Loading summary
Transcript106 lines
- [00:01]
A
Insurance isn't one size fits all. That's why customers have enjoyed Progressive's name your price tool for years now. With the name your price tool, you tell them what you want to pay and they'll show you options that fit your budget. So whether you're picking out your first policy or just looking for something that works better for you and your family, they make it easy to see your options. Visit progressive.com, find a rate that works for you with the name your price tool. Progressive Casualty Insurance Company and affiliates Price and coverage match limited by state law
- [00:32]
B
with vrbocare. Help is always ready before, during and after your stay. We've planned for the plot twists, so support is always available because a great trip starts with peace of mind. I'm Anya and today we are going to be talking about the latest development in the so called Murdoch murders. Content WARNING this episode contains discussion of murder, violence and attempted suicide. So today is May 13, 2026 and we are going to be talking about a pretty seismic event in a well known murder case, double homicide case out of South Carolina and this involves the conviction of Alec Murdoch. He is a former prominent lawyer from South Carolina who was convicted of murdering his wife Maggie and their 22 year old son Paul on June 7, 2021. And this was a case that a lot of people followed. Kevin and I did a couple of episodes on it, I think two here and there. It was something we certainly followed but we didn't cover it with a lot of depth. But it was definitely like the trial of the century, at least for South Carolina, perhaps for the country. I mean it was a huge deal. But now there's been a pretty big development. So the State Supreme Court of South Carolina today has overturned the murder convictions against Murdoch and this is due to jury interference.
- [02:20]
C
So we are going to discuss it, discuss what happened, why the court made the ruling it did, and what we think about it all.
- [02:29]
B
My name is Anya Cain, I'm a
- [02:31]
C
journalist and I'm Kevin Greenlee.
- [02:33]
B
I'm an attorney and this is the Murder Sheet.
- [02:36]
C
We're a true crime podcast focused on original reporting, interviews and deep dives into murder cases. We're the Murder Sheet and this is
- [02:44]
B
the Murdoch murders conviction overturned. This is truly a wild case with many twists and turns. Before we get started on today's events and the opinion issued by the court, I do want to just go over briefly a quick very, very, very perfunctory timeline of what happened in this case in just in sense of like the crimes. So I'm gonna Do that. Now I think an important Note is so February 24, 2019, then 19 year old Paul Murdoch is in a boat crash that claims the life of 19 year old Mallory Beach. He was going through legal trouble over that at the time of his murder, which occurred Several years later, June 7, 2021, when his 52 year old mother Maggie and then 22 year old Paul were murdered at the family's hunting lodge known as Moselle. And around 10pm that evening Alec, the husband and father of the family, called 911. And later that year, September 4, 2021, Alec is, is attacked in what turns out to be a, basically a what's described as a suicide for hire involving two individuals named Alex and Curtis Smith. And then you have all this stuff that we're not going to really get into that much today about financial indictments, theft, all of this fraud that Alec Murdog is, is, is kind of involved in. And, and this is, you know, something that is pretty earth shattering to this kind of area of South Carolina because we're talking about a very prominent attorney from a family of prominent attorneys. They had held positions of power in this area. They were considered very, very powerful, very, very well respected. So it's all kind of coming down ultimately. In 2022, Alec Murdoch is indicted for murder charges for his husband or his wife and son. He pled not guilty and the trial for him occurred between January and March of 2023. And he was convicted, ended up with guilty verdicts. March 3, 2023, he was sentenced to two life terms without parole.
- [05:55]
C
And it's that trial that we'll be focusing on today. And I think it's important to start by making the point that most people who have looked at this case have concluded that the evidence clearly shows this man is guilty of this crime, of these murders. And I would concur with that analysis. Would you, Anya?
- [06:19]
B
Yes. I mean, I'm open minded. I mean I think I could, I would be open to having my mind changed. But from what we were following, it seemed like a pretty obvious case of guilt to me.
- [06:32]
C
Yeah, absolutely. And the point of a criminal court proceeding at the trial court level is to determine did this person commit this crime or not. Now that stage is over and it's moved to the appellate courts. And the appellate courts take a different focus. They focus on did this person receive a fair trial or not. They're not even looking at whether or not this person is guilty. They're looking at whether or not the trial itself was fair. And that is very, very important because all of us in this country, no matter what we are charged with, deserve to have a fair trial. That doesn't mean that we're going to get a perfect trial, but it means that we're not going to have someone put the finger on the scale of justice against us. And this is important because if the government is allowed to convict someone of a crime due to improper actions by someone at any level in the process, that means they can do it again. And that means at some point they are going to end up convicting innocent people, which we can all agree we don't want. So we protect the rights of everyone. So that's why this is critically important.
- [08:01]
B
Well said.
