Murdaugh Murders Podcast - TSP #34 - Light at the End of the Tunnel: Justice Toal Brings Order to Murdaugh Chaos

Episode Date: January 18, 2024

On today’s show, True Sunlight Co-hosts Mandy Matney and Liz Farrell finally see some hope after five months of Murdaugh chaos. This week, Justice Jean Toal sent a strong message to Dick Harpootlian and Jim Griffin that her courtroom will not be a place for them to put Colleton County Clerk Becky Hill on trial in their quest to get Alex Murdaugh a new trial. Left with their playbook ripped in shreds, what will Team Murdaugh’s next move be? Mandy and Liz discuss the highlights from this week’s status conference and what they think will happen in the lead up to Alex’s Jan. 29th hearing. The biggest question heading into Tuesday's hearing was how Justice Toal would interpret the law – if she will decide on Alex’s new trial based on evidence of Becky’s actions with the jurors affecting the verdict OR based on evidence showing that Becky’s communication with the jury COULD HAVE affected the verdict.  And it didn’t take long for Judge Toal to make a clear decision on that and set the tone for the hearing... Let's get into it... In January we’re offering your first month of Soak Up The Sun membership for 50% off and our SUNscribers will get an email this Friday for 50% off their first three months of Soak Up The Sun Membership. So join our email list to get that special offer for first time members. Join Luna Shark Premium today at Lunashark.Supercast.com. Premium Members also get access to searchable case files, written articles with documents, case photos, episode videos and exclusive live experiences with our hosts on lunasharkmedia.com all in one place. CLICK HERE to learn more: https://bit.ly/3BdUtOE. And for those just wanting ad-free listening without all the other great content, we now offer ad-free listening on Apple Podcast through a subscription to Luna Shark Plus on the Apple Podcasts App. Or become a member on YouTube for exclusive videos and ad-free episodes. SUNscribe to our free email list to get alerts on bonus episodes, calls to action, new shows and updates. CLICK HERE to learn more: https://bit.ly/3KBMJcP Visit our new events page Lunasharkmedia.com/events where you can learn about the upcoming in-person and virtual appearances from hosts! And a special thank you to our sponsors: Microdose.com, PELOTON, and VUORI. Use promo code "MANDY" for a special offer! *This episode contains strong language For current & accurate updates: TrueSunlight.com facebook.com/TrueSunlightPodcast/ Instagram.com/TrueSunlightPod Twitter.com/mandymatney Twitter.com/elizfarrell youtube.com/@LunaSharkMedia Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

I don't know how much longer the media will continue to buy into the lies of Team Murdoch. But on Tuesday, for the first time in a long time, I felt confident that our system will finally put an end to the judicial terrorism. Finally, after almost five years, I can see a light at the end of the tunnel. And I have real hope that Justice Toll will be the woman to save our system. My name is Mandy Matney. This is True Sunlight, a podcast exposing crime and corruption, previously known as the Murdoch Murders podcast. True Sunlight is a Luna Shark production written with journalist Liz Farrell.

Y'all, I just want to take a moment and give our team a big pat on the back. Because once again, we were right. Our sources were right. Our legal experts were right. Our instinct to not take the defense at their word no matter how many times we were called crazy, they were right. It's been a weird 134 days since Team Murdoch set fire to the justice system and led the media on a wild clerk of court chase accusing Becky Hill of jury tampering and convincing the media

that Ehrlich Murdoch was all but guaranteed and new trial. Now, I will be the first to admit that this story is. personal to me. Next month, we'll mark five years for Liz and I, in which we've dedicated thousands of hours of our free time in acres of our brain space and memory to investigating the Murdoch family and exposing the deep corruption poisoning our justice system in the low country. I'm not sure how this story couldn't be personal for someone in our shoes. But because it is so personal, I remember very vivid details of what was happening in my life during different moments of Murdoch Madness.

At the end of August, we took a trip to Europe to celebrate the last few years of building a company, starting two number one podcast and ultimately exposing a lot of bad people who I don't think would have ever been held accountable had it not been for us. I remember on the plane right there, I was excited about the next chapter beyond the Murdoch madness. We were starting to get deep into the Solomon story in Tennessee, and we felt calm. about our plans to begin new investigations elsewhere. A couple days into our trip, I heard from a friend who heard from Team Murdoch

that there were going to be bombshells in the Murdoch case in the following week. I was annoyed. Now what? Can't we just be done with them? A few days later, on September 5, 2023, those alleged bombshells dropped when Dick and Jim held a press conference and claimed to have a stack of evidence proving that Clerk of Court Becky Hill, tampered with the jury. I remember it perfectly. I was helping my friend get ready for her wedding in Florence, Italy, when I heard the news. Just like it did, on so many other Murdoch Madness days in the past few years, my cell phone blew up. Immediately, I was getting

messages like, did you hear what Becky Hill did? Can you believe Ehrlich is getting a new trial? And then, a lot of messages from our sweet fans saying, I don't buy what the media is saying, And I'm waiting to hear from y'all. Are these accusations from the defense legit? I didn't have a lot of time, but I did a Google search. And honestly, I had to do a few takes at what I was seeing. Here's David, reading a few of those headlines from September 5th, 2023. Alec Murdoch alleges jury tampering demands new trial.

The Greenville News. Alec Murdoch's lawyers new bombshell claims about trial. Newsweek. Murdoch's lawyers seek new trial, saying clerk tampered with jury. New York Times. South Carolina Attorney General asks for state investigation into Alec Murdoch jury tampering allegations. CNN. My head started spinning.

