Crime Stories with Nancy Grace - ALEX MURDAUGH JUROR: 'I WAS PRESSURED TO FIND HIM GUILTY!"

Episode Date: January 30, 2024

There will be no new double murder trial for Alex Murdaugh, even though one juror says her vote was influenced by comments made by Colleton County Clerk Becky Hill. According to Juror Z,  “She made it seem like he was already guilty.” Hill allegedly made comments such as "watch him closely" and "watch his body language." During Juror Z's testimony, she was asked by Judge Jean Toal if her verdict was based entirely on the testimony,  evidence, and law presented in this case. The juror answered yes.  She was also asked if she heard Becky Hill make any comment about this case before your verdict. Again Juror Z answered yes, and that the comments influenced her decision. Prosecutor Creighton Waters that in her affidavit the juror had responded "I voted guilty because I felt pressured by the other jurors."  After hearing all the testimony, Judge Toal ruled that the defense did not show that Hill's improper comment or question actually influenced the juror's verdict.  Joining Nancy Grace Today: Tim Jansen - Criminal Defense Lawyer and Former Federal Prosecutor; Legal Analyst for Tallahassee Democrat’s Newspaper Dr. Bethany Marshall – Psychoanalyst (Beverly Hills); Twitter: @DrBethanyLive/ Instagram & TikTok: drbethanymarshall; Appearing in the new show, “Paris in Love” on Peacock Chris McDonough – Director At the Cold Case Foundation, Former Homicide Detective; Host of YouTube channel: “The Interview Room” Dr. Michelle Dupre – Forensic Pathologist and former Medical Examiner, Author: “Homicide Investigation Field Guide” & “Investigating Child Abuse Field Guide”, Ret. Police Detective Lexington County Sheriff’s Department  Jennifer Wood – Director of Research at FITSNews.com; X: @IndyJenn_ See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

You're listening to an iHeart Podcast. Crime Stories with Nancy Grace. Alex Murdoch, the South Carolina heir to a legal dynasty, the millionaire who also gunned down his wife and son in cold blood, has just come out of a South Carolina courtroom where his bid for a new trial was examined over and over and over the point, did the court clerk, did the court clerk taint the jury and cause them to render a guilty verdict? You know what this means, right? We would have to do the entire Alex Murdoch double murder trial again. Except the second time around, the defense would have the state's playbook. And I guarantee you, the defense would never put Alex Murdoch back on the stand. All that snotting and crying and slobbering and just playing to the jury, getting caught in his own lies. That wouldn't happen.

Second, the defense would never have a huge slip of the tongue and bring in Murdoch's financial crimes to the tune of millions and millions of dollars he was stealing from his paraplegic clients and on and on and on. Oh, no, it would be a whole another movie if there was a retrial. In the last hours, a judge rules that the defense is full of it. Let me try a technical legal term. Full of BS, okay? I'm Nancy Grace. This is Crime Stories. Thank you for being with us here at Crime Stories and on Sirius XM 111.

What a day in that South Carolina courtroom again. I never thought that it would come to this. All right. This judge is awesome. Although I'm very curious because the's caught her winking at somebody. I would like to find out about that. But first, let's just get to Alex Murdoch's bid for a new murder trial. Excuse me, double murder trial.

Listen to the judge. JUDGE GILBERT, The facts. Did clerk of court Hill make comments to any juror which expressed her opinion of what the verdict would be? Ms. Hill denies A, and so the question becomes, was her denial credible? I find that the clerk of court is not completely credible as a witness. Ms. Hill was attracted by the siren call of celebrity. She wanted to write a book about the trial and express that as early as November 2022, long before the trial began. I love this judge. Okay, I may not feel the same way if there had been a different ruling, but what about that? Ms. Hill was attracted by the siren call of celebrity.