- [08:03]
C
So I'm going to be reading some things from this opinion. It starts out by kind of summarizing things which I, I always find helpful. Quote. For six weeks in early 2023, the eyes of the nation focused on this county where the state prosecuted notorious former attorney Richard Alexander Murdoch for the murders of his wife Maggie and son Paul. Both the state and Murdoch's defense skillfully presented their cases to the jury as the trial court deftly presided over this complicated and high profile matter. However, their efforts were in vain because Colleton County Clerk of Court Rebecca Hill placed her fingers on the scales of justice, thereby denying Murdoch his right to a fair trial by an impartial jury. Our justice system provides, indeed demands, that every person is entitled to a fair trial which includes an impartial jury untainted by external forces bent on influencing the jury towards a biased, violence verdict. 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 Murdoch's motion for a new trial due to Hill's improper external influences on the jury and remand for a new trial. Because we order a new trial on this basis, it is not necessary that we review every evidentiary issue Murdoch raises on appeal. So one thing that jumps out at me, well, actually, there's a number of things that jump out at me. I think when I've looked online, I've seen a lot of people who are angry about this and I think it is appropriate to be angry about this, but we need to focus our anger on the appropriate place. I think the court had no choice but to do this. Don't be angry with the court. And they say in there, oh, the state and defense skillfully presented their cases. The, the judge deftly presided over this. They're saying it's not the judge's fault. It's not the defense team's fault. It's not the prosecution's fault. The person who made this happen, the person we should be angry and frustrated with, is this Clerk of Court, Rebecca Hill.
- [10:28]
B
Yeah. Oh, man. I mean, this is such a disaster. I mean. And it's very frustrating, I think, to a lot of people, because they say, well, okay, the parties didn't do anything wrong. This is not a situation where you had some shady prosecutors hiding evidence or. Or even where you had new facts come to light that maybe the police should have looked into more. This is. I mean, what is described here is a person inserting themselves into a position where they do irreparable harm to the sanctity of court procedures. And what's so shocking about it is that it's a. It's a. It's an official. It's somebody who you would think would know better or know to not do this. That's what's so baffling to me.
- [11:19]
C
So the obvious question then is, well, what, What. What did she do? Uh, Anya, I've highlighted a portion of this. Can you read it? Because it spells out some of the things this. This woman, this Rebecca.
- [11:31]
B
Sure. On October 27, 2023, Murdoch moved for a new trial, asserting Hill tampered with the jury by one, advising it not to believe Murdoch's testimony and other defense evidence, two, pressuring it to reach a quick guilty verdict and three, misrepresenting information to the trial court in an attempt to have the court remove a juror she believed to favor the defense. He attached affidavits from several jurors to support his motion. Chief Justice Beatty appointed former Chief Justice Toll Post Trial Court to preside over this motion as the trial court judge had recused himself. The Post Trial Court conducted the hearing of this motion on January 26th and 29th, 2024. During the hearing, the Post Trial Court asked each juror one, if the guilty verdict was an accurate statement about their verdict at that time two, whether their verdict was based entirely on testimony, evidence and law presented in three, whether they heard Hill make any comment about the case before the verdict and four, whether their verdict was influenced in any way by any communications by Hill. Juror X, who testified on the first day of the hearing, acknowledged hearing Hill say before Murdoch's testimony, looks like the defendant is going to testify. This is an important day, or this is an epic day, and that it was rare for a defendant to testify. Juror X said these statements did not impact the verdict. Juror Z, who submitted one of the affidavits Murdoch attached to his motion for a new trial was the first juror to testify on the second hearing date. When asked whether she heard Hill make any comments about the case, Juror Z responded that Hill said to watch his actions and to watch him closely. Juror Z added that Hill said more but she could not remember anything else. Juror Z explained Hill's statements influenced her finding Murdoch guilty because to me it felt like she made it seem like he was already guilty. At the state's request, the post trial court questioned Juror Z about her affidavit, addressing each paragraph in turn, Juror Z's affidavit gave a more detailed recitation of Hill's comments. Toward the end of the trial, after the President's Day break, but before Mr. Murdoch testified, the Clerk of Court, Rebecca Hill, told the jury not to be fooled by the evidence presented by Mr. Murdoch's attorneys, which I understood to mean that Mr. Murdoch would lie when he testifies. She also instructed the jury to watch him closely immediately before he testified, including to look at his actions and to look at his movements, which I understand to mean he was guilty.
- [14:20]
C
Let's stop there. Hill also told the jury, quote, it shouldn't take them long to deliberate. So what she's doing is she is essentially telling them, this guy's going to lie. Don't believe what this guy says in his defense. How can that not be considered an improper communication? How would you, Anya, feel if you were on trial for your life and an officer of the court is telling jurors things like that?