What? I have seen poor journalism throughout this saga, but it was clear that every single news outlet in the country that had been following this story was taking these allegations extremely serious. and lending all sorts of undeserved credibility to Team Murdoch, who had lied and lied to them and made them look foolish time and time again. The person I was two years ago would have ditched my friend and our plans for Florence that night to go hide in my hotel room and read the files line by line, tweeting my findings,

and writing a new podcast script for that week. I used to constantly feel like it was my obligation and my duty to correct the Murdoch misinformation. until I realized how toxic that was to my own mental health. Thankfully, Liz, the voice of reason, quickly read the defense's filings and told me to calm down. She said she wasn't seeing anything to fret over, and whatever it was, we could deal with it when we got home.

No more letting Team Murdoch ruining our good times. A few days later, David and I got some time to read the filings before we recorded a Cup of Justice episode. I remember looking at him and saying, is this really it? There is nothing here. Am I missing something? I say these things because no matter how often I am right, I still doubt myself. David, who just read the exact same pile of papers that I had read, agreed. I remember him saying, I cannot believe they've made such aggressive accusations with such little evidence. And the media just ran with it. For the next month, we were hit with several rounds of

criticism and accused constantly of ignoring the Becky story because it doesn't fit our narrative, when in reality, we had more important things to cover like Corey Fleming finally getting sentenced, and we needed time to dissect the documents that Dick and Jim had filed and talk to sources about what is really going on. And over those next several months, harassment against us escalated. People constantly called us team Becky. They called us bad journalists for not being able to look at the facts, they accused us of losing our sources in the last year and claimed that we lost our way. It was hurtful. When all along, our view stayed the same, no matter how many times people said that we were wrong and how many reporters made rude remarks about our take on this. We said

that the allegations made against Becky's ethics should be separate from the allegations about jury tampering. We said all along that unless Dick and Jim revealed more evidence of jury tampering, the chances of a new trial for Ehrlich Murdoch were very small. And in the past 134 days, Dick and Jim did not show any more evidence of jury tampering. What did happen, though, was piece by piece, Dick and Jim working hand-in-hand with their friends in the media attacked Becky Hill's credibility. The media and the defense managed to convince a sizable audience that the decision for Ehrlich getting a new trial would come down to. to Becky's credibility. They said this over and over again while chipping away at Becky Hill

in her reputation. Oh, and Becky did make that easy, from her emails trying to be popular with the reporters to her book that was problematic to begin with, given her position as a public servant and even more problematic now that she plagiarized a story from BBC that was accidentally emailed to her. Becky has not made this easy. Oh, and when Justice told her, was picked to preside over the jury tampering hearing, the same reporters who took part in convincing the public that Becky's tarnished credibility would weigh heavily against the prosecution, they all shouted what a win it was for Team Murdoch and how smooth his path to a retrial was looking. Oh, but a win it was not.

Judge Toll was a wild card for us. We heard from several sources that she was hard to predict, but also they said it would be easy to know where she was headed right out of the gate, and boy, were those sources accurate. The biggest question heading into this hearing on Tuesday was how Judge Toll would interpret the law. If she would decide on Ehrlich Murdoch's new trial based on evidence of Becky's actions with the jurors affecting the verdict, or based on evidence showing that Becky's communication with the jurors could have affected the verdict, it didn't take Judge Toll long at all to make a clear decision on that and set the tone for the entire hearing.

A presumption is not the way to examine this issue, but rather specific evidence about what was said, when it was said, and how it was perceived by the juror is what I believe is required by a state versus green in other cases. We will get into this more, but wow. Justice Toll was incredibly decisive, confident, and clear throughout Tuesday's three-hour hearing. there was no guessing whatsoever in what she was thinking. As it involves questions to Ms. Hill similarly, this is not a time to explore every mistake or incorrect statement

or a false statement that ever has been made by this witness. I am the judge for the credibility of this witness purposes of this new trial motion. I don't think it's necessary, nor do I think it's necessary, nor do I think it's proper to explore each and every impropriety alleged to have been committed by the clerk. And she was not having whatever made-up mush Dick Arpulian was serving. If they were friends, as several people suspected and there was historical evidence of, then Justice Toll swept that relationship out the door and focused on the facts of the case.

If that makes sense. It doesn't make complete sense to me because this is not the trial of Ms. Hill. And issues about motive and so forth in the possible commission of crimes are not what this inquiry is about. It is about her contact with the juror and what she said. I swear, I watched Dick shrink several inches as Justice Toll schooled him on the law. You're speaking to me about something in a complete vacuum as far as I'm concerned, so I can't really evaluate. Oh, and she was crystal clear that she was in command. I'm perfectly capable of evaluating what the jurors gentlemen, and I'll do that.

I think I'm also perfectly capable of evaluating credibility of Ms. Hill and the jurors. Just like our Cup of Justice co-host, Eric Bland, told us what happened. Justice Toll took immediate control of her courtroom. For much of the status conference, the camera was mainly focused on Team Murdoch, on Dick, Jim, Ehrlich, Phil Barber, and all of their reddening faces.

And when I say reddening, I am talking all the shades of red, right down to the purple hue that Dick's face started to take on toward the end. But we'll get to that. Justice Toll was presented to viewers from home, which included Mandy and me, as mostly a disembodied voice that was strong, commanding, and free from doubt. Every word she said was intentional and felt as solid as a brick, with each brick forming an even more formidable structure. So no matter how much Dick huffs and puffs throughout the next few weeks, he's not going to be able to blow her house down, that's for sure.