Wow, this judge is quite the wordsmith. Did you hear her say that Becky Hill, the court clerk, was, quote, attracted by the siren call of celebrity? Did she just pull that out of her own hat, or did she have that ready? Okay, back in the courtroom, listen. She denies that this is so, but I find that she stated to the clerk of court, Rhonda McElveen and others,

her desire for a guilty verdict because it would sell books. She made comments about Murdoch's demeanor as he testified, and she made some of those comments before he testified to at least one and maybe more jurors. Well, I don't know if Becky Hill was right that only a guilty verdict would ensure book sales because a lot of people made a lot of money after top mom Casey Anthony was found not guilty. That said, you are hearing the judge laying down the law. Joining me in all-star panel, but first, to Jennifer Wood, director of research at FitzNews.com. And let me tell you about Fitz News. They've been all up in this story from the beginning.

They've been three inches up Alex Murdoch's tailpipe and the prosecution tailpipe. They've been on everybody like a cheap suit since Maggie and Paul Murdoch were found dead. And now this. I'm going to get to the rest of the panel in just one moment. But Jennifer Wood, I mean, when we started this jury trial, could you ever have imagined that everybody was going to be sitting in court long after the verdict talking about did Becky Hill, the court clerk, tank the jury and make them vote guilty? Did you ever even imagine that? I did not. I absolutely did not see any of this coming. It completely surprised me. It still surprises me. Because let me bring in Tim Jansen, a high profile lawyer who's followed the case as well, partner at Jansen and Davis.

You can find them at JansenLawOffice.com. Tim. Yeah. Isn't it true? And you and I both tried a lot of cases that at the end of a trial, if the defense attorney knows anything at all, they know to pull the jury. And typically three questions are asked during the polling. Is this your verdict? Was this your verdict in the jury room? Is it still your verdict? Sometimes those questions are a little bit different. There are variations in different jurisdictions. But this jury was polled and that's typically the end of it. When a juror says, this is my verdict, this is my verdict in the jury room,

and this is still my verdict, that's the end of it. That's their chance to say, you know, I'm not sure. That's their chance. And none of these jurors did that. Do you agree? I agree. Every trial, I've polled a jury. Win or lose.

Well, when the state loses, they poll. But when I lose, I would poll them. Only in one case in 38 years, I had a juror say no and start crying. And then the jury was rushed out. And then they came back 15 minutes later with the guilty. But, yeah, it's standard to poll the jury. Sounds like she got a beat down in the jury deliberations room. Yeah, she didn't look.

They're like, oh, H-E-double-L-N-O. We're going home tonight, little lady. Yeah, that's probably what happened in the jury. So, hey, but you got it one time. Yep. Yeah, that's probably what happened in the jury. So, hey, but you got it one time. I have never had a juror break down during polling and go, oh, it wasn't my verdict. That's amazing. It very rarely happens, but you actually had one happen. Sure, the outcome was the same in the end, but you actually had a juror crack.

And my point is, that was her chance to say, I don't really think he's guilty. She did not. And I guess the only basis now was her tampering or evidence that the jury was painted. And I think they went through the process. Boy, they really did. In addition to Tim Jansen, high-profile lawyer, and Jennifer Woods joining us from Fitz News, Dr. Michelle Dupree, who shot to the forefront of the country's consciences when she was on this case from the beginning, high profile pathologist, medical examiner

and detective. From this jurisdiction, Dr. Bethany Marshall, renowned psychoanalyst joining us out of L.A. and Chris McDonough, former homicide detective, 300 homicides under his belt and star of the Interview Room YouTube channel. Jennifer Wood, could you just tell me about what was happening in the courtroom before we go back to listen to the judge? Tell me the whole thing. I want everybody to hear what you already know. It was, I mean, it was tense. It was wild. You know, there are a lot of moments when you could hear gasps from the gallery. You know, everybody was very respectful, but there were just a lot of things that happened during the hearing that caused jaws to drop. It was, it was a very unexpected and wild day. Crime Stories with Nancy Grace.

