Law&Crime Sidebar - Infamous Killer Alex Murdaugh Gets Bombshell Win in Family Murders Case

Episode Date: August 18, 2024

South Carolina attorney and convicted murderer Alex Murdaugh has the chance of a retrial thanks to a new ruling. Murdaugh was convicted of killing his wife Maggie and son Paul on the family��s estate in 2021. After the trial was over, court clerk Becky Hill was accused of trying to influence the jury to convict Murdaugh. The South Carolina Supreme Court will hear arguments for and against a new murder trial. Law&Crime’s Jesse Weber discusses what a retrial could look like with Joe McCulloch, who represents two of the jurors from Murdaugh’s trial.PLEASE SUPPORT THE SHOW: Blueland has a special offer for Sidebar’s audience! Right now, get 15% off your first order by going to https://www.Blueland.com/SIDEBARHOST:Jesse Weber: https://twitter.com/jessecordweberLAW&CRIME SIDEBAR PRODUCTION:YouTube Management - Bobby SzokeVideo Editing - Michael Deininger and Christina FalconeScript Writing & Producing - Savannah WilliamsonGuest Booking - Alyssa Fisher & Diane KayeSocial Media Management - Vanessa BeinSTAY 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 Wondry Plus in the Wondery app Apple Podcasts or Spotify. Agent Nate Russo returns in Oracle 3, Murder at the Grandview, the latest installment of the gripping Audible Original series. When a reunion at an abandoned island hotel turns deadly, Russo must untangle accident from murder. But beware, something sinister lurks in the grand. views shadows. Joshua Jackson delivers a bone-chilling performance in this supernatural thriller that

will keep you on the edge of your seat. Don't let your fears take hold of you as you dive into this addictive series. Love thrillers with a paranormal twist? The entire Oracle trilogy is available on Audible. Listen now on Audible. In your affidavit, you said before the defense put up their case, Ms. Hill told the jurors, quote, the defense is about to do their side. They're going to say things that will try to confuse you. Don't let them confuse you or convince you or throw. you off." Is this true? Did the Hill say that?

That's exactly what she told us. I'm sorry? That's exactly what she told us. Okay. The highest court in South Carolina may have just given convicted murderer Alec Murdoch a legal lifeline. We are going to break down this major development with attorney Joe McCullough, who actually represents two jurors from Alec Murdoch's trial that may play a very important role moving

forward. Welcome to Sidebar, presented by Law and Crime. I'm Jesse Weber. Alec Murdoch, the guy we just can't seem to ever stop talking about. We have a very, very big update in this case. Because what would you say, if I told you, we may have Alec Murdoch murder trial part two. Think about that.

Now, is it a long shot or not? Well, that's what we're going to talk about. before we begin i have an announcement for you this in fact and it's crazy for me to say is our one thousandth episode of sidebar one thousand that is unbelievable you know we launched this podcast during the johnny dep amber heard trial back in 2020 it started as a way to just recap what was happening in that courtroom every day and it absolutely blew up i mean that was a huge trial this podcast topped all the charge everybody was watching and listening. But I remember saying to myself and the team, this is only going to be

short-lived, right? How can we maintain this momentum? This is Johnny Depp Amber Hurd. Nobody's going to be interested in following what we have to say. But how can we do it? How can we continue to maintain this audience, this viability? And I will say it is due to you. It is due to you guys. Those of you who follow us, who listen to the show, watch the show, subscribe. It's due to you. And we can't thank you enough for trusting us with these stories. I always say it's our absolute pleasure and privilege to be able to report these stories to you, to analyze the issues. And we appreciate and value all of you for dedicating your time to watch and listen. We don't take that lightly.