From the get-go, Justice Tolset the agenda, she told the state and defense that they were here to discuss four matters. First, was whether an evidentiary hearing was necessary. Even though she had already decided there would be a hearing, she wanted the arguments preserved for the record. The second was determining who had the burden of proof, what must be shown to meet that burden of proof, and what must be shown to contest that burden of proof. Third, was hearing from both sides about the procedural timing issue in which the state believes that Dick and Jim knew about the allegations from the Egg Lady juror immediately after the trial, and therefore they're arguing that all of this is moot because Team Murdoch was required to bring these allegations to the court's attention within 10 days if they wanted to use it as a reason

for a new trial. And then fourth, and finally, and what just stole called the heart and soul of her agenda, they were to discuss the guidelines for who would be a witness, what evidence would be allowed, and who would do the questioning. So for both Mandy and me, this was our first time seeing justice toll in action, and we were both struck by how thorough she was and how clear. When someone is that thorough and that clear, you immediately know that person is aware of their own thoroughness and their own clarity, and by golly, you had better be listening with both ears. meaning if she were your professor, you'd be sitting up straight and taking notes. But not our Dick Harpoonian.

When he stood up to address the court, one of the first things he said was this. If it please, of court, Your Honor, you've raised, I assume you want to go to the order in which you just... I would. Okay. You raised a number of legal issues from

whether we've waived, I mean, a number of, I just have to get the order which you just took it. Mr. Griffin, want to address those. He said, I assume you want to address the issues in the order you very deliberately raised them, and I've already forgotten what that order was. So here's the thing about that.

We all know that Justice Toll has a series of first on her resume. She became a lawyer at a time when she wasn't even legally allowed to be a juror as a woman. She was the first woman on the state Supreme Court and the first woman to become Chief Justice. She has spent her entire career having to contend with the buffoonery that the state's good old boy attorneys could and continue to get away with. This goes without saying, but there are very few, if any, women attorneys or attorneys of color who would ever think they could get away with standing in front of a South Carolina judge mere moments after being given instructions and essentially say, it wasn't that important to me, so I've already forgotten what you said. The point being, Dick should have had a conversation with himself in the mirror before he got to the courtroom Tuesday morning and advised himself to be less of a Dick Harputlian because his usual power wrangling wasn't going to work on her. And God, are we here for that?

Like we said, throughout the proceeding, she put Dick on notice over and over. So let's talk about what Dick and Jim wanted and what they got. The first thing they wanted was to have a hearing. And they got that. Justice Toll has scheduled an evidentiary hearing for January 29th and possibly the 30th and 31st in Richland County Courthouse. The state argued against this saying that a hearing wasn't necessary because, A, Dick and Jim knew about these allegations right after the trial and therefore missed their window in terms of raising the issue. And B, the only deliberating juror that Dick and Jim have who is making allegations against Becky is juror 630. and she doesn't cite Becky as the reason for her guilty verdict. She cites other jurors.

And of course, the law is crystal clear in multiple cases, that that sort of internal debate is actually in World 606B, that that's not any sort of misconduct or anything that is an appropriate venue or mechanism in order to attack the verdict. Yesterday during the status conference, we fielded a few questions in our live stream from Soak Up the Sun members about an argument that Jim Griffin was making in regards to having the hearing. Jim cited a case called Remmer and referred to the hearing as a Remmer hearing.

Remmer v. United States is a case that would have essentially granted the defense wider latitude during this evidentiary hearing at the end of the month. This is important. It's one of the key things that Dick and Jim have wanted. Because remember what we said in the last episode. They have nothing. They do not have evidence of jury tampering. They wanted to use this hearing as a fishing expedition and Justice Toll shut down any notion of that a few times. First, she told Jim, this was not going to be a rummer hearing. So even though

the hearing is the one win the defense can point to yesterday, it's far in a way not the hearing they wanted. Here's what Justice Toll said. I don't think we need to go back and forth many times about this. I think I understand your position. Here is my position on that. First of all, this is not, I am not conducting a rumor hearing. Rimmer is a 19-3. 54 decision of the United States Supreme Court that deals with question of influence of the jury and a motion for a new trial on the basis of after discovered evidence of that influence. I rely on the psychonical line decision of our Supreme Court offered by Justice Kittridge State v. Green and the Green decision specifically says that rumor is not the guidance that South Carolina trial judges should look to in conducting hearings on after-discovered

evidence. Now that says nothing about what the burden of proof should be, and I don't intend to say anything thereby, but I do intend to tell you right away that I will be relying on South Carolina's jurisprudence and South Carolina's jurisprudence specifically on what must be proved in a hearing of this nature

and who bears the burden of that proof. All right. So, right there, right there in that moment, Team Murdoch knew that their house of cards was falling to the ground. Justice Toll was essentially telling them, I'm going to use the case law that

does not favor your position to make my decisions. The same case law, they argued against being used in their pre-hearing briefs. Because don't forget, they needed the rules of the game to be totally in their favor in order to get anywhere. They were hoping that all that pre-hearing publicity, all the publicity that had nothing to do with the allegations of jury tampering, would help stir things up enough so that by the time they had their evidentiary hearing, witnesses, two including... the jurors, might have become so influenced by the media, by the power of suggestion,

