Crime Fix with Angenette Levy - Prosecutors Rip Alex Murdaugh in His Bid for Another Trial

Episode Date: August 17, 2025

Convicted double murderer Alex Murdaugh is asking South Carolina's Supreme Court for a new trial for the murders of his wife, Maggie, and son, Paul. Maggie and Paul were shot to death at the family's Moselle hunting estate in June 2021. Murdaugh makes a number of arguments for a new trial including that the now disgraced clerk of court tampered with the jury. But prosecutors are pushing back against all of Murdaugh's claims. Law&Crime's Angenette Levy discusses what the prosecutors are arguing in this episode of Crime Fix — a daily show covering the biggest stories in crime.PLEASE SUPPORT THE SHOW: Download the FREE Upside App at https://upside.app.link/crimefix to get an extra 25 cents back for every gallon on your first tank of gas.Host:Angenette Levy  https://twitter.com/Angenette5Guest:Chris Adams https://www.facebook.com/adamsbischoffProducer: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 shoot a 300 blackout into her head causing her death? Mr. Grimm, I didn't shoot my wife or my son anytime, ever. Alec Murdoch, he's serving two life sentences for the murders of his wife, Maggie, and his son, Paul, And now he's asking South Carolina's high court to grant him a new trial. On June the 7th. I wasn't thinking clearly.

I don't think I was capable of reason. But the state is pushing back saying the now indicted clerk of court's antics during the trial and other claims are not. enough to overturn Murdoch's conviction. I take a closer look. Welcome to Crime Fix. I'm Anjanette Levy. Alec. Alec is demanding a new trial for the murders of his wife, Maggie, and son Paul. He readily admits that he's a liar and a cheat and a thief, but he claims he's no murderer. Now, this case took the country by storm. Murdoch was part of a legal dynasty. He was royalty in South Carolina's low country. But prosecutors say Murdoch's life was a facade and that it was all crumbling in 2021. And he was about to be exposed because of the

lawsuit he was facing because of the boat crash that killed Mallory Beach. Paul Murdoch was driving the family's boat drunk and crashed in February of 2019, killing Mallory and injuring many of his friends. The Murdox were facing a massive civil suit and the state contends that Murdoch's financial misdeeds were going to be exposed through that suit and that he was stealing from his clients and his firm to fund his lavish lifestyle and that he simply couldn't let that happen. So prosecutors argued at trial that Alec Murdoch shot and killed Paul and Maggie to eliminate his problems and to essentially make the boat crash lawsuit disappear. Murdoch denied the claim when he testified.

On June 7th, 2021, did you take this gun or any gun like it and shoot your son, Paul, in the chest, in the feed room at your property off Moselle Road? No, I did not. Mr. Merti, did you take this gun or any gun like it and blow your son's brains out on June 7th or any day or any time? No, I did not. Mr. Murd, you take a 300 blackout, such as this, and fired into your wife, Maggie's, leg, torso, or any part of her body? No, I did not.

Did you shoot a 300 blackout into her head, causing her death? Mr. Griffin, I didn't shoot my wife or my son any time. Ever. Now, at trial, Murdoch denied that he was in big financial trouble as well. On June the 7th, did you believe that your financial house of cards was about crumbed? On June the 7th? Yes, sir. Absolutely not.

Murdoch was ultimately convicted. The jury finding him guilty after deliberating for less than three hours. The state versus Richard Alexander Murdoch defendant, indictment for murder, SC code 16-3, dash zero one zero cdr code zero one one six guilty verdict now the woman who read that verdict former collatin county clerk of court becky hill she has caused a mountain of trouble for the prosecutors on alec murdoch's murder trial murdox team claims that miss becky tampered with the jury because she wanted to write a book they asked for a new trial based on their claims that she tried to get one juror, the egg lady, kicked off the jury and that Ms. Becky made comments about Murdoch's guilt to influence the jurors so her book would be more successful.

