Alex Murdaugh speaks with his attorney Dick Harpootlian as hi trial for murder at the Colleton County Courthouse breaks for the day on Wednesday, February 8, 2023. (Joshua Boucher/The State/Pool)
Attorneys for Alex Murdaugh filed a motion for a new trial citing evidence of “jury tampering” by a court official on Tuesday morning.
The clerk of the court where the disgraced Lowcountry lawyer was tried, convicted, and sentenced for the murders of his wife and youngest son actively engaged in the trial process by instructing jurors that he was guilty and could not be trusted, the motion claims.
“Today, we filed a petition based on newly discovered evidence with the SC Court of Appeals to stay Alex Murdaugh’s appeal while a hearing is held on a motion for a new trial,” Dick Harpootlian said in a statement provided to Law&Crime. “Concurrently, we have sent a request to the South Carolina U.S. Attorney to open a federal investigation into the violation of Alex Murdaugh’s civil rights.”
Over the Labor Day weekend, Harpootlian and Jim Griffin previewed the filing – without hinting at the nature of the evidence.
In their motion for a new trial, Murdaugh’s attorneys say Colleton County Clerk of Court Rebecca Hill frequently spoke with jurors about the trial – often remarking about the defendant’s presumed guilt and pressuring them to quickly dispense with his case.
“Specifically, during trial the Colleton County Clerk of Court, Rebecca Hill, instructed jurors not to be ‘misled’ by evidence presented in Mr. Murdaugh’s defense,” the filing obtained by Law&Crime reads. “She told jurors not to be ‘fooled by’ Mr. Murdaugh’s testimony in his own defense. Ms. Hill had frequent private conversations with the jury foreperson, a Court-appointed substitution for the foreperson the jury elected for itself at the request of Ms. Hill.”
In a letter to the U.S. Attorney for the District of South Carolina, Murdaugh’s legal team bases their allegations on details from “jurors in sworn affidavit testimony.” The motion offers additional sources for the actions allegedly taken by the clerk, including “a witness to juror interviews, testimony at in camera proceedings, and other evidence.”
One juror allegedly told Murdaugh’s attorneys that Hill told the jury, as the trial began, said: “Y’all are going to hear things that will throw you all off. Don’t let this distract you or mislead you.”
The new trial motion also alleges that the clerk court went out of her way to make sure the jury itself was composed in such a way as to render a guilty verdict in the marathon double murder case.
More Law&Crime coverage: ‘A calamity of errors’: Defense gripes as juror is tossed from Alex Murdaugh trial on eve of deliberations
“During the trial, Ms. Hill asked jurors for their opinions about Mr. Murdaugh’s guilt or innocence,” the motion continues. “Ms. Hill invented a story about a Facebook post to remove a juror she believed might not vote guilty.”
The heart of the motion for new trial
On Feb. 27, Hill spoke with Judge Clifton Newman “about a Facebook posting she purportedly saw on the evening of Friday, February 24,” the motion says. The post in question was “purportedly by Juror No. 785’s ex-husband Tim Stone,” and made in a group called “Walterboro Word of Mouth,” the motion goes on. In that post, Stone allegedly complained that “his ex-wife was saying that she was on the jury and saying stuff about how her verdict was going to be.”
But, the motion says, no such post – at least as presented by the clerk to the judge – ever actually existed.
“Judge Newman asked [Hill] to produce a copy of the posting,” the new trial motion claims. “She could not produce a copy.”
Instead, another court employee provided “an apology post” by a man named Timothy Stone that referred to a drunken and “ugly post” that got out of hand. That post, as it turns out, was written by another person with a similar name – and had nothing to do with the juror in question or with the Murdaugh murder trial at all, the motion alleges.
And, the motion for a new trial additionally alleges, the timeline of the posts never made any sense in the first place.
“The ‘apology’ post states the initial post was already deleted on February 16, so it would have been impossible for Ms. Hill to see the original post on February 24,” the new trial motion reads.
In a sworn statement, female juror #785’s ex-husband said he never made any such posts. And, according to a download of his Facebook activity, no such “apology” post was ever made on his account, the motion says. Relatedly, the Facebook profile picture of the man who made the “apology” post is not juror #785’s ex-husband.
On Feb. 28, Hill approached the juror “about the fictious [sic] post” while they were “alone in her office in the courthouse,” the motion says.
The filing details that alleged interrogation:
She told Juror No. 785 that someone had emailed her stating her ex-husband, Tim Stone, posted on the “Walterboro Word of Mouth” Facebook page that Juror No. 785 had been drinking with her ex-husband, and that while drunk she expressed opinions on the guilt or innocence of Mr. Murdaugh. Juror No. 785 told Ms. Hill that never happened and that she had not seen her ex-husband in ten years. Juror No. 785 asked to see the post, but Ms. Hill would not show it to her. Ms. Hill directly asked Juror No. 785 whether she was inclined to vote guilty or not guilty. Juror No. 785 said she had not made up her mind.