and through the wild theories and accusations and misinformation being spread on social media, that when questioned, they might say something that would help Ellick's case. Team Murdoch wanted the court to use a standard of presumption, where it's presumed that Becky's alleged statement about, quote, watching Ellick's body language could affect the verdict. instead of the standard of prejudice in which the court wants to see evidence of an actual prejudicing of the jury. So the next big issue the defense lost on, the burden of proof. Team Murdoch's argument was that all they had to do was produce some evidence that supported their claim of jury tampering and that they had done that, that it was now up to the state to prove that jury tampering didn't occur,

that the juror's verdicts were not influenced by Becky Hill. Now, in making that argument, they basically cited one case, which we've talked about a few times on the show. State v. Cameron. Obviously, the state disagreed with that. And not only disagreed, but BCE came on the metaphorical stage with his metaphorical guitar, ready to metaphorically shred. Big Creighton energy came on strong by citing nine cases that supported the state's position, including State v. Cameron. He took the defense's own case law and sent it back to them as an origami swan. Cameron is a case that they rely on a lot.

And I would say this about Cameron, and that Cameron, of course, goes on to say that the mere fact of any official communication does not necessarily mean that the jury was prejudiced and went on again to do a prejudice analysis and a harmless error analysis. So the case law in South Carolina, both from our state Supreme Court as well as our state court appeals, it's clear, it's in sync, it's uniform, that is the defendant's burden to show prejudice. And that's, of course, only after there's determination that any sort of extraneous influence occurred. And that would be the state's position, that it is the defendant's burden. And again, we can address at the appropriate time,

but the state's position is as to the order of which the evidence of hearing should go. And here is Justice Toll delivering one of the biggest blows to the defense. I do not regard State v. Cameron is the guidance that needs to be used by me in making the determination about this case. It's a courtable case.

Since that case in 1993, there have been several cases, including Green, Oliver, and others that very specifically talk about this issue of what the burden is on a motion for a new trial on the basis of after discovered evidence that involves tampering or alleged tampering with the jury, all those cases say that prejudice must be proved, not presumed. And it may very well be that that is what's going to be shown.

But for purposes of what the defendant must show as the case goes forward to the evidentiary hearing, presumption simply by the contact, which we don't have any sworn evidence about, except in the area of one juror at this time. A presumption is not the way to examine this issue. You have no idea how good it felt to hear Justice Toll say the thing that we've been screaming from the rooftops since this began. T. Murdoch has one affidavit from one juror. and it boils down to that.

It also felt good to hear her say that there have been several cases since State v. Cameron, the case that the defense is almost fully relying on here, but deal with the issue of the burden of proof. Meaning, you might see news agencies or people online or talking heads who continue to carry the water for Dick and Gem by claiming that Justice Toll is stumping on ELEC's Sixth Amendment right to an impartial jury. But Justice Toll is very clearly saying here, that subsequent case law supports her decision.

They have not made any definitive showing that jury tampering occurred. They have one juror saying she felt pressured by her fellow members of the jury. Justice Toll not only told the defense, Sorry, but your case law ain't casing for me. She gave them a good idea of just how restrictive the questioning of the jury would be. Like we said at the beginning of the show, she told them she expected to ask jurors three questions. What was said, when it was said, and how it was perceived by the juror.

And with that, the defense fishing expedition was canceled. We'll be right back. From the creative team behind the Brutalist and starring Academy Award nominee Amanda Seifred in a career best performance, Searchlight Pictures presents the testament of Anne Lee. With rave reviews from the Venice Film Festival, this bold and magnetic musical epic tells the story inspired by a true legend, Anne Lee.

Founder of the radical religious movement, The Shakers, the Testament of Anne Lee. Exclusive Toronto engagement January 16th in theaters everywhere January 23rd. After determining who had the burden of proof, the defense, Justice Toll then discussed her thoughts on the state's assertion that Dick and Jim missed their window of opportunity to make a motion to file for a new trial on after-discovered evidence, because they discovered the so-called evidence when the age of, lady juror obtained counsel. Counsel being Dick's bestie Joe McCola who sat behind the defense on Tuesday, along with TikTok Lori by his side for some reason. Justice Toll informed the defense that she was going to conduct a hearing to determine when they found out about the alleged contact between Becky and the jurors. Luna Shark reporter Beth Braden contacted First Amendment attorney and media liaison for this hearing, Jay Bender, to ask whether Justice Toll and Tull in

to hold this hearing separate and apart from the January 29th hearing. We were told that she will handle all matters in this case, including this one at that time. Now, for the heart and soul part of the status conference, this is where things got gnarly for old Dick and Jim. Remember, at this point in the proceeding, they already know they've lost big time. Justice Toll had already told them that the rules of the game were not going to be the rules were not just hoping for, but depending on, she was about to call their bluff in an epic

way. So another question we got from Sok Up the Sun members during our live stream chat on Tuesday was about Dick's fixation with Sleds, MOIs. I want to take a quick second to explain that issue before we get into who is testifying and how. T. Murdoch wants to question the jurors and Becky, and if they can't question them, they want to be able to provide questions to the judge. for her to ask them.

Remember the perfectly capable quote from the beginning of the show? That's when Justice Toll reminded Dick that she has got this. As a part of its investigation into jury tampering allegations, SLED provided the Attorney General's office with Memoranda of Investigation, or MOIs. They are summaries of what they found, summaries of interviews, summaries of facts, etc. Dick and Jim contend that those MOIs are written in such a way that they are favorable to the state, and that because of that, the judge cannot rely solely on them when determining what to ask the witnesses.