Chris McDonough joining me, director of Cold Case Foundation, former homicide detective, star of the interview room on YouTube. Chris, how many times have you sat by and seen a perfectly guilty murderer walk free? And it just, it actually makes my, my skin, it gave me chill bumps when I said that, because it can be constitutional that the defendant walks free. For instance, they weren't given their Miranda rights, and therefore their confession is suppressed, or the eyewitness is destroyed on the stand because you find out it was at night and they weren't wearing their glasses. I mean, it can be any number of things. The judge gives the wrong jury instruction, and the case case is reversed and there's a plea for time served because the state doesn't think they can make the case again.

A million reasons when you see a guilty killer walk free through no fault of your own. And you know this guy did it. He did it. You know, he did it. And it just eats you up on the inside. You ever had that feeling? Cause I have. Absolutely. And it is the worst. Uh, you know, this, the emotional response from everybody. And obviously, as an investigator, you've put so many hours into it and you've brought justice to the family. And then all of a sudden, there's that technicality in the courtroom. It's just sometimes unimaginable how you feel.

And to think this whole thing could go right down the crapper, another Latin phrase from law school, because allegedly the court clerk was more concerned about making money off a book and telling the jury oh and I'll be put it out there I met Becky Hill I liked her she seemed to me very punctual she was excellent at her job she was courteous I couldn't believe that she did this thing that was alleged. And I also thought if she did do it, it was inadvertent. And I found it very difficult to believe that a juror would reach a guilty verdict in a double murder because of something the court

clerk said. But that was me going into it. In case anyone has forgotten what this is really about, the bullet riddled bodies of first Paul, Alex Murdoch's son. And then as his mother tried to go to her son who was dying, she also was gunned down dead. Take a listen to this 911 call. Okay, you said 4147 Moselle Road in Arlington? Sir? You said 4147 Moselle Road in Arlington? Yes, sir, 4147 Moselle Road. Stay on the line with me, okay?

Yes, sir, stay on the line with me, okay? Call an accounting communication. Collison, I have an Alex Murdoch on the line. Call him from 4147 Moselle Road. He's advising that his wife and child was shot. Okay, and sir, give me the address again. It's 4147 Moselle Road. I've been up to it now.

It's bad. Okay. Okay, and are they breathing? No, ma'am. Okay, and you said it's your wife and your son? My wife and my son. Are they in a vehicle? No, ma'am. They're on the ground out at my kennel. You can stop it. I don't know that I can hear any more of his lying and fake crying, or maybe he worked himself into a fit so he actually could cry. But, you know, let me go to someone I absolutely do trust completely.

Dr. Michelle Dupree, joining us from this jurisdiction, Columbia, South Carolina, pathologist, medical examiner, detective, and author of Money, Mischief, and Murder, the Murdoch Saga, the rest of the story on Amazon. But more important than that, she actually wrote the book Homicide Investigation Field Guide. Can we just remind everybody it's not about just a hearing where one juror claims that her decision was tainted by a comment from the court clerk? Tell me, describe the bodies, Dr. Dupree. Well, Nancy, they were horrific. First, Paul, of course, was shot with a shotgun. That is a devastating blow. It basically destroys the body where the target is hit. Maggie, she was shot

four, maybe five times with a high-powered rifle. Same thing. Those are devastating injuries to the body. There's just not much else to say. Let's hear a little bit more of 26. Did you see anyone? Okay. Is he breathing at all? No. No.

Is she? Okay. Do you see anything? Do you see anyone in the area? No, ma'am. No, ma'am. No, ma'am. What color is your house on the outside? Okay, stop.

I can't take it. What color is your house? I can't take it, Dr. Bethany Marshall. I can't take it. He is so lying. Of course he doesn't see anybody else around. He's the killer. That's why he doesn't see anybody.

