Crime Fix with Angenette Levy - Alex Murdaugh's Lawyers Slam Embattled Court Clerk in New Documents

Starting point is 00:00:00 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. The state versus Richard Alexander Murdoch defendant. Indictment for murder, SC code 16-3-0010. CDR code 0116. Guilty verdict. New allegations of misconduct by Clerk of Court Becky Hill in Alec Murdoch's double murder trial. Murdoch claims Hill was emailing prosecutors during the trial about the testimony of defense witnesses.

Starting point is 00:00:44 Will we see Becky Hill, the jurors, and Judge Newman on the stand later this month? We've got the scoop with a lawyer from South Carolina. I'm Anjanette Levy. It's Thursday, and this is Crime Fix, law and crimes look at the biggest stories in the world of crime. A three-day evidentiary hearing is scheduled for the end of the month as Alec Murdoch asks the court to order a new trial based on his claim that the clerk of court tampered with the jury. A jury in Culleton County found him guilty of the murders of his wife Maggie and son Paul last March after deliberating for three hours following six weeks of testimony. The state versus Richard Alexander Murdoch defendant. Indictment for murder, SC code 16-3-0010, CDR code 0116. Guilty verdict. That was clerk of court Becky Hill reading the guilty verdict. Six months later,

Starting point is 00:01:45 Murdoch's defense team accused Hill of tampering with the jury by urging them to not believe Murdoch's testimony. The defense also said Hill was having private conversations with the poor person. Hill has denied all of the defense's claims in an affidavit to the court, but I can tell you for certain that I was told the night before the verdict that Hill had admitted she'd been speaking with the foreperson. I tried to confirm that information but wasn't able to. Then the defense motion for a new trial came about and made it clear that that information was in fact true. The defense has filed a 20-page brief with the court in which they say they believe the evidence will show

Starting point is 00:02:25 that Hill engaged in jury tampering. Getting a new trial isn't easy, but Murdoch's lawyers were confident last September when I spoke with them about it. I will say Alec is entitled to a new trial, and he will get a new trial. Murdoch's defense team fully expects Becky Hill to testify at the hearing. Some have speculated that she might invoke her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, but the defense says that shouldn't be allowed since Hill already submitted an affidavit to the court denying the jury tampering allegations. The defense says Hill's credibility is lacking. They say she's been accused of stealing money, illegally selling access to the courthouse, conspiring with her son,

Starting point is 00:03:05 Colt Hill, to conduct illegal wiretaps, and that she's also admitted to plagiarism in her book, Behind the Doors of Justice, which has been removed from publication. The defense has also uncovered emails that Becky Hill forwarded to prosecutors from members of the public, in which they offered commentary on the testimony of defense experts. Another thing we've learned from the brief, we probably won't see jurors testifying on the witness stand, or Judge Newman for that matter. The defense says Justice Jean Toll, who is now presiding over the case, should question the Murdoch jurors in camera, meaning behind closed doors. The defense is also asking that attorney Eric

Starting point is 00:03:45 Bland, who represents four of the Murdoch jurors, be barred from taking part in the proceedings other than representing the jurors. They claim he's just trying to get on TV. Here's what Bland told me last September about his public offer to represent the jurors. But the most important reason why I got involved was because Dick said that the jurors needed the jurors. But the most important reason why I got involved was because Dick said that the jurors needed the lawyer up. And it was an extraordinary thing for a lawyer to say, why would jurors need a lawyer? And so that was really the genesis of why I made that offer, Anjanette, to provide representation. And what about Judge Newman? He's retired now and could be a key witness to some of what happened with Becky Hill. Well, the defense says Justice Toll should also

Starting point is 00:04:31 question Judge Newman if necessary in the same manner as the jurors behind closed doors in order to preserve the dignity of his office. The Murdoch team said a transcript of that testimony should be released at a later time. So what does the state say about all of this? Well, prosecutors have filed their own brief and they say a hearing shouldn't be held at all. The prosecutors say the defense hasn't met the bar for a hearing, but it appears Justice Toll disagrees since she's already scheduled one. They also say the burden is on Murdoch to prove that improper contacts occurred between Ms. Becky and the jurors. Here's what Creighton Waters said about Murdoch's bid for a new trial after his sentencing for financial crimes late last year. With a certainty that