Really, what they want is for the record to reflect anything that makes Becky look bad. According to their pre-hearing brief filed earlier this month, they specifically want to know what the Barnwell clerk of court, Rhonda McElvine, told investigators. Becky, who calls Rhonda one of her closest friends in her book, enlisted Rhonda's help during the trial. Here is David with what the defense wrote about Rhonda. Mr. Murdoch also plans to call Rhonda McElvine,

the Barnwell clerk of court who assisted at the trial. The state presumably would object to her for the same reason Mr. Murdoch objects to calling persons who were not in the jury room to say they never heard something allegedly said in the jury room. She was not in the jury room. Mr. Murdoch, however, believes based on her Sled interview that she will corroborate expected juror testimony about Ms. Hill's statements because she will testify that Ms. Hill made substantively identical statements to her during trial, and because she received several complaints from court staff about Ms. Hill having inappropriate and excessive contacts with jurors. She, therefore, may have personal knowledge of facts, probative of whether Ms. Hill made the statements jurors say she made. If the state objects to her testimony, Mr. Murdoch would ask the court to review her video-recorded

interview with SLED and decide for itself whether her testimony would assist the court as fact-finder. If the court does so, however, it is important to review the video recording of her entire interview and not the SLED Memorandum summarizing it. In their list of expected exhibits, Team Murdoch listed two things. The affidavits of jurors 630 and 785, aka the Egg Lady, in this interview. That is how critical they think this interview is to their case. But here is the thing.

Now that Justice Toll has put the burden of proof on the defense, and now that she has said that the prejudice must be proven. show that a juror felt pressured by Becky to change their verdict, it dramatically changes the playing field for Team Murdoch. And that should have been clear to Dick at this part of the hearing. But he's Dick. So even though this is when he started to become the incredibly shrinking Dick Harputian, he forged on a head, trying to get every one of his war toys on the field.

Now, we figured out that Dick has a tell. When he's losing an argument, he'll say, We'll do that thing later, or that's fine. Here, while politely suggesting that he and Jim could submit questions to the judge so that she doesn't have to rely on the MOIs, he subconsciously admits defeat while telling on himself, meaning he admits they have nothing, and she has left them with nothing. Now, if your honor is going to be very restrictive and ask,

did the court communicate something to you and did it affect your decision? I guess that's what we're doing your honor when you're following state bro three. If you're going to say that, ask those questions. I mean there's some of these jurors who indicated they heard the court say what the the juror that gave the out of the abate for us say, and I think they're going to say it didn't affect them, which is fine. This is the part in the Dick documentary where the narrator would say, it was not fine.

So Dick admits to the judge that they don't gut it, but that's okay because they have one juror, and in Team Murdoch's opinion anyway, they only need the one. Except they don't have that juror. We'll keep saying this until it hurt. juror 630 does not say she was affected by Becky. In fact, let's take a second to talk about what she did say. In line two of her affidavit, juror 630 says that Becky, quote, told the jury, quote, not to be fooled.

She says the jury. Becky told the jury, but according to the written statements provided to Sled, no juror corroborates that. In line three, she says again that Becky quote told the jury to quote, him closely. Now, no juror corroborates that, again, according to the statements that have been made public, but a few jurors noted that Becky had advised them generally to pay attention, and one juror noted that they remember Becky saying to pay attention to Alex's body language. And again, no juror says that their verdict was influenced by these comments. But it's interesting to note that juror 630 doesn't say, Becky said this to me, but rather to the jury as a whole,

and no one remembers being told, quote, not to be fooled or, quote, watch him closely. Finally, in line 10 of her affidavit, juror 630 says, quote, I had questions about Mr. Murdoch's guilt, but voted guilty because I felt pressured by the other jurors. Not only is this evidence of what the state has been saying about juror 630 being influenced by other jurors. It shows that even if Becky said what juror 630 says she heard, juror 630 was a judge. not affected by it because she went into those deliberations with questions about his guilt. Meaning, Becky didn't change her mind before Juror 630 went into that room. Jury 630 says it right there, herself.

Okay, so one of the other major components of Team Murdoch strategy is they want to impeach Becky's character. There is this one part where Dick also casually acts like, Team Murdoch has merely been a witness to the ongoing demolition of Becky's reputation. And this is another Dick's strategy, by the way. He tells the judge what he's not going to do as a way of getting derogatory information about his opponent on the record.

So we think that the examination of the court should be wide open, and we think that the exhibits we would use to impeach her, we would attempt to keep it relevant to the specific issues in this case. I mean, her son has been indicted for her son's been indicted for wire There seems to be some inference, at least what we read in the paper, if we don't have any specific knowledge. And she was aware of that, and then wiretapping was in relation to some ethics complaint about her.

Oh, we're not going to ask about it. Now, we're continuing to examine whether or not there is some connection there, and we're investigating that. But at this point, I would tell you, that's not what we're going. He also uses this so-so casual approach to bringing up the Egg Lady and the Facebook post. Where we are going, by way of example, is we have been furnished an email that she got on February 24th from somebody, which was a photo, a screenshot of a posting on some sort of Facebook page, where the ex-husband of a juror, not the eight lady,

alleges that his ex-wife is talking about the case, and she is going to vote guilty because she hates me. Now, we know she got it. We know she got it on February 24th. So this is interesting. It's the first time we've heard anything about this February 24th email. We had reporter Beth Braden look through Becky's emails, the ones that were provided in those two data dumps. And because those emails are just emails that Becky sent, it was not among them.