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 And part of that is because I think it was a guilty verdict. Well, this is way, that 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 said your eyes met with jurors and others at Moselle and y'all have an 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 be. 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 was that's part of that poetic license that that we write to make something more apparent but at no time did I read or try to read someone else's eyes and that was just one of those gut feelings that I wrote in the book. Have you heard about Upside? It's a great app that gives you cash back on things like gas, groceries, and takeout. Upside gives you real money that you can transfer from the app straight into your bank account. When I pump gas, I use Upside. I've also used it when I go out for ice cream. Here's how it works. Download the app, claim an offer for whatever you're buying and pay as usual

using a debit or credit card and follow the steps and get paid to find out how much you could earn. Click the link in the description to download upside or scan the QR code on your screen and use our promo code crime fix to get an extra 25 cents back on every gallon on your first tank of gas. That's promo code crime fix for an extra 25 cents back on your first gallon of gas. So Ms. Becky said that was poetic license. Even a fellow clerk of court testified at a hearing for the motion for a new trial, about what Hill said about a guilty verdict and book sales. 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. 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, that she discussed 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 lifted at that. We just as 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, you know, amongst friends in her office or who might be having dinner, that kind of stuff, but that was 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. 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 it's 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 probably guilty verdict would be better for the sale of books. But later in this hearing, Ms. Becky would say something that would lead to her later being charged criminally. 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. Prosecutors say that statement was a lie, and now Becky Hill faces charges of perjury and misconduct in public office related to her failed book.

And while one juror testified at that hearing in 2024 that she felt pressured by Hill when she made comments about Murdoch's guilt, Justice Toll found it wasn't enough for a new trial. Of course, Alec Murdoch's lawyers disagree. I spoke with Dick Harputtlyan back in May. The record, Toll May, Justice Toll May, is pretty damn good. good, except we think there's federal cases that say you don't ask the juror would 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. But I'm, look, this is, I'm convinced that we have a, a good opportunity here for our Supreme Court to set the boundaries on what is misconduct

and what level of conduct by that court 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 the evidentiary issues that were raised during the, the during the trial um and there's all kinds of issues about what we would call as you know technically 404 evidence 403 evidence um uh expert evidence whether they were qualified to testify or not all i mean our brief is well over a hundred pages and um it just scratches the surface so i'm i'm not confidence the wrong word but i'm optimistic um that our supreme court will allow us to

come back and give out an opportunity to defend themselves on the murder charges. Now the prosecution is pushing back hard in its brief. They say that Justice Toll made the right decision and they're arguing against claims that Murdoch deserves a new trial. Prosecutor's right, the jury convicted appellant because he was obviously guilty. Not because three jurors heard Becky Hill's foolish and fleeting comments about his upcoming testimony. Becky Hill's improper comments did not affect the outcome of this case. Only two jurors heard her unsolicited remarks to watch body language, and only one juror heard

her comment that the day of appellant's testimony was an important or epic day. The record supports Justice Toll's finding that the verdict was solely the product of the jury's honest deliberations and reflected the overwhelming evidence of appellant's guilt. Now remember when the prosecution introduced all of that financial crimes evidence against Alec Murdoch at trial. It made him look really, really bad, like a terrible thief, a liar, and a fraud. And he readily admitted to being all of those things. But the state contends the jury hearing all of that evidence about the money Murdoch stole from clients and the lies that he told was not to just dirty him up, but to show that he had a motive to kill Maggie and Paul because of the boat crash lawsuit. and the fact that he was under such significant financial stress, prosecutors write,

notwithstanding appellant's failure to appeal all the grounds upon which the trial judge's ruling was based, the trial judge properly exercised his discretion when admitting the financial crime evidence pursuant to Rule 404B and Rule 403 as evidence of appellant's motive, and his numerous limiting instructions ensured appellant could not have been improperly prejudiced by that evidence's admission under the circumstances involved. So I want to bring in an old friend to talk about the state's brief here. He is Chris Adams. He covered the Murdoch case with me down in South Carolina and he's a prominent defense attorney down there. So Chris, what is your response to the state's brief? I mean, this thing is a, this is essentially a book. It's 182 pages

long and we're not going to touch on every single little nook and cranny in it. But they're essentially pushing back the prosecution is and saying, Alec Murdoch does not deserve a new trial. Right. They went point by point. So when the government responds, when the prosecution responds in a brief, they address each issue raised by the appealing party. So they'll, they addressed each issue raised by Murdoz's legal team. And they try to knock down each one. And, it's interesting in the briefing, the person who's filing the appeal, in this case, Murda, you get to decide which issues you really want the court to focus on by which ones you choose to go first and which ones you sort of bury further down.