Starting point is 00:05:16 he's going to be in prison for the rest of his life, regardless of what happens with the murders. And let's be clear, he's got two life sentences for murder and those aren't going away. We're going to litigate that. And if we, for some reason, some small chance we have to retry it, we'll do that as well. Joining me to discuss this whole sordid saga is somebody who's very familiar with it. She is Lori Murray. She is a personal injury lawyer, also a criminal defense attorney. She was once a prosecutor and she's also known as Lawyer Lori on TikTok. She's a TikTok star and she's a first time guest here on Crime Fix. Lori, welcome to Crime Fix. Thanks for coming on.

Starting point is 00:05:54 Thanks for having me. What is your take on the very latest from the defense here, Lori? You know, the defense is saying we are going to prove jury tampering by Becky Hill in this evidentiary hearing. We have evidence, we have emails showing that she was forwarding emails from the public, providing commentary about defense witnesses to the prosecution, not forwarding them to the defense team, but forwarding them to the prosecution. Also, they're saying she basically has no credibility. She's being investigated for theft, for wiretapping with her son. She's admitted to plagiarism. How can you believe a word this woman says? Oh, don't ask me that question because I don't think

Starting point is 00:06:38 you can. And, you know, with regard to the motion that was filed yesterday, the pre-hearing brief, I guess, is more of what it accurately should be called. This is, you know, say what you want about Dick Harpootlian and Jim Griffin. They give good brief. They are very excellent writers, and every point was covered in that brief, and they did a fantastic job. And I know the state responded today, but honestly, they cover, the defense has covered every issue so well that I think the state is expected to respond, so they respond. And I don't know that they made any headway or any good legal points in their response. This is just a really good brief by the defense. It was their briefs. You're right. Are always very well written. They make very interesting points.

Starting point is 00:07:28 You know, the state for its part. And we just mentioned this earlier in the show basically said, hey, you know, it was seven pages, I think. You know, the burden is on them. They haven't made a prima facie case that this happened. Basically, there should be no hearing. This is much ado about nothing. And we should all just shut this down and go home. And that is it's almost comical at this point to consider all of the hoopla that has been going on with this motion ever since it was filed with the Court of Appeals that now the state just wants to say, yes, a lot of nothing. It's not a lot of nothing. It's a lot of a lot of a lot of something. And I think that Dick Harpootlian and Jim Griffin accurately made the point that when the Court of

Starting point is 00:08:14 Appeals set aside the appeal to give them time to actually have this hearing, they actually found that there was a prima facie case right then. So now for a lower court judge, which technically, although she is a former Supreme Court justice, Justice Toll is a lower court judge for purposes of this case, that would be her overruling the Court of Appeals. And I don't think she can do that. I think the Court of Appeals has accurately said, there's a prima facie case here. We're going to hold the court, the appeal in abeyance until this evidentiary hearing can be held. One thing that I thought was interesting was that fact that you just pointed out, the fact that the appeals court sent it back, basically

Starting point is 00:08:55 said, hey, this has to go back to the trial court. You guys have to figure this out. You know, it looks like a hearing will need to be held. And the state even conceded at one point in one of their other filings that a hearing might be necessary. But now they're saying, no, it's not. And I find it interesting as well, because they've been asked by Duffy Stone's office to impanel a grand jury to investigate public corruption in the 14th Circuit as it relates to not only Becky Hill's son, but Becky Hill as well. And Fitz News has been reporting that she's being investigated by the feds as well for possibly misusing that child support enforcement fund money through her office. And there are emails from the county. There's a county employee who's basically saying,

Starting point is 00:09:46 a higher up saying, hey, you made checks out to some of your employees and you shouldn't have done that. So you need to pay that money back. And we had heard that scuttlebutt a while ago in the summer that she had apparently given bonuses to the employees and nobody knew where the money came from. So there's a lot of there's a lot of there, there. Does that add up to her tampering with the jury? I don't know. But we know for certain, you know, that she was somehow having conversations with the jury because we heard it the night before the verdict. We just couldn't confirm it. She had made a comment to somebody at the big media party that she had talked to the foreperson. And so that word got around.