What Dick seems to be saying here is that Becky received notice of this Facebook post from a third party and that she waited three days to say something and that when she did finally say something, she took credit for finding the post. What Dick didn't say to Justice Toll is that February 24th was a Friday and that three days after that was a Monday, meaning Becky doesn't so much appear to have sat on it. She appears to have experienced what we in the non-good old boy lawyer community where things get twisted would call a normal weekend. At any rate, Dick was dropping these little bombs about Becky in the hopes of persuading the judge to allow Team Murdoch to question Becky freely and not have limits put on it. He told Justice

Toll that he wanted to trade Becky as a hostile witness, which would allow him to ask her leading questions. By the way, since we're on the topic of the Egg Lady, Dick repeatedly referred to her as just that, the Egg Lady juror, which is highly unprofessional, but likely a calculated move on his part. For the court record, she is juror 785, but in the press and on social media became known as the Egg Lady juror, because after getting dismissed from the jury by Judge Newman, she asked for somebody to retrieve a dozen eggs that another juror had brought in for her and her fellow members of the jury. I'm trying to make sure I understand what you just rule. Are you ruling that we cannot call the alternate juror or the so-called egg lady to corroborate what was said to the sitting jurors since they were all told this at the same time?

The fact that Dick continued to use that nomenclature for her was lost. likely purposeful because of how he wants the headlines to go. If he calls her juror 785, the judge will fully understand to whom he is referring to, but he runs the risk of the media not recognizing that he is talking about the egg lady. Calling her the egg lady sure does seem like a dog whistle to his friends in the media, or at least shows how much T. Murdoch's case relies on this being a big old circus. Another issue Dick raised was about how the jurors would be questioned. The jurors, by the way, are going to be subpoenaed and will appear in open court.

Their names will not be used. Media will be barred from photographing them, and they will likely be referred to by new numbers to further protect them from being identified. And by jurors, we mean not the egg lady, and not alternate juror 741. Because again, like we have been saying, they didn't have. render verdicts, so they do not factor into this, something that Justice Toll made very clear on Tuesday. Dick seemed very interested in leaving open the possibility that jurors could be questioned about what went on during deliberation if he and Jim are able to prove what Becky said

to the jurors. And Justice Toll was like, no, that is not what the rule says. So he asked again, Again, she was like, no, that is not the rule. I think it's very important to understand that no one, not myself or anyone else, is going to be asking the juror about the specifics of their deliberation. The rule is quite clear about that. Okay. Again, I'm going to be in questioning at this point in our argument. Yes.

And I'm trying to see what you all are asking, and I'm going to go to the state answer with every action to what you said. Thank you. After Dick sat down, Big Creighton Energy came on strong the way Big Creighton Energy does. Speaking for nearly 10 minutes, Creighton told the court that he agreed with the judge's interpretation of the rule. After we published last week's episode, the defense submitted a revised pre-hearing brief, adding Creighton Waters and his paralegal Carly Jewell to the witness list. The defense contends that Becky favored the state during the trial, and as evidence, they are using forwarded emails from Becky to the prosecution.

The emails are from people who were watching the trial asking her to forward these emails to Creighton. According to Creighton on Tuesday, the state and the defense traded all correspondence they received from Becky during the trial, and lo and behold, the defense was also receiving information from Becky, meaning she wasn't just favoring the state, as they claim. Additionally, Creighton put this on the record. The only juror that we have is the one who filed the affidavit, that's 630. And even she, or that person only said that she eventually voted guilty because she felt pressured by the other jurors, did not even mention any external impact. And so unless she's going to change her story, that is what was in her affidavit.

Unless she is going to change her story. That's a very important point moving forward, by the way. Now that the defense has been hobbled and told to stick to the facts, What do they have? The jurors are locked in by their statements. If they change their stories on January 29th, there goes their credibility. Not to mention, each one of those jurors was polled by Judge Newman. They already attested to their verdict being impartially theirs.

The jurors have little wiggle room for changing what they have already said. Okay, so Creighton's flawless 10 minutes in front of the judge enraged Dick. It was clear he'd been holding it together. as best as he could thus far. When Justice Toll asked him if he would like to reply, here is how that went. A 404, that's somewhat ironic, the state is quoting, well, 404, Your Honor.

One of the exceptions, the 404 I know this would be surprising to Waters' his motive, as if he'd never heard that before, he told me this morning one of the assistants that worked for Ms. Hill during this trial, this trial was told by miss hill during the trial that a guilty verdict would be good for sales of the book motive selling books so we believe we should be able to get into that we should be able to ask miss hill about it if she denied it to call that witness that assistant and have her testify that she was told that we why would a court do what legal as she did we think is important for your honor in terms of credibility and context, that's number one.