How do you stand to listen to people lie and snot and cry and carry on like that? I mean, you probably listen to it every day in your office. Yeah, see, this reminds me of acting classes where the students have to work themselves up into a state in order to express themselves in a certain role. And I think your point that he may have just worked himself into this is excellent because it just sounds sort of practiced. It sounds like methodical, like he thought about this for a long time. Nancy, he knew he was going to have to place that 911 call. You know, even though he's a cold-blooded killer, even though he was not attached to his wife and son, it is

traumatic to shoot somebody. You know, it takes a lot to kill other people. Okay, you know what? You know, I thought I liked you, Bethany Marshall. You tell me it's traumatic to shoot somebody, then why don't we not shoot somebody? That's a really good point. Avoid all that trauma and not shoot somebody, much less your son and your wife as she is rushing. I'm so sorry because he had this internal Ponzi scheme going on where he always was spending money and then having to distract

and commit a crime to get more money. He was always just ahead of himself. And that was just the next action in this house of cards that he was creating for himself. You know, you sound a little bit like an Alex Murdoch apologist, so I'm going to let you think about that for just one moment. But let's get right down to it in the courtroom. Jennifer Wood from Fitch News. She heard it all. Take a listen now to the defense attorney, Dick Harpootlian, grilling the court clerk. Did you tell her about the time of the trial that you were going to write a book

that you had thought about and were going to write a book? I can't remember exactly. I think we did have a conversation about a book, possibly, in the future. And did you tell her you were going to write a book because you thought it would make a lot of money? Oh, no, sir. You never said that? No, sir. And did you tell her that you were going to write a book to make a bunch of money so you could buy a lake lot and build a house on it?

No, sir. Okay. Okay, Tim Jansen, I was going along with Becky Hill and agreeing with her in that little bit of testimony, but then when I got that additional detail, did you say you wanted to get a lot and build a lake house on it? That's

a little too rich in detail, not to be true. Yeah. You knew what was coming. You knew we had a witness that's going to testify that that's exactly what she said. She destroyed all of her own credibility. She committed perjury, clearly. I mean, the other clerk that came in was a very credible witness.

She answered the question so quickly. And Hill always had to pause, couldn't remember, couldn't recall. It's clear she was not telling the truth. Let me ask you something else, Tim Jansen. Even if I did agree with you, which I'm not committing to, but even if I did, what difference does it make? So if she said, I'm going to write a book, I want to make a million dollars off this thing because I've lived through hell and I'm going to write a book and tell all. So what if she did say that? All that matters is, did she say it to a juror and did it affect the juror's decision?

That's all that matters. Well, the problem you have is, we believe the clerk or government officials are going to do their job. Did she have a motive not to do her job? Well, we know now she did. And she swayed from her responsibilities and she said and did things that a couple jurors said they overheard. So you have to put that together

to determine whether this juror is telling the truth or maybe this juror has been gotten to. But we know now Becky had a motive. But what do you mean the juror has been, quote, gotten to? Are you suggesting that one or more of the jurors were approached by the defense to claim their verdict was incorrect? I don't know that. But when you have 11 jurors say that they didn't hear, or 10 of them said they didn't hear anything, or nine of them, and one said her verdict, she said something that could have swayed her verdict it's kind of problematic because if Becky was saying these things did she isolate this one juror or did she say it to everybody and they just disregarded it or didn't hear it I don't know

that or did she not say it and the juror is making it up for some reason undisclosed always a possibility so you think there's a chance that there was nefarious doings possibly to get this juror to claim she was swayed? I don't know that. It's a possibility. Because she would have...

I mean, really, would you put anything past Alex Murdoch, would you? He's already killed two people. He stole millions of dollars from his disabled clients. Sure, of course he would try to get to one of the jurors. I mean, am I the only one? I'm not saying we all know what possible you get investigators and you get lawyers out there to try to get a new trial. Sometimes they go past the line and sway. I don't think the defense lawyers Hart Po Pootley and the others, I don't think they would be that stupid. They would actually contact a juror.