- [14:55]
B
We stay busy with the podcast, so I like my wardrobe to stay comfortable, easy and intentional. Something that I could put on that feels great while also looking super put together when we're going out to court or to an interview.
- [15:07]
C
So thank goodness for our sponsor quints. We both love quints. They've got high quality products that we can actually afford. They help us elevate our look without breaking the bank.
- [15:18]
B
These are the kinds of premium everyday essentials that you can wear all the time and incorporate into your wardrobe seamlessly. All their pieces are 50 to 80% less expensive than what you'd find at competitors. They keep costs low by cutting out middlemen and partnering directly with ethical Factories and artisans.
- [15:35]
C
100% European linen shorts and shirts to keep you cool this spring and summer from $34 clean 100% Pima cotton tees that are super soft to the touch.
- [15:47]
B
I myself love wearing Quince's 100% European linen button front dress in blue chambray Stripe. It's so light and airy. We're actually going to go out and hang out with friends soon and I'm probably going to put that on. It's a perfect going out outfit and it's just so comfortable. I wear it all the time.
- [16:03]
C
Refresh your everyday with luxury you'll actually use. Head to Quince.com msheet for free shipping on your order and 365 day returns. Now available in Canada too. That's Q-U-I-N-C-E.com msheet for free shipping and 365 day returns. Quince.com msheet yeah, and the thing is,
- [16:31]
B
I'm sure some people at home, and I, I'm probably in this group too, a little bit. You're probably sitting there thinking, like, well, what kind of, like, how foolish would you be to believe this? And wouldn't, you know, wouldn't you almost have your hackles up? I was like, why is this person telling me this? But the thing is, the thing that differentiates us between many people who are going to be on most juries is that we follow these cases pretty regularly. So we kind of have a sense of like, that's completely inappropriate. But when you're just an everyday person who is plucked out of your normal routine, your normal life, and plunked down into this really kind of wild situation, trial of the century type setting, you know, I could see that having more weight or having more influence or feeling like, ah, yes, you know, this, this is what, you know, this is gonna influence me. And also, you know, you're talking to somebody who's in some kind of position of authority who has that kind of, you know, the gravity that that authority conveys. So, you know, I think even though you can, you might be like, why would people listen to this? Or why wouldn't this kind of, you know, make you suspicious of this Rebecca Hill person? I can understand it from this jury's perspective of like, well, you know, they're just coming at it from a different perspective, you know.
- [17:42]
C
Yeah. And also think of it this. If, if we go outside, Anya, and you say, kevin, look at this cloud, it looks like a bunny rabbit. I'm going to look at that cloud through the lens you've just given me, and that might influence how I see the cloud. Maybe if you hadn't said anything, I wouldn't have seen a bunny rabbit.
- [18:03]
B
That's right. Juries are rightfully treated as delicate things. That's why there are often, in high profile cases, efforts to Sequester a jury to keep them out of anything. You don't want the media around them. Whenever I've been in court, you know, where we are covering a case, you know, sometimes we cover cases that the trial, you know, they're not sequestered. It's not really seen as, like, the biggest trial of the century. And, you know, you as a reporter, as someone covering it, you have to be mindful, like, if you run into someone in the bathroom, they might be a juror, don't talk to them, like, be kind of antisocial just because you don't want to do anything that would possibly impact somebody's rights and, you know, derail a trial.
- [18:56]
C
Yeah. Ms. Hill, it's noted, also was writing a book called behind the Doors of justice, the Murdoch Murders. And there are some suggestions made that she believed the book would make her a lot of money and that the book would be more successful if there was a guilty verdict. And so that this. That perhaps could have been a factor that in her making some of those comments.
- [19:22]
B
I'm curious, Kevin. We've written a book, a crime nonfiction book, Shadow of the Bridge, the Delphi Murders and the Dark side of the American Heartland. I think it's a really, really good book that will give you a sense of the Delphi murders. So if you haven't gotten it, get your hands on it. But, you know, like, what do you think about that in terms of. I think, I guess, like, yeah, I have an opinion.
- [19:44]
C
I have an opinion, and I want
- [19:46]
B
to know your opinion.
- [19:48]
C
My opinion is there were some people who were Richard Allen truthers.
- [19:54]
B
Yes, I was thinking this, too.
- [19:56]
C
Who said that? Oh, Kevin and Anya want there to be a guilty verdict because that would make the book more successful. And I never really understood that because I didn't see how that would have much impact on the book. Success or failure, because we already had a contract.
- [20:15]
B
So whatever happens, we're going to write a book.
- [20:17]
C
And in terms of its ultimate commercial value, maybe I had the wrong idea. I kind of thought that the book may have gotten more of an audience if he was acquitted.
- [20:28]
B
Yes, because people would want to know, why was he acquitted?
- [20:31]
C
How did this happen? How did these guys get the wrong person? Or how did the person who was guilty get acquitted?