And they, I think, through no surprise, Murdaugh attacked the behavior of the clerk court first. And those were the first two issues. And those in my mind are the mediest issues, the toughest issues for the Supreme Supreme Court, the South Carolina Supreme Court to wrestle with. And I agree with you on that. Those are points one and two, the whole thing having to do with Becky Hill, the former Colleton County clerk of court. Now under indictment. Yes, now under indictment. But she's not under indictment for jury tampering. And so I think that we can,

we can kind of break this down a couple of ways. She is definitely under indictment. for misconduct in office. Justice Toll said she didn't think she was credible, you know, she entirely truthful, didn't think she was entirely credible. She's been indicted for perjury, okay? So how are we supposed to believe that she didn't tamper with this jury

or have the intent to tamper with this jury? Because I know when I was down there in South Carolina covering this case the night before the verdict I was at the party you know I was at the party across from the courthouse that with the media and she's over there whooping it up miss becky was and she told somebody I trust implicitly that in her conversations with the four person this deliberation was not going to go past the next day so she was this everybody knows she was walking around moselle at that jury view talking to the four person she knew the force person. It's a small town. So, I mean, come on. Like, you can say, oh, well,

Justice Toll talk to the jurors and interviewed them and questioned them about this and whether it impacted their verdict and they said no. But there's just too much smoke here, Chris. Well, there is from my perspective. So they, she was prosecuted for for the use of funds in office and she was, uh, is now under indictment for that. So the prosecutor, who charged that case made a point of not charging her for actions related to Murdo because that's a case being handled on appeal by the attorney general. So it's not surprised to me that they made the prosecutorial decision not to broaden the charges against the clerk of court. And for any viewers out there who don't remember, there was a special hearing that that former

Chief Justice Toll was appointed to preside over. She's former Chief Justice, she's no longer on the Supreme Court, and she does special appointments at the Supreme Court's direction. And she's a well-respected jurist in South Carolina. And she held a hearing on the effects of any whether tempering existed, whether the clerk made any improper comments to jurors, whether there was any influence. You covered that hearing. I watched the hearing. And then Justice, former Chief Justice Toll made findings that. she did not presume prejudice, although she did find that the clerk of court was not

believable under oath. A juror testified that she was influenced by the justice and that or by the clerk of court. The clerk of court made comments. It suggested the outcome to her that she thought Murdole was guilty and she ultimately voted in favor of conviction. In my mind, Chief Justice Toll applied the wrong legal standard that when a court actor, a court official outside of the presence of the defense counsel or Mr. Murdoch tamper's with the outcome of the case, you have to presume prejudice. That's a breakdown of the adversarial system. Chief Justice Toll did not agree with the defense argument on that. She said that you don't presume prejudice. And then she went on to say, if you do

presume prejudice. With the states overcome it, there's no prejudice in this case because all the evidence. I personally disagree with that. I think when there is prejudice presumed, honestly, when there's this much prejudice has been shown already, we know it's the tip of the iceberg. We know that there's always more than when you find that much and that she talked to three jurors. It's very likely and reasonable that she's made more statements. to more jurors and have more influence. I just don't think the public can have confidence that the verdict returned by the jurors

was based solely on the evidence and not on the clerk of court's interference with the process. And because of that, I think that's a very strong appellate argument. And I hope that the South Carolina Supreme Court really takes a close look at that issue. I'm sure they'll take a close look. I hope that they reverse the case based on the tampering because we just can't have court officials behind the scenes putting their fingers on the scale

of justice. The system doesn't work if that happens. Chris, you mentioned the motion for a new trial, that hearing that was held in January of 2024. And Rhonda McEleveen, the clerk of court for Barnwell County, she was a friend of Becky Hill. And Miss Becky brought her in to help her, you know, with this trial. This is a huge trial, trial of the century in South Carolina. This was a small county where this was happening. And Rhonda McEleveen gets up on the stand and says, basically that Becky Hill said, you know, I need a lakehouse and you need to retire.

And, you know, a guilty verdict will help sell more books. I mean, that to me is pretty strong circumstantial evidence that Becky Hill had an ulterior motive. And you can like, to me at least, if you're prancing around you know back in the jury room in the hallway and saying stuff it's a big day and i mean that's kind of like it's like you know what you're doing i mean you can look at that and say she knew what she was um she knew what she was doing so and what people you're trying to you're trying to like you're trying to taint the taint the well without

obviously tainting the well. So if I can see that, I mean, like, come on, you're meddling. You are at least attempting to meddle, right? Well, that's right. And it's a breakdown of the adversarial process. So we believe that we have the best justice system in the world because we have a true adversarial system. And we grab, snatch up 12 citizens in this, this true form of democracy, where you get 12 citizens off the street who are supposed to hear the admissible evidence and make a decision about whether guilt has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, beyond all reasonable doubt. And we presume that what goes on behind the scenes is kosher. And in this case, we know it wasn't kosher. We know that the clerk of court

had a financial incentive to make statements and comments that suggested an outcome and that she did make those statements. It's not illegal for her to have a book deal. Well, it was unethical. It's unseemly, but it's not illegal. Those things should be disclosed. And if the parties want to raise an issue, they can raise an issue. Maybe she gets knocked out completely and then her book deal evaporates.

