The Liberty Daily 
(The Epoch Times)—The South Carolina Supreme Court overturned lawyer Alex Murdaugh’s murder convictions and life sentence on May 13 in the shooting deaths of his wife and younger son.
The justices unanimously ruled the conduct by the court clerk “egregiously attacked Murdaugh’s credibility.”
Murdaugh will remain in prison. He pleaded guilty to 22 counts of federal financial crimes for stealing about $12 million from his clients and is serving 40 years in prison.
The justices ordered a new trial for Murdaugh, who began serving two consecutive life terms in state prison on March 3, 2023.
Supreme Court justices found the trial was conducted in vain because Colleton County Court Clerk Rebecca “Becky” Hill “placed her fingers on the scales of justice, thereby denying Murdaugh his right to a fair trial by an impartial jury,” at the time Murdaugh testified in the six-week trial in 2023 in the case involving the shooting deaths of his wife, Maggie, and son, Paul.
Murdaugh’s defense team, Dick Harpootlian and Jim Griffin, said they looked forward to a new trial.
“The Supreme Court’s decision today affirms that the rule of law remains strong in South Carolina,” the attorneys stated in a joint statement posted on X. “The Court found that Becky Hill’s conduct during the trial attacked Alex Murdaugh’s credibility and his defense. The Court rightly described her conduct as ‘breathtaking,’ ‘disgraceful,’ and ‘unprecedented in South Carolina.’
“Alex has said from day one that he did not kill his wife and son,” his attorneys said. “We look forward to a new trial conducted consistent with the Constitution and the guidance this Court has provided.”
Jurors told the court Hill made statements to them before Murdaugh’s testimony that made them question the credibility of his statements and added pressure for them to find him guilty.
Hill also wrote a book after the trial, “Behind the Doors of Justice: The Murdaugh Murders,” in which she stated she believed the defendant was guilty but was concerned he would be acquitted because of the goodwill his family had in the community, the justices wrote in the ruling.
Barnwell County Court Clerk Rhonda McElveen, who helped Hill with the trial, said Hill told her she wanted to write a book “so she could buy a lake house and a guilty verdict would be the best way to sell books,” the justices wrote.
“Although we are aware of the time, money, and effort expended for this lengthy trial, we have no choice but to reverse the denial of Murdaugh’s motion for a new trial due to Hill’s improper external influences on the jury and remand for a new trial,” the justices wrote in their decision.
Hill, 58, resigned as county clerk in 2024. She was arrested in 2025 and pleaded guilty to misconduct in office and other charges stemming from accusations that she allowed a photo of Murdaugh in a holding cell to be taken to promote her book, gave herself bonuses, and used county money to buy food for her staff. She received three years of probation and mandatory community service.
In its ruling, the state supreme court decided not to review every point presented for review but instead sent the case back to the lower courts for a new trial.
The South Carolina Supreme Court also addressed Murdaugh’s financial crimes but didn’t make a ruling on them. The state spent about 12 hours over 10 days during the trial presenting evidence on the financial crimes.
Murcaugh was a personal injury attorney at a law firm in Hampton, South Carolina. He pleaded guilty to 22 federal crimes in 2023, admitting to engaging in three different schemes to obtain money and property from his clients, according to federal prosecutors.
The justices stated they intend to require that if a trial court decides to admit evidence of Murdaugh’s financial crimes on a retrial, the state must complete the introduction of the evidence without a “lengthy presentation of inflammatory details with little to no probative value that was permitted in the first trial.”
Murdaugh’s attorneys agreed with the court about the financial evidence portion of a new trial.
“We respect the decision that made clear that the retrial must look very different from the first,” the attorneys said in their statement. “The initial jury heard more than twelve hours of testimony about Alex’s financial crimes. The Court held that this evidence went far beyond what was necessary and gave rise to unfair prejudice. On retrial, that will not be permitted.”