Starting point is 00:10:26 And also she was seen at Moselle walking around with the foreperson. And if you look at the state's response, they even mentioned that some of the jurors, they have that little chart or the table, and they mentioned that some of the jurors overheard some of this stuff. So, I mean, it seems like there is a lot of there there. There is a lot of there there. There is a lot of there there. And it may be, even if you hold that the Court of Appeals, if you disagree with Dick Harpootlian and what he says that the Court of Appeals made that ruling, you still do have all of this evidence that goes against the credibility of Becky Hill. It doesn't necessarily

Starting point is 00:11:01 go to the tampering issue, but what you have to look at is what is the standard? And I have been back and forth with this until I read his brief and realized there was case law out there and went and looked that a juror actually had to say, I changed my verdict based on what she said. I don't think that's the case anymore. I think they are absolutely correct in that Alec Murdoch and every defendant has a constitutional right to a fair and impartial trial. And if there is interference with a court official or by a court official, then it used to be that was a presumed tampering, a presumed tampering with the jury. It's not necessarily presumed anymore. But what it is, is if it is a court official that does have some kind of contact with the jury, it becomes, was the contact harmless? And that is what our case law says. That is what the Supreme Court case law says. You don't automatically get a new trial, but you don't have to convict or convince the judge

Starting point is 00:12:13 that a juror had actual bias. It is a totally different standard. There is a jury tampering and a jury misconduct, a juror misconduct, and then there is an official misconduct. And for official misconduct, it's presumed, but it could be rebutted by saying, hey, it was harmless. And in this case, talking about Alec Murdoch's testimony cannot be held to be harmless. So I think we definitely end up in a hearing, even if you can't find a juror that says, yeah, I changed my mind or didn't change my mind, whatever. If you can't find that juror that's willing to say that, you still have her contact that was not harmless. And even if they don't realize that they're being impacted because of her position. So I definitely think we get into a new trial. All of the evidence against Becky Hill goes to her credibility.

Starting point is 00:12:59 And she absolutely has to take the stand. Now, whether she believes the bet, that's a whole different question. These briefs, first off, to me, seem like a formality. You know, Justice Toll is saying, tell me what you're expecting. And she's a former chief justice of the state Supreme Court. She knows what needs to be done here. And this is like almost like a paper trail. So this is kind of like just part of the process.

Starting point is 00:13:29 I think a lot is going to come down to what this foreperson has to say. And we don't know what the foreperson is saying. It's it's my understanding. I don't know. I don't I don't think SLEDs interviewed the foreperson. We know that, you know, Bland Richter doesn't represent the foreperson. We know Joe McCullough doesn't. And so there's a lot that needs to be fleshed out here. Your thoughts on the fact that they're saying, Dick Harpootlian and Jim Griffin are saying, Judge Newman and the jurors should be questioned by Justice Toll only in chambers, in camera. So the public won't be privy to that. They may get a transcript that's redacted afterwards. Well, I think it's a shame that we would not. I think it sounds almost to me like they've agreed upon that.

Starting point is 00:14:11 And I don't disagree with the fact that they should be questioned in camera behind closed doors. I think that that preserves integrity, preserves their privacy, and it preserves the integrity of the jury room. And the same with Judge Newman preserves their privacy and it preserves the integrity of the jury room. And the same with Judge Newman preserves the judicial integrity. So I don't disagree with them asking for that. I think it's absolutely the right thing to do. It's just disappointing for us who are covering the case because we won't know. But Justice Toll will be able to ask the questions herself.