I don't think that they would orchestrate that. Oh, I agree. Because it's just too risky. They would lose everything. First of all, their license. I agree. That's what you don't want to lose as a lawyer. I mean, that's everything.

The community is so tight-lipped. There are people who support Murdoch no matter what the evidence is and they could have reached out to this juror and then that juror came. Or Murdoch himself, you know, he's got a tablet, he's got a phone. Who knows what he's doing or who he could get to do his bidding. But I don't think the lawyers would do it. Do I think Murdoch would do it? Oh, yeah, totally. Jennifer Wood, do you agree Murdoch would do anything? I wouldn't put anything past him, yes. But Nancy, there haven't been any allegations that someone had tried to bribe the jury

to lie about any undue influence in their verdict. There's no allegations and no proof. Okay, back to the courtroom. Becky Hill, the clerk, at to the courtroom. Becky Hill, the clerk at the center of all this controversy, getting grilled by an excellent defense attorney, Dick Hart Putley. Listen. You have described in your book your role as Switzerland. Is that correct? Correct. Okay. And that is that you should not be in any way opinionated about what's going on in the trial. Is that correct?

That's true. Okay. Yet in your book, you indicated a number of different points during the trial. You had concluded he was guilty. Is that correct? I think. Your Honor, I don't know if her conclusions in the book are in any way relevant to what occurred during the trial and whether or not there was any communications with the jurors which is the sole issue that we're here for today is whether or not Ms. Hill had any extraneous influence on

the jurors and so I think this is going a little far and we'll be direct to the relevance here. You know Jennifer Wood I agree with Creighton Waters right there and of course Hart-Pootlin And so I think this is going a little far. I think we need to object to the relevance here. Over the roof. You may continue. You know, Jennifer Wood, I agree with Creighton Waters right there. And, of course, Hart Putland is doing a great job in what he's doing. Creighton Waters, the prosecutor is saying, I don't know if anything she said in her book translates to misconduct in front of a juror. But can you just imagine this, Jennifer Wood, Director of Research at Fitznews.com. Creighton Waters, a veteran prosecutor, he really believes that what he is doing is right. And I respect that. Let's see another legal phrase from law school. I bet he

had a cow. There's a lot of other ways I could have put that when he finds out that his verdict is in danger because of something somebody claims Becky Hill said I mean I've never had a case come under this kind of scrutiny for something a clerk said to a juror I've never even had a jury misconduct claim before. So don't you know, he did a backflip when he heard about this brouhaha. Can you imagine him? I can't imagine. I can't even imagine what his face looked like when that first motion was filed. It must be just so, so disheartening. I gave up cursing when I had the twins, but I would say it has something to do with passing a brick. Okay. That said, I ran into him. I ran into Creighton Waters at CrimeCon and of course tried to get something out of him. He wouldn't tell me anything,

but he seemed to agree with me when I said, I really don't believe a whole verdict is going to be overturned by a passing comment. I mean, can that really sway a jury verdict? He wouldn't commit, as he should not have, but I tried, you know, give me credit. Okay, more of Becky Hill, the clerk at the center of this controversy, on the stand. Listen. Let me give you an example. You indicate, riding back from Moselle

that you and three other people were in a car and you all decided adamantly, I think was the word you used, that he was guilty, that he had killed his wife and son. Is that what you put in the book? I can't remember if I put that in the book, but if you say I did, then I will agree. Did that happen? We did have a conversation about what each of us thought. And all four agreed that he was guilty, correct? And none of us were jurors. No, no. Trust me, I know that. But you had an abiding conviction, at least by the time of the Moselle visit, that he was guilty.

So what? You'd have to be deaf, dumb, and blind not to think that Alex Murdoch was guilty. Of course she thought he was guilty, because he is guilty. I mean, can we just be honest? Tim Jansen, the court personnel, they hear the evidence just like the jurors do, and they make an opinion. And nothing precludes them, prohibits them, disallows them from discussing it. They just can't let the jury hear it. You can never have any opinion in front of the jurors.