- [20:37]
B
I want to tell you something.
- [20:39]
C
I think the book would have been a lot more successful if he had been acquitted.
- [20:43]
B
I mean, I was very happy with how it did. But, I mean, the thing is, nobody really knows what's going to go into that. You know, some cases are going to be a hit. Some aren't. Whatever outcome, it just sort of depends. I think a lot of people, something I see throughout True Crime, though, a lot of people, including those Richard Allen truthers who, you know are, oh, they're conspiring. A lot of people are very naive about how publishing works. They have no idea how it works. They have no idea how books get written or the research that goes into it or what's happening. And they make a bunch of kind of suppositions and conjectures and end up. And it sounds like if this is, you know, what we're hearing here is that Hill was one of those people. The other thing I would note that if you want to make a lot of money, I wouldn't recommend getting into crime nonfiction writing.
- [21:34]
C
Let me read this quote. Rhonda McElveen, the Barnwell County Clerk of Court who assisted Hill with the trial, testified that Hill repeatedly 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. Oh my goodness, maybe 30, 40 years ago, books sold tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands. And maybe you get rich writing books. Those days have passed.
- [22:03]
B
We are rapidly heading towards a post literate society, folks. I mean, if you want to make money, do anything else other than write nonfiction books and, and again, like that, we don't do it like you and I, I don't care about money. I want, I want to connect with people. I want to do a good job. I want to bring the voices of the victims to the forefront. I want, it's creatively satisfying for me. And frankly, our book did well. We were punching way above our weight. You know what I mean? In terms of like being first time authors, independent publisher, I'm very, I'm thrilled with how we did and I thank everyone who bought a copy of the book. It means a lot to me, but I, it like, you know, if I'm, if we're doing a get rich quick scheme, it's like, no, you know, you probably, you'd be better off doing just about anything else. And, and I just, but, but this thing with, with Hill, that is how a lot of people talk about it. They think, oh, you know, and also there's this kind of thing, you see, where people are like, I witnessed or was a small part of this story. So I'm going to sell my story to somebody. And increasingly it's like, you'd have to be like a really central figure in this for anyone to care. Like, I mean it's just, it's naive. It's naive and it's ill informed. And I, you know, again, people, I want people to write nonfiction books. If you have one in you.
- [23:22]
C
We like reading them.
- [23:23]
B
We like reading them. Do it, but don't do it for the wrong reasons and be very cognizant. And we were cognizant about all this when we started because we know what the nature of publishing is in 2024, 2026, whatnot. But it's, it appears that Hill was really looking at this as more of a financial opportunity than I think is even realistic. And that, that just underplays the whole outrageousness of what happened. Cause it's like everything got derailed for, you know, for a project that likely wouldn't even really, you know, move the needle that much.
- [23:58]
C
Yeah. And I, I want to also mention there, when they discuss her book, there is a footnote. The book, again, was called behind the Doors of justice, the Murdoch Murders. The court's footnote is, quote. As her book's title suggests, it turns out Hill was quite busy behind the doors of justice thwarting the integrity of the justice system she was sworn to protect and uphold. The book was pulled from publication because Hill plagiarized portions of it.
- [24:24]
B
Oh, my goodness. And see, like, that's, it's like people, when you treat it like it's just this money making opportunity, there's a lot of damage you can do. Whether that's hurting real people who are at the center of the case or even in this case, literally derailing a trial. I mean, I, I'm, I'm. I mean, I find myself just so angry and disgusted by this. It's. I don't, I don't understand how someone could be a public official and dedicate themselves to serving their community and be this kind of, have this kind of callous disregard to how the process is supposed to work. In exchange for what? Like a book that did nothing? I mean, like.
- [25:04]
C
And I want to stress that this is not some obscure rule of law that she violated. I think any county clerk, anybody who works in a court in this country is well aware not to do things like this.
- [25:22]
B
I would think so. I mean, I mean, listen, we have folks in public service who listen to us. If you're in the clerk's office, if you're doing something and, you know, weigh in, I would love to hear from you. Maybe there's more nuance that, that we're not picking up on here, but it feels like a lot of this stuff is like, pretty obvious. I, I'm sympathetic in cases where it's like, oh, man, I wouldn't have known that was a big deal. But, like, as laypeople, as a layperson looking at this, I just am like, how could you think this was remotely okay?
- [25:54]
C
I think any court employee in this country knows that this was not okay.
- [25:58]
B
Like, how do you fall down this rabbit hole?
- [26:02]
C
Okay, so then there was like another juror that testified, she made similar comments. They're going to say things that will try to confuse you. Don't let them confuse you. So she basically kind of coaching them towards coming to a specific conclusion. And so then the key question is, what do we do with this? This is something that clearