it for this episode of Crime Fix. I'm Ann Janette Levy. Thanks so much for being with me. I'll see you back here next time.