It's super trippy to hear Dick Harpoon, of all people, talk about the importance of credibility. So, this book sales thing. We've talked about this before, but in no way would any rational person believe the argument that a guilty verdict would be better for book sales of a self-published book by a small town clerk of court a job most people don't understand or even know exists

than a not guilty verdict would have. But here Dick is beating that drum again, and here, Justice Toll shuts him down. I can tell you that I am very, very reluctant to turn this hearing about juror contact into a wholesale expiration of every piece of conduct by the clerk alleged to have been improper on its own.

indicative of her or characteristics or personality or anything of that nature. This is a very focused inquiry that deals with this jury and what impact contacted any had on this jury. So I am very mindful of the limited nature of it as I say I'm not excluding submission in advance of information that would take the questions beyond the limited questions I initially indicate but I will be very hesitant about any of those questions as it involves propounding those questions to the jury as it involves questions to Ms. Hill similarly this is not a time to explore every mistake or incorrect statement or

false statement that ever has been made by this witness I am the judge for the credibility of this witness purposes of this new trial motion. I don't think it's necessary, nor do I think it's proper, to explore each and every impropriety alleged to have been committed by the clerk. She's said what she said. We're narrowing the scope, and we're not going to handle the case the way Team Murdoch wants it to be handled. So our legal sources have pointed out that a lot of what Dick was doing in his arguments was preparing for a future appeal of Justice Tol's decision if she ends up denying them a new trial.

In limiting the scope of the evidentiary hearing, she's limiting what they can bring up, not just in terms of who gets questioned and who does the questioning, but in terms of the timeline. She's limiting them to the six weeks of trial. Anything Becky did outside of that time frame is not considered material unless it relates directly to allegations of the jury tampering, meaning the ethics complaints, the books, all of it is not going to be allowed. In response to that, Dick wanted to offer a proffer, a written record of the allegations against Becky that they want to raise and that the judge won't allow. Here's how Justice Toll responded to that. But I will put certain limitations on just a wholesale exploration of every problematic piece of conduct

ethical dealings with the county and so forth this is a very focused inquiry about this jury and its ability to render the verdict it rendered in an impartial round so I say that to tell you that when the clerk is offered and I think clerk is going to have to be offered as a witness the whole allocation work bars around the contention that the clerk made contact with the jury about matters and material to their verdict, that that contact was improper, and that it impacted their verdict. There's a whole lot more that Mr. Hawke-Quitling has indicated he'd like to explore that our regard is totally extraneous to the inquiry that we're

we maintain, I'm not going to allow those questions to be asked by way of proffer and then have the clerk answer those questions and have that be the proper, although I consider them irrelevant questions. We're not going to handle the case in that way. Totally extraneous to the inquiry. Irrelevant questions. These are not phrases that are music to team Murdoch's ears. Not only was Justice Toll saying, I'm going to limit what you can ask in court, I'm going to to limit what you say in your proffer. And then she called them out for their antics. But I also think the record of the case is not to be used as a platform to explore each

and every fault of each and every witness, whether it be the juror or the clerk. And I'm not going to have a hate hearing conducted in that manner. I think there are other ways of preserving topics that I rule should not be pursued than having those questions asked and answer, even though I grew up with them, not properly in the human. So I hope that explains kind of where I am on the subject of how questions are I asked. And even after that, Dick still pressed on with his quest to destroy Becky, and Justice Toll was not having it. After Justice Toll allowed the room to take a 20-minute break, Dick came back with more, again, admitting they have nothing.

Please score John are just a couple of issues. One, we don't know who we're going to call to impeach Ms. Hill. Because we don't know what you're going to say. So it's difficult for us. I mean, once she testifies at that point, we'd say we'd like to call so and so and so and so and such and such and such and such. Number one. So it or maybe no one.

I mean, she may concede every year. issue we had. For instance, she did tell, according to the state, she did tell one of her assistance, what people helped her? You know, I hope he found Gilly because it'll help book sales. Now, um, I hope that's the last time you're going to repeat that until I asked for the game, Mr. Huckartbuthman. I told you that I can't imagine a situation in which I would go that far. So a statement like that, and she made well, I said, if it goes to anything I'm asked to consider,

it would be to her credibility. And I'll evaluate, well, I think that's upon even proper to ask, but let's move on that. And Dick still didn't drop it. He told the judge, if Becky did what they're accusing her of, then it's a crime, and so they have to get to the why of that. That's when this exchange happens. make sense? It doesn't make complete sense to me because this is not the trial of Ms. Hill

and issues about motive and so forth and the possible commission of crimes are not what this inquiry is about. It is about her contact with the juror and what she said. So I will be trading very carefully with good deal of what you say about on what you might or might not ask. So one last thing about Tuesday's status conference, that's important. Even though Justice Toll effectively ruined Dick and Jim's dastardly plans to trick this system into allowing Ehrlich to have a new trial, she did so artfully. And according to the law.

She was clear about her reasoning. She offered support for her opinions. And she was circumspect. She not only ruled on the matters in front of her, but on matters that may come out of any future appeal. meaning she didn't shut them down completely on everything. She quite consciously left open the possibility that she might change her mind if the defense is able to provide more evidence than they have thus far.

So the biggest question right now is what will Dick and Jim do next? On our live stream chat with Soak Up the Sun members, we joke that the only solution for them moving forward would be to withdraw their motion for a new trial because it's quite possible that after the jurors testify, the hearing is over. Now, do we believe that will happen? No. We believe Dick and Jim are already implementing their plan B through the media by introducing more misdirection. For instance, a state news agency posted what appeared to be sled evidence from the jury tampering investigation, presenting it as somehow pro-defense.

That evidence was under a protective order issued by Justice Toll, meaning how'd they get that? And what motive lies behind that leak? On Tuesday, the defense also filed its reply to the state's pre-hearing brief. Their reply is a reiteration of previous points, but presented in a much more tabloidy manner. It's filled with accusations stated as fact and glib arguments that sound like a high schooler wrote them frankly. And the reply continues to focus on impeaching Becky's character in a broad way that goes outside the scope that Justice Toll has now set for them. One thing we might expect to see at this point is attempts to delay the proceedings, but we're not sure how far Team Murdoch can get without, considering what we said earlier about huffing and puffing and not be being able to blow Justice Toll's house down.