Starting point is 00:14:43 It'd be a much more informal interview with them. And I think that's a good thing. But I want to go back to, again, Dick Harpullian and Jim Griffin think that they don't need any of these jurors. They think that they only need Becky Hill. And the only thing that they would need the jurors for is to say what that questionnaire said that the state put in as an exhibit to their filing. If Becky Hill had contact, what was it and was it harmless? Five people have said they heard her say, you know, pay attention to him during his testimony, watch his body language. Five people, according to the state's own filing, said that. So now Justice Toll has to confirm that, that those five people heard that, and then

Starting point is 00:15:22 Justice Toll has to make a ruling as to whether that was harmless or not. That, I think, is what's going to be the standard. I've heard a couple of people say, including Joe McCullough, who's really good friends with Dick Harpootlian, who represents Egg Lady juror and another juror, you know, basically say, well, if he gets a new trial, there are questions about whether the state would even retry Alec because of the expense. I mean, I know that that's what they say because he's already basically in prison for life anyway on the financial crime stuff. But I'm like, this is a double homicide. I mean, this is a double homicide that was a brutal double homicide. Creighton Waters had said after the sentencing, yeah, if we have to retry it,

Starting point is 00:16:05 we'll do it. What are your thoughts on that? Do you see the state, if a new trial is ordered, just saying, yeah, we're not going to retry it because he's already in prison for life? I don't. I don't see them saying that at all. I think that even though it's a double homicide, you have to remember the victims of this case are the Murdoch's own family and the family of Maggie. And Maggie's family, you know, her sister was there, but I don't think many of her family members actually showed up. So they're the victims and they're the ones that the state has to answer to. But yes, it's a huge expense. But the hoopla that surrounded this and to have all of this taken away and this verdict question, I don't think the state and Creighton Waters can sit with that. I don't think Alan Wilson can sit with that.

Starting point is 00:16:50 They would have to go back and do it again as a matter of principle on this. I don't think they'll be able to sit with just letting it go at this point. Yeah. I mean, that's my, my take on it. And this, this was supposed to be the symbol that South Carolina could, could do it right. That it could be done right. That they could, you know, that, that a Murdoch or, you know, that somebody who is powerful and influential, wasn't going to get away with it. I mean, that was kind of the line, right? Like this was their symbol that, that South Carolina could do a trial and it could be clean. So I don't see them just saying, okay, yeah, okay, we're, you know, hypothetically speaking, if a new trial is ordered, we're just not going to retry it. I just, I don't see that happening, but I also don't. No, and the sad part is that South Carolina can do it. South Carolina has a lot of great

Starting point is 00:17:40 districts out there, a lot of great clerks of court out there. This is an anomaly. And the baffling part to me is to find this out in the middle of a corruption trial that she herself is pushing so hard to prove Elliot Murdoch guilty of all this corruption and murder, and then to turn around and it be her who is doing the same things behind closed doors, at least the allegations being there that she's doing the same things behind closed doors. And I believe she's facing some serious charges here. Like I think that she's facing at least probably three criminal charges, at least. Let's wait and see for sure. Lori Murray, thank you so much for coming on. We appreciate it.

Starting point is 00:18:23 We hope you'll come back sometime. Anytime. Thanks for having me. And that's it for this edition of Crime Fix on Thursday, January 4th, 2024. I'm Anjanette Levy. Thanks so much for joining us. We will see you back here tomorrow. Until then, have a great night.

Pet Camera - EBO Air 2

Crime Fix with Angenette Levy - Alex Murdaugh's Lawyers Slam Embattled Court Clerk in New Documents

There aren't comments yet for this episode. Click on any sentence in the transcript to leave a comment.

Your Ad Here

Pet Camera - EBO Air 2

Crime Fix with Angenette Levy - Alex Murdaugh's Lawyers Slam Embattled Court Clerk in New Documents

There aren't comments yet for this episode. Click on any sentence in the transcript to leave a comment.