“Later that day, Ms. Hill told Juror No. 785 that SLED and Colleton County Sheriff’s Office personnel went to Mr. Stone’s house, and he confirmed he made the post,” the filing goes on. “This is a fabrication by Ms. Hill.”
Later that same day, the juror was examined by Newman behind closed doors. Additional investigation ensued and despite a strenuous objection by the defense, the juror was removed. All the while, juror #785 claimed the allegations against her had been fabricated.
“After she was dismissed, Judge Newman said, ‘Oh boy. I’m not too pleased about the clerk interrogating a juror as opposed to coming to me and bringing it to me,”” the motion reads. “He was right to be concerned.”
Read Related Also: Parenting Coach Arrested After Malnourished Child Found With Open Wounds, Police Say
Lucre, alleged lies, and legal jeopardy?
Murdaugh’s attorneys claim that Hill repeatedly tampered with the jury and the levers of Palmetto State justice in service of cash.
“Ms. Hill pressured the jurors to reach a quick verdict, telling them from the outset of their deliberations that it ‘shouldn’t take them long,’” the filing continues. “Ms. Hill did these things to secure for herself a book deal and media appearances that would not happen in the event of a mistrial. Ms. Hill betrayed her oath of office for money and fame.”
On March 2, after a trial taking up the better part of six weeks, Murdaugh’s peers found him guilty on all counts in the Colleton County Courthouse. The defendant was convicted of killing his wife, Margaret “Maggie” Murdaugh, 52, with an AR-style rifle, and their youngest son, Paul Murdaugh, 22, with a shotgun in the dog kennels at the family’s expansive hunting lodge known as Moselle.
The timestamp on that decision was 6:41 p.m. EST. Ultimately, jurors spent just shy of three hours deciding his fate.
Now, if the allegations are true, Murdaugh may get a new – and likely just as lengthy; if not longer – trial altogether.
“The serious allegations in the petition filed today speak for themselves but we believe they explain a number of peculiarities in the six-week trial,” Harpootlian’s statement goes on.
Murdaugh’s defense team was not shy about their distaste for state law enforcement – and the accuracy or competency of their investigation – during the trial. That acrimony carried over into the Tuesday statement.
“We request that SLED stand down on initiating any investigation of these allegations since they are heavily invested in maintaining Alex’s conviction,” Harpootlian went on. “We suggest that they wait for the Court of Appeals to rule and receive direction from the trial court, if the Court of Appeals remands the case for an evidentiary hearing.”
Aside from a new trial, Murdaugh’s legal team wants Hill criminally investigated under Section 242 of the U.S. Code, for depriving the defendant “of his rights under the Constitution.”
“Ms. Hill acted ‘under color’ of South Carolina law,” the letter to the U.S. Attorney reads. “She is the elected Clerk of Court charged with ‘jury management.’ Every interaction she had with any juror during the murder trial was under the pretense of authority granted by state law.”
A Tuesday afternoon press conference
Harpootlian and Griffin discussed the motion for a new trial and request for a criminal investigation on Tuesday afternoon.
Murdaugh’s attorneys said the allegations “speak for themselves” and help explain “a number of peculiarities” that occurred during the trial.
“The right to a jury trial is a fundamental principle of our justice system,” Harpootlian told assembled media at the South Carolina statehouse. “Jurors must be free from outside influences.”
The attorneys framed the allegations outlined in their motion as serious deprivations of Alex Murdaugh’s civil and trial rights.
“When a juror receives private communications outside the confines of the public courtroom, the 6th Amendment is violated and numerous other constitutional rights are violated,” Griffin said. “That’s not Jim Griffin on the law. That’s the law of the land.”
Discussing the legal standard for granting a new trial, the attorneys said the controversial decision for Murdaugh himself to testify during the trial was impacted by Hill’s interactions with jurors. The attorneys said they “never considered the likelihood that the court of clerk would tell jurors” before a defendant testified that they should pay attention to his body language and not to be “misled” by what he said.
“There is no choice but for the courts to grant a new trial,” Griffin said.
Both Harpootlian and Griffin made clear that the allegations concern an elected official – and not the court system itself.
“There’s no suggestion that the judge did anything untoward,” Harpootlian said in response to a question about what Newman could have – or might have – done to discipline Hill; or if he even knew what was allegedly going on between the clerk and jurors.
Murdaugh’s defense team said that “immediately after” the trial, they heard a “whisper campaign” about a need to investigate what occurred in the jury room but encountered a “zone of silence.” Then, Hill published her book and that “zone of silence collapsed.”
One juror came forward at first, then others followed, the attorneys said during the press conference. Griffin and Harpootlian said there are a number of jurors who have not spoken with them. That would likely change in the days and weeks to come, the attorneys predicted.
“Each and every one of them is going to have to testify in an open court if we get a hearing,” Harpootlian said.
You can read the letter from Murdaugh’s defense team here.
Have a tip we should know? [email protected]