We do our best to provide you with the facts, no bias, no coloring, just what you need to know. And we hope that we provide the victims and their families, a platform, to be able to shed a light on what's happening in this world, not only as a way to keep people's memories alive, but to seek justice, to help those who may be in similar situations to expose issues. And we will continue to do that for you each and every day. So thank you. Thank you so much. But I can't talk about our 1,000th episode without thanking our incredible, incredible team. They're behind the scenes. They don't like the spotlight. They're not a peacock like me, but I'm going to call them out personally right now. So I've got to start this off with Sam

Goldberg, who actually brought me on board here on Sidebar. I've known him for years. He's a good friend of mine. He helps run our podcast division, helps head up our entire sales department. The spirit and energy of this podcast is attributed to Sam. He's also the host of After Hours. So if you see him on the street and you say, hey, aren't you, aren't you the guy from After Hours? You'll make his life. You'll make his dad. You'll make everything for him. Bobby Zoki, an incredible, incredible addition to the law and crime organization. He runs our YouTube and social. He has helped grow our online platform exponentially. He has made law and crime into what it is today. He has made sidebar into what it is today. And that's not an understatement. Also, I have to call out Vanessa

Bean, Bailey Becher, Kiera Bronson. They are also part of our social and YouTube teams. Their contributions to sidebar cannot be understated. They have helped this show get the exposure, get the message out there. Thank you so much. Savannah Williamson, not only one of the kindest people I have ever met. My collaborator, our executive producer, she and I write, research, brainstorm these stories together. She is an amazing partner. Michael Dynager, our main editor, such a talent, such a hard worker, go-to person, always delivers an outstanding work product, packaging the look and feel of this show, putting it all together.

That's all Mikey. And speaking of that, Christina Falcone. Logan Harris, Daniel Macho. There are other spectacular editors as well. They not only work on other projects for the company, but they also dedicate their time to sidebar as well. So thank you so much for dedicating that time and the great work that you do day in and day out.

Nick McGow, our technical director, the man who has to sit there and watch me day in and day out all the time, knows all my lines by now. Not an envious position for him to be in, but seriously, what a great asset runs our whole platform by which we record and film these shows, always ready to go, efficient, never says no, such an invaluable member of this team. Also, Julia Pizarro, Alexander MacDonald, they also jump into technical direct as well. Can't tell you how much I appreciate you guys for doing that. Thank you for jumping in in a pinch at times because this is a rapidly developing show. It's the news program. And with that in mind, Alyssa Fisher, Diane Kaye, are amazing bookers.

They have helped get all of our outstanding guests, which with our turnaround time and our deadlines and breaking news, it's not easy. So thank you so much for your dedication. Appreciate you so much. Anjanette Levy, Elizabeth Milner, they have helped co-host this show with me. Very, very talented presenters, reporters, proud to call them colleagues. Thank you to Boris Jeremovich, Tom Fearing, our engineers who have helped with all of our tech issues that have popped up. They helped to build this great new set. I will, of course, continue to bother you day in and day out about the lighting.

It's just what I'm going to do. And then finally, Long Crimes President Rachel Stockman, our C.O. Andrew Icebrook. And, of course, our founder, Dan Abrams. Without them, none of this would be possible. Their leadership, their guidance has allowed us to succeed. And particularly Dan, Dan's vision for the company, his vision for our position in the true crime space. I think we can all say we owe it to that man. so there you go big team sidebar big operation over here right it's not just me behind the camera

it's like i just won an oscar i think they would have kicked me off stage by now but anyway had to thank everybody a thousand down a thousand more to go back to alec murdox so here's the big news the south carolina supreme court has just agreed to hear a major issue that could in fact result in the retrial of the convicted killer man who was found guilty of murdering his wife maggie and son Paul back on their family property back in 2021, shot them to death. The motive was that he killed his family to distract away from all of his financial crimes, namely stealing money from his law firm and clients, particularly to fuel his drug addiction. And as a way to prevent being found out and by himself time, he killed his family. Hey, by the way, for our 1000th episode,

let me also call out our incredible sponsors. Thank you so much for your support. And that includes, by the way, Blue Land. So did you know that laundry detergent pods are also wrapped in plastic Yeah, that film around your pods is plastic, and it ends up in our oceans, our rivers, our soil well. Blue Land is launching a first of its kind, fragrance laundry detergent tablet in the scent, Spring Bloom. So after two years of extensive research and development, Blue Land has successfully created a fragrance tablet that not only maintains the company's commitment to powerful plastic-free efficacy, but also delivers a delightful scent that customers have been requesting for years. So this spring bloom fragrance is an amazing blend of sunripe and citrus, fresh wildflowers, golden amber. Tell me that doesn't sound lovely, right? And it's really no surprise that Blue Land is trusted in over one million homes, including mine.