That's true. I mean, unless you're the prosecutor or the defense. So what if she was in the car saying, oh, yeah, he totally did it? Yeah, that's funny, because, you know, when I was trying cases a lot in federal court, after the jury went back, I would always ask the court reporter what he thought

or the clerk what they thought, and they would tell me, and I would get an idea, because they're neutral, they're supposed to be neutral, see what they thought. I never envisioned that they would go share any opinion they had with the juror. And I've never seen that before. You know, Chris McDonough, is this Dr. Bethany? Well, yeah, Nancy, she had just seen a crime scene. All four of them were not jurors in the car, but they had just seen where a beloved members of the community had been gunned down. Of course, they're going to have to process that.

Who just gets in a car, goes home and doesn't talk about it? You know, it hits me, Dr. Bethany. I mean, it all, it all hits me. And I've been to so many homicide scenes and they're not like in the movies. They're horrible. They're horrible. They smell the blood coagulates. The body start They smell. The blood coagulates. The bodies start to smell. It's like their

hair is stuck in the blood. There's dirt everywhere. It's horrible. I have been to many autopsies, but at the crime scene, I've had officers actually leave and vomit outside the crime scene. So it's nothing like what you see. Actually, it just made my stomach hurt remembering that. But this whole thing of them being in the car and seeing the crime scene and then talking about it. And another thing that Tim Jansen just said, he would ask the court reporter, like, what do you think? I have one court reporter, Dr. Bethany, who was also very, very dear friend. And I would have to actually turn her away from the jury sometimes as she, you know, took down the testimony because let's just pretend the defendant got on the stand. Let's just pretend it's Murdoch. And he starts his BS and she would actually go and roll her eyes and like shake her head. No, no, that's a big fat. And I'm like, okay, I agree with you, but we can't let the jury see you. And she would always

position her seat in front of the jury between the witness box and me. And the jury would be at my left. I'd be right beside the jury. And she'd be right smack dab in the middle. I'm like, you cannot shake your head violently back and forth when the defendant is lying. I know it's hard. But my point is, Dr. Bethany, of course she's going to, of course Becky Hill's going to have an opinion. Of course she's going to have an opinion.

Nancy, we are wired to connect to other people. We are wired to look at other people, look at the expressions on their faces, ask them questions, kind of do a check to see if, just to check in to see if our reality is correct. So the fact that anyone would expect those four people to get in the car and not check in with each other, not to see if their reactions were correct, not to go to CNN, HLN to be on your show, there was this limo driver who was a crime junkie. And I would always ask him what he thought about the case. It's not like I would repeat it on air, but I just had to discuss it with somebody who had just watched the extensive coverage. We all do that. It's very human to want to talk to other people. That doesn't mean we're crossing the line or talking to george you know it's funny dr bethany um there was a little old man mr thomas

he walked with a limp he had to be 70 80 he would come to everyone he was a trial junkie he would come to every one of my trials and between witnesses or when the jury's in recess if i wasn't still working frantically, I would go sit with him alone in the courtroom and he would tell me his thoughts on what had happened so far. And he would be there as I waited for every verdict. So yeah, it's like a sounding board. more. Crime stories with Nancy Grace. More of Becky Hill getting grilled. And based on what I mean, I can, you want me to review how chilled you were and how you felt that poor Paul and Maggie had been executed by him on that scene?

That visiting the scene convinced you that he was a horrible, horrible murderer? You want me to read that to you? Or you will concede that's what you wrote? I will concede that's what I wrote. But if I may, I would say that a lot of that is poetic license in writing a book and in making it sound like that. Okay, so some of it's poetic license and some of it you just stole. You purloined it from that BBC writer, right? What? What is he talking about, Jennifer Wood?