And we'll be right back. As pleasantly surprised I was to see Gene Toll's poetic destruction of Team Murdoch's chance of a new trial, I was equally disappointed to see the headlines that covered the hearing. Headlines matter. Any reporter who takes journalism seriously understands how important they are, especially in a world of social media scrolling and a lot of news tucked behind pages. Haywalls. Headlines should not be misleading, meaning reporters writing their headlines should expect a majority of people to not click on their stories, and headlines should be written in a way that the

audience take away from just the headline alone is accurate. When I worked from McClatchy, we were taught to use the most aggressive form of the truth in our headlines to generate more clicks for the company. In this case, has been an example of how that goes right. and how dangerous that practice is because of how often it leads to widespread misinformation. A quick case and point of that being a bad strategy, see reporter Annet Levy's Law and Crime Prehearing Story titled, She Peas in Every Quarter of the Courtroom, Fireworks, expected at Ehrlich Murdoch New Trial Status Conference. That aggressive quote, of course, came from Cup of Justice and was taken completely out of

context. It was originally a Dick quote, repeated by Eric Bland, by the way, which our fans understand, and I don't feel like we need to explain how that aggressive form of the truth was wildly misleading. The thing was, there were fireworks on Tuesday. But apparently, not the fireworks that mainstream media reporters wanted. The fireworks were from Justice Toll calling out Dick and Jim's nonsense and making them look like rookie attorneys who had no clue what they were doing. Silly me, I was thinking I would see just a few reporters, at least, admit that they misled their audience with their months of destroyed Becky and get Ehrlich Murdoch a new trial coverage.

Maybe, I thought, they finally realized that the whispers from Dick and Jim to write certain stories in exchange for tips, leaks, and access weren't worth it. Because maybe they realized that they look foolish and untrustworthy after all of that hype panned out to be none. But alas, I was wrong again. The headlines yesterday were confirmation. Nothing has changed for the media. They will continue to cover this case for clicks and nothing else.

Just from yesterday's headline of the status conference alone, you would think it focused primarily on Becky and her bad deeds. Halleck's lawyer accuses court clerk of jury tampering to boost book sales, NBC. Murdoch clerk said guilty verdict would boost her book sales. Defense lawyers. Daily Beast. Judge orders clerk of court Becky Hill to testify in Alec Murdoch's bid for new trial. The state.

Alec Murdoch in court as judge orders Becky Hill to be subpoenaed. Court TV. It's like the media, so desperately wants the public take down a Becky Hill to grant Alec Murdoch a new trial. So honestly, they don't have to find another story that people click on. They want the new trial to happen to make their jobs easier, no matter what it does to our justice system, no matter what it means for the victims of Ehrlich Murdoch. It's like they've been trying to make Becky Hill a thing when it comes to Ehrlich's chances of a new trial. They still want to exaggerate her role to justify their previous coverage.

As Justice Toll said, this is not the trial of Becky Hill. The media was unfortunately duped again into thinking it would be. But even after one of the brightest and most respected legal minds in our state made it clear that those shenanigans would not be happening, the media still favors the defense in their headlines. And side note, I hope that we get answers for what Becky did in her position of clerk of court. I hope that the media, who covered every step of her downfall, when they were hopeful of it bringing a new trial for Elyke Murdoch, I hope that they still care about her being held accountable aside from that. I hope that she is held accountable if she did something illegal.

And I hope it doesn't just fizzle out because her downfall is no longer linked to Elyke Murdoch's escape plan. The scary thing is, we don't know what Dick and Jim will do next, but we do know Whatever wild and crazy move they make, those same reporters who have been fooled and embarrassed time and time again will legitimize the defense with their headlines in their slanted articles. The chaos will continue as long as the media, and frankly, the South Carolina Supreme Court allows these attorneys to lie and deceive the public on behalf of a murderer.

Think about the amount of taxpayer-funded time and resources that have been sucked up by these allegations of jury tampering that aren't at all supported by evidence. Think about the media space, the TV time, the newspaper stories, podcasts, etc., etc., that have been wasted on dissecting Dick and Jim's nonsensical journey to get their client a murderer, liar, and thief out of prison. And by the way, deceiving the public is not a lawyer's duty.

I don't regret the last four months covering this case because we were in the minority view all along. And without us shouting from the rooftops that Becky's bad credibility does not equal a new trial, I don't want to think about where they would have spun the narrative had we not been there. I'm angry about the time that it wasted. I am angry about the cases like Stephen Smith

that didn't get the attention they deserve because of this monster, Ehrlich Murdoch. And I worry what will be next if this long shot plan of theirs, fails like the others did. Also, I worry about the amount of dedication Ehrlich Murdoch's legal team spins on the Court of Opinion alone.

I worry that maybe there's a long game in mind that we haven't thought about before. However, after Tuesday, I felt hopeful more so than ever that Team Murdoch's reign of judicial terror will end soon, and that Justice Toll just might be the woman to finish the job. Stay tuned? Stay pesky. and stay in the sunlight.

True sunlight is a Luna Shark production created by me, Mandy Matney, and co-hosted by journalist Liz Farrell. Learn more about our mission and membership at lunasharkmedia.com. Interruptions provided by Luna and Joe Pesky.