but she can't be making comments. She had no business making comments. And everyone agrees on that. The question then becomes, so what? And the prosecutors in their brief argued, well, that doesn't have anything to do with the verdict. These were innocuous statements. They were minimal.

Look at all this massive amount of evidence we had against Murdaugh. Any untempered with juror was going to convict. I just don't think it's that clear. And I think when the presumption of prejudice applies, I don't believe the state has met a burden to overcome the presumption of prejudice. And the state, no doubt, has no interest in retreat. They do not want to do this case over again. They never want to do the case over. They took their victory lap.

They tried this case. They got their conviction. And they are like, we don't, he doesn't deserve a new trial. of course they want justice tolls decision to stand but but it just seems like there's a lot there from even what we saw at the hearing for a new trial so i mean you're down there in south carolina crest you are boots on the ground in the trenches defending people each day in court you know the dynamics of the south carolina supreme court you know the the defense is going to a response to this.

They will do that. Do you see this court, the makeup of this court right now? Do you see them giving Alec Murdoch a new trial? I think the oral arguments will be really telling in this case. I do believe these are legitimate issues raised by the defense. And I think the Supreme Court is going to take them seriously. As far as predicting which justice might lean which way, I want to keep my powder dry on that until oral argument.

It would not be shocking to me that a majority of the court is very troubled by this and finds that the presumption of prejudice exists. I think if the presumption of prejudice were to apply, if they overruled or took a different position than former Chief Justice told, then Murdoch should win a new trial. And I'll tell you to go back, not only does a state not want to retry this, but a critical witness for the state. The star detective from the South Carolina law enforcement division, Owens, recently had a murder case dismissed because of a Brady violation from the same time frame. So he's now retired. He's working as a private investigator with an insurance company or

whomever. And he had critical evidence of innocence in a murder case in Berkeley County, South Carolina that was dismissed because he failed to include, make any police reports of innocent statements made by the victim's mother, which would show that the person charged with the homicide was completely innocent. So that case was thrown out. The AG is contemplating whether to re-indict it or to appeal that ruling. But that happened within the past month. And I think Detective Owens was the key person who interviewed Murdaa, who gathered Murdaugh's clothing from the house with a gunshot residue. He's a key witness for the state.

And now, if there is a retrial, he will be a damaged witness for the state. He went from being law enforcement officer of the year to being someone with a written order questioning his integrity and honesty. Well, and if you recall during the trial, Jim Griffin really grilled him about his grand jury testimony in this case. and some of the things that he testified to at Grand Jury with regard to, you know, possible blood evidence on his t-shirt, that later turned out to not be true, you know, that there wasn't this blood spatter evidence on Alec Murdoch's t-shirt. Well, that's right. He's a key witness. He's a key witness and he is an increasingly damaged witness. yikes so when do you predict oral arguments will happen in this case well the state will do a response brief or reply brief and then it'll be set for oral argument you know there are always two tracks with courts there's the normal there's the normal track and then there's the track on cases

that everyone follows and that i i suspect will have a separate track from the normal track so i would think that this case would be, I may be wrong on that, but I would suspect and anticipate that this case will be set for oral argument soon after the response brief is in, the reply brief is in. So I would think in the next couple of months, I would, I anticipate oral argument before the end of the year. Interesting. Well, we will keep an eye on it. I mean, this was, this was a big case and you know the state obviously laid out in great detail all of the evidence that they believe shows that Alec Murdoch committed these murders and there is a lot of evidence you know a lot of evidence that ties him circumstantially to these to these crimes but that's not the

question here the question is whether or not he got a fair shake so Chris Adams thank you so much I appreciate your time thank you and Jeanette and we'll keep a close eye on this one and bring you all of the latest on Alec Murdoch's efforts to appeal. That's it for this episode of Crime Fix. I'm Ann Jeanette Levy. Thanks so much for being with me. I'll see you back here next time.