I mean, I think he was trying to get her to admit that she, you know know had made statements in the book and that she you know either she has to say she made the statement or she was lying either or well he's saying she plagiarized is what he's saying right as a matter of fact he spells it out listen did you steal part of the book i did plagiarize mr heartburn it is That's stealing, isn't it? It is. And for that, I'm very sorry. And I have apologized. Okay. And that makes it okay? What I did, I did. And I apologized for that.

And part of the book is, you say, literary license? Exaggeration? I wouldn't call it exaggeration. Okay. You know, again, Tim Jansen, so if she lifted from the BBC's work, it's plagiarism. So she plagiarized. She admitted it.

Can I just ask, what does that have to do with tainting the jury? Oh, I agree with you. It was a brilliant cross-examination. If she was a fat boy at a trial, and I think he was just trying to make points and destroy her credibility, which I think he did very successful. Which he did.

And she stole passages. She later admitted because under a time crunch with her publisher, she just stole passages and put it in the book. I don't, I agree. She did. And I don't know if it was winning or unwitting when she's trying to amass a whole lot of information and she reads it.

I would imagine she tried to rewrite it and then missed portions of it and did not rewrite it. I'm putting it in the light most favorable to her, but she did it. All right. She admits it. Why are they bringing it up? Because it destroys her credibility in front of the judge more. Right. Yeah, for sure. And I think they're playing for the media, too. How much money did you make off that book? There was not a whole lot of money made off of the book after paying different things

and paying for some expenses that went along with that. But I want to say roughly around $100,000. Okay. That's not a lot of money. Well, $100,000 is a lot of money to a lot of people. But let's just get down to did she tank the jury? Listen. was your verdict based entirely on the testimony evidence and law presented to you in this case yes ma'am did you hear ms becky hill make any comment about this case before your verdict yes ma'am if yes what did miss Hill say to watch his actions to watch his actions what else to watch him closely to watch him

closely To watch him closely. To watch him closely. Anything else you remember? There it is, but I can't remember. Okay, that's fine. Well, wait a minute. How can that suggest he's guilty? Help me out jennifer wood what's the judge getting at there i think the judge is questioning all every we all had questions listening to her testimony and i think she was you know getting at her state of mind and getting at, you know, did what she heard

from Becky Hill or what she allegedly heard from Becky Hill affect her verdict? So what we're getting out of GRZ is that Becky Hill said to watch Murdoch closely, watch him on the stand. Okay, so far, that's not cutting it. They're not getting a new trial based on that. But listen to the judge question Girard Z further. Was your verdict influenced in any way by the communications of the clerk of court in this case? Yes, ma'am.

And how was it influenced? To me, it felt like she made it seem like he was already guilty. All right. And I understand that. That's the tenor of the remark she made. Did that affect your finding of guilty in this case? Yes, ma'am. Okay, right there, when the juror said that Becky Hill's statements affected her finding of guilt,

you'd think that was the end of the story and we would have a new trial. Wouldn't you, Dr. Michelle Dupree, you sat through the entire trial. Wouldn't you think one juror claiming she affected my guilty verdict would be enough? Normally, Nancy, I would, except when I was there and watching this jury, this juror, she really wasn't that credible.

She changed her story at least twice, maybe three times. Is that true? Jennifer Wood, did the juror change her story? Yeah, from the affidavit that was submitted with the original defense motion to her testimony, it did change. And that's why they brought it in and had her review it. Wow. Speaking of that affidavit, which is a sworn statement by a witness in this case, it is Gerard Z that claims her verdict was tainted by the court clerk. This is what she put in writing. And it's a very far cry from what she just said on the stand. Take a listen, 504.

Governor, in the affidavit that was given by this particular juror, paragraph 10 said, I have questions about Mr. Murdoch's guilt, but I vote guilty because I felt pressured by the other jurors. We would request an inquiry as to that, which is how when this motion was filed, she expressed the basis for her verdict, which obviously this answer is a little different now. So we would request a brief inquiry from the court as to that specific issue. Thank you, Your Honor. Your Honor, as to two things.