I've been using Blue Land even before they became a sponsor. That's how much I believe in them. And Blue Land has a special offer for Sidebar's audience. Right now, you can get 15% off of your first order by going to BluLand.com slash Sidebar. You won't want to miss this. It's blu land.com slash sidebar for 15% off. That's blu land.com slash sidebar to get 15% off. Now, as you may recall, after the trial, it came out that the clerk of the court, Becky Hill,

was accused of engaging in some shenanigans during the trial. Murdoch's defense team argued that Hill had inappropriate communications with the jurors during this trial, namely trying to influence them to find Alec Murdoch guilty. And they argued that Hill had a book deal and she had an incentive to make sure Murdoch was convicted. In fact, there was an accusation that she allowed a picture of Murdoch to be taken of him in a holding cell as a way to promote her book. And one of the more alarming allegations was that Hill intentionally got one juror booted from the jury after she allegedly told Hill she had questions about whether Alec Murdoch was actually guilty. And the defense alleged that Hill fabricated a Facebook post authored by, the juror's ex-husband, a post that said he talked to the juror, his ex-wife, about the case.

Defense says the ex-husband never posted it. But again, the juror was dismissed nonetheless, and the defense said that they spoke to several jurors, and there were issues like Hill allegedly telling the jurors not to believe Alec Murdoch's testimony. So what happened? A hearing was held to determine what is going on and whether Alec Murdoch should be entitled to a new trial based on what Hill allegedly did. did she improperly taint and influence this jury?

I'll give me an example of what happened. Listen to what one juror said during this hearing. Did you hear Ms. Becky Hill make any comment about this case before your verdict? Yes, ma'am. If yes, what did Ms. Hill say? To watch his actions. To watch his actions. What else?

To watch him closely. To watch him closely. Was your verdict on March the 2nd, 2023, in any way with any, influenced in any way with any communications by the clerk of court, Becky Hill in this case? Yes, ma'am. Yes, please. All right. 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 remarks she made. Did that affect your finding of guilty in this case? Yes, ma'am.

All right? But ultimately, retired justice, Gene Toll, didn't find the evidence was sufficient to warrant a new trial that the verdict wasn't directly affected by what Hill did or did not do. And that didn't come, though, without some parting words and criticism for Ms. Hill. 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 expressed that as early as November 22,

long before the trial began. She denies that this is so, but I find that she stated to the clerk of court, Ronda McAulven 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. Did Clerk of Court Hill's comments have any impact on the verdict of the jury?

I find that the answer to this question is no. Each member of this jury took their involuntary assignment very seriously. They obeyed the instructions of the court. They obeyed their oath. These good and decent citizens of Colleton County stood to their duty and rendered their verdict without fair or favor. I simply do not believe that the authority of our Sacramento 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 defendant's motion for a new trial on the factual record before me must be denied, and it is so ordered. Hill, by the way, now faces 76 misconduct allegation. She has resigned from her position, and the South Carolina law enforcement division has opened

up a probe into whether Hill used her office, her role for personal game. But now, the South Carolina Supreme Court has agreed to hear this case, this jury tampering issue. And they will now hear arguments about whether it was improper for justice told to deny a new trial based on these jury tampering allegations. Very, very big win for the defense. Why did the court agree to this? Could this work? Could we see Alec Murdoch 2.0? Well, with that, I had a chance to sit down and chat with Joe McCullough, an attorney who represents two of the jurors in Alec Murdoch's trial. If you had been following our coverage, you know who Joe is. Let's see what you had to say.

Good to see you, sir. Thanks so much for coming on. Great to be here. So what was your reaction and why do you think the South Carolina Supreme Court agreed to hear this appeal? What was your reaction? Why do you think they decided to do it? Well, it's a really good question. And there are lawyers all over South Carolina killing pigeons and reading the entrails

because there are a few things very significant about this action by the Supreme Court. There is the appeal of the murder case, which is separate and apart from this neutral motion appeal. The defense moved for the Court of Appeals, or for the Supreme Court, rather, to take it. And that's not, it's rarely done, I would say, except in matters of extreme significance. But this court as of last week is now, I won't say run, but presided over by new Chief Justice. The new Chief Justice is a gentleman named John Kittredge, a wonderful man and jurist who also happened to write the opinion in State versus Green, which is what this whole new trial motion revolves around.

And of course the defense's position in their motion, in this motion for this court, this Supreme Court to evaluate the new trial proceedings, they take the position that the judge who presided over that justice told, former Supreme Court justice, that she misread State versus Green written by the Chief Justice who was a part of this decision to take this case and hear it themselves immediately. So summarized for our viewers what? state versus green means. And if the fact that they're taking it up means, I think a fair interpretation is just as tall, you might have misinterpreted it. Now it's time for us to set the

record straight? Well, I don't know. I don't know whether. Just state versus green and then you could give me your opinion. Well, the simple explanation, I guess, of a not terribly complex situation is when allegations of jury interference, any type of communication, occurring between court staff or any person outside of the jury itself, any communications that could potentially interfere with the jury's objectivity and deliberations, that's something the courts must look into immediately. There's nothing, I mean, there's nothing more sacrosanct in our system than a pure jury. So the United States Supreme Court in a case called Remmer versus the United States said that

in these cases where you are able to validate to some degree that there are miscommunications, improper communications, that the presumption arises that these communications have tainted the jury, irretrievably. And that presumption was, that standard established by the United States Supreme Court is the subject of State v. Green, which is a case in which a bailiff communicated with the jury on some sidebar issues that had nothing to do. with guilt or innocence, but a little more than how's the weather. And Justice Kittridge's opinion in that case found that renter did not apply in that situation,

but his opinion did not say that renter doesn't apply in a different situation, and that's really the issue. See, I will tell you, when I was watching that hearing with Justice Tall, and this is not to criticize her in any way, I felt that the evidence was sufficient. And this is not how I feel about Alec Murdoch in the case. I think the evidence against him was so sufficient that the finding of him being found guilty was a clear result. Having said that, I thought the evidence was enough for him to get a new trial. I thought there was something very improper, particularly one of the jurors stepping up and saying,

you know, they heard what Becky Hill said to them. It influenced their opinion. I know it was back and forth about whether or not it really influenced her opinion. I thought there was enough. Did you look at that hearing and say that there was something deficient in that hearing? deficient in that hearing, something that the Supreme Court now might disagree with? Well, because I have to practice law in South Carolina. You'll be careful.

You'll be careful. You'll be careful. I'm not going to evaluate Justice Toll who is an old friend. Someone I've known my entire life, we've grown up in the town and went to the same high school. I have to say that as I watched the proceedings, I believed that there needed to be further inquiry. I believe strongly that juror number 785, who was the removed juror, who was not called upon to testify but was present across the street in my office from the courthouse. I believe that her information, because it went to the immediate question of what kinds

of communications the clerk of court had with the jury, with my client, with other jurors, and I think that's the crux of the problem here, and that's the crux of the situation. And that's what our, you know, in this taking of the case by our state Supreme Court, taking it away from the Court of Appeals, leapfrogging over that intermediate step, what that leaves or presents to this court, our Supreme Court, are several choices. They can declare that the proceedings and the decision was proper and that no due trial is granted. They could find that perhaps the trial judge, Justice Toll, did not utilize the right standard

or misinterpreted, in which case they could then sua sponte declare a new trial. I think what's more likely is if they conclude that there are problems with the standard or problems with the scope of the inquiry, I think it's far more likely they're going to remand to a trial judge. It won't be Justice Toll. It likely would be another judge by the name of Taylor. who's a very good jurist, somewhat new to the bench, but it would go back to him, I think, because everything else in the Murdoch case has been assigned to him with the retirement of Judge Newman.

So I think that it could be remanded to him to really use the proper, with the direction, to use the standard the court dictates in their decision, and then we'll have a whole new hearing. And I would imagine your clients might have to testify at that hearing. Well, they were, one of my clients testified in the last hearing. The other juror, who was the removed juror, 785, was not permitted to testify. I would hope that in the next proceeding both would be allowed to testify. I know you can't divulge communications you had with your clients, but do they have a feeling, do they have a reaction to the fact that the South Carolina Supreme Court

is now agreeing to hear this? Anything you can share? Well, I think that they recognize there might be, you know, deja vu all over again. I don't think anyone, especially these ladies, are happy about the possibility of testifying again. It's kind of a scarifying situation, and they're prepared to do so. And I want to say, to follow up on something you said, Ehrlich may be the worst human on earth. not, not the worst, and he may very well be very guilty. But what they believe, and the reason

they came forward is that they believe even he deserves a fair trial. And you know, I've said this before. The evidence against Alec Murdoch was substantial. Without, in my mind, it was very clear he murdered his family. But I've always said this in very high profile cases and cases where the crimes are absolutely heinous. It's even that more important to get it right so that there is not a situation where there's a retrial and you want to make sure you do it right and that's for justice for the victims it's also you know you don't want to go through the expense the heartache the time of going through another trial so you may have to make sure it goes right and I agree every criminal defendant has a

right now you made you said something interesting to me before we started that you would file the specific motion about I would say everybody getting a little bit more information about what's going on and now you have to adjust it based and the fact that the Supreme Court has taken this off. Well, I think it may not be clear, crystal clear, to your viewers that in the last several days to the point just before the jury was to go back to begin deliberation, there had been several days of proceedings backstage what we call in-camera, just the judge, just the prosecution and defense lawyers, and a few witnesses, including juror 785, and some

others who gave information to the court. Those proceedings are what I believe, well, I have previously filed a motion last year to unseal those records to allow me access and so that I could go over that information with my client because she was in the in-camera proceedings only part of the time. Once I'd looked at those records, I believe that the public should be entitled to see what happened backstage. to have that information. I think I hate, I'm not a big fan of the word transparency, but I do think that the public is fascinated with this case if not obsessed. If they're going

to be obsessed, then let's fulfill their obsession with knowledge, information, and so I will be filing another motion, which I had previously filed two weeks ago, in the Court of Appeals. Now I'm having to file it in the Supreme Court asking the court to either remand it to a trial judge to conclude if the records should be unsealed or for the court to unseal them spontaneously. But when that occurs, they'll be available to your viewers, to you, and the subject of public discussion. I know you can't say anything about it, but if you had to take a guess, what would be our reaction if that information came out? Well, I think it'll take some digestive time, but the defense is in favor and has consented

to my motion to unseal. The prosecution has opposed it. Fair enough. Okay. Whatever you choose to infer. Take it from that way we will. If Alec Murdoch, if the Supreme Court comes out and says, you know what, new trial, when's the earliest, we could actually get a new murder trial for Alec Murdoch? I don't know.

Yeah. I really, I think, I've been at this business almost 50 years trying criminal cases, and the worst cases that I've tried are the ones that I tried more than once. Sure. Because as a, and I've done it as a prosecutor and as a defense lawyer, and it's worse as a defense lawyer. Prosecutors plod through the deal and their facts don't change. The defense can adjust strategies, but God knows having to do it again is just a, a, you

grueling thing and it's no doubt worse for the accused, the victims, all of the people that are the players in these melodramas are drastically affected by a trial and then a retrial is just horrible. I don't know how he would be able to get a fair and impartial jury. You know, it was one thing how much attention was brought to the case even before a jury was selected. Now, afterwards, this was by the way a case that wasn't not only we followed here. But I remember during the closing arguments, CNN was doing live coverage of it, was following it.

And I don't remember the last time they followed closing arguments in a case like that, maybe Ahmaud Arbery, maybe Kyle Rittenhouse, something like that. But it was a case that took the nation by storm. Everybody was following it. How on earth can you get a fair and martial jury? Far more than a nation. I did interviews with the BBC. Right. Yeah.

I was in Paris last year with my wife and had drinks with a journalist. who was, I bought him drinks in Paris, but he spent six weeks in Walterboro with me. So it's a fascinating case that has somehow enveloped the international attention. And it's not over yet. No, and by the way, if he's retried, I don't know if you know the answer to this, big part of the first trial was the introduction of the financial crimes evidence. Would that come in again, you think? Well, I did not believe that the extent of information that was allowed in the financial

crimes, the other bad acts is what they're called under our laws. I thought that I really had issue with that. And I suspect that being one of the real spokes in the wheel driving the defense appeal. that's a big piece of the appeal that that was so prejudicial. I suspect if a retrial were to occur that the next judge will study on the appellate issues and tone some things down, fine-tune the trial itself, and that'll be great because if I have to go watch the next one, maybe we can do it in three weeks instead of six. Well, look, I know motive is not an element of a crime.

The prosecution doesn't have to prove motive. If it does help tell a story, particularly when you're saying a man is accused of killing his wife and son, why would he do that the financial crimes were the whole motive. It was that, you know, the world was closing in on him. Well, let me distract. Let me disagree with you. Yeah? That's what the prosecution started with.

Right. But what they ended with was that he really went berserk and killed them. And I'm struggling to find the phrase. they used and it happened to be a phrase that I had used on one of your competitor crime programs we don't talk about them I use that phrase because I just read it in some obscure news article and then it popped up two days later in the closing arguments right that nothing was much said about the financial crimes he now was a guy who went insane and killed them but because his world

was closing in. That's what, see, we could talk, we could debate that all this all day. Before I let you go, because this whole issue about whether or not he gets a new trial is centered around Becky Hill and what she allegedly did, and I know she has dozens of misconduct allegations levied against her, not criminal, but ethics violations. What's just your overall take on everything that you learned about what Becky Hill is accused of doing? I can't tell you how sad I am about that because I did not know Becky Hill well before the trial began. I contacted her. She was so nice and so professional in dealing with my needs, with the press needs, with

everything that happened in the trial and when things just began to collapse in her world, I was astonished and so sad. She has good lawyers. It appears that she's going to need them. I don't know what's going to happen. I know that there's a continuing investigation, I'm told, by the Attorney General's office in conjunction with SLED or SLED as the investigative agency, even about jury tampering as well as these other spending issues.

But, you know, the Attorney General's office, the Attorney General who participated pretty professionally in the trial itself, I think they've got a challenge in being objective. I mean, I recall in the press conference that followed the verdict that the Attorney General and his staff were reveling and taking a little victory lap around the podium and he said, I want to thank Becky Hill and somebody says, gosh, she's up there on the balcony and he said, thank you, Becky Boo. Well, when you've got that relationship, I think that is a real challenge to be objective and I think he's, you know, his office will have to consider that.

That's a really good point. Joe McCullough. Thank you so much for coming on. Good to see you. Appreciate it. Thank you. Thank you. All right, everybody, that's all we have for you right now here on Sidebar.

Thank you so much for joining us. And as always, please subscribe and Apple Podcast, Spotify, YouTube, wherever you get your podcasts. I'm Jesse Weber. I'll see you next time for the next 1,000 episodes. You can binge all episodes of this law and crime series ad free right now on Wondery Plus. Join Wondery Plus in the Wondery app, Apple Podcasts, or Spotify.