The first thing is, he is correct. She gave an affidavit. We would ask Your Honor to let her read her affidavit to refresh her memory. She said other things. They're very detailed in here. Well, there you hear Creighton Waters being as delicate as he can be. It reminds me of the Queen, Queen Elizabeth, when she said recollections may vary. Because here he doesn't say she's a bull-faced liar.

This is not what she put in her sworn statement, which I would have run in like a bull in a china shop with that. He says, obviously this answer is a little different from what she's saying now. Well, that's putting it mildly. So the judge is questioning Juror Z. Listen. Juror Z, I asked you previously, was your verdict on March the 2nd, 2023 influenced in any way by communications from Becky Hill, the clerk of court. You answered that question, yes. In light of what you said in the affidavit, which is I had questions about Mr. Murdoch's guilt but voted guilty because I felt pressured by the other jurors, is that answer that I just read a more accurate statement

of how you felt? Yes. Overruled. Yes, ma'am. All right. So you do stand by the affidavit? Yes, ma'am. Very good. Thank you. What in the hay, Jennifer Wood. So after all that ruckus, she says, yeah, I'm going to go with the affidavit, which says I voted this way because of pressure from pressure from other jurors, not the court clerk. Right. After that entire testimony, that's what she went back to. But then after she left, her attorney, Joe McCulloch, sent a supplemental affidavit regarding, you know, a follow-up affidavit regarding her testimony to the court for consideration. And what did the, quote, follow-up affidavit say? Let me guess. Go ahead. So the follow-up affidavit was submitted, and the judge, you know, obviously very bizarre, said she wanted to clarify her testimony um as she testified she felt

influenced to find mr murdoch guilty by reason of miss hill's remarks before i entered the jury room and then once deliberations began she felt further additional pressure. Okay, what are we going to do now? Have another hearing? Please say no. No. Okay, here's the judge's ruling. Take a listen to Judge Gene Toll. The following is my ruling on the defendant's motion. The standard of proof. The state contends that in order to prevail,

the defendant must show, one, that the clerk of court made an improper comment or propounded an improper question to the member of the jury, to a member of the jury who rendered the verdict. Two, defendant must further show that Ms. Hill's improper comment or question actually influenced the juror's verdict. Got it. And more. What does the judge think? Spit it out, judge. I simply do not believe that the authority of our South Carolina Supreme Court requires a new trial in a very lengthy trial such as this on the strength of some fleeting and foolish comments by a publicity influenced clerk of court. This is a matter within the discretion of the

trial judge and I am the trial judge at this moment. I do not feel that I abuse my discretion when I find the defendants motion for a new trial on the factual record before me must be denied. And it is so ordered. Tim Jansen, yes, no. Did the judge get it right? Did that juror say that she was pressured by the jurors? I think the judge has a sound factual reason to support her decision. Just so you know, Tim, since I know you graduated from law school and are a veteran trial lawyer, I knew you would not answer in one word. Dr. Bethany Marshall, yes, no.

Did the judge get it right? No. Oh, Lord. Okay. Chris McDonough, did the judge get it right? Absolutely, but she set up an appellate challenge. Dr. Dupree, did the judge get it right? Absolutely, but she set up an appellate challenge. Mm, mm. Dr. Dupree, did the judge get it right?

Absolutely. Jennifer Wood, did the judge get it right? I agree with Chris. She got it right, but I believe she set up a very good appellate challenge and is expecting it. If there's any way for Alex Murdoch to appeal this, he will. So while all of you legal eagles may breathe a sigh of relief that there's not a new trial that has been granted to Alex Murdoch, sadly, let me report the truth. It ain't over yet.

Goodbye, friend. You're listening to an iHeart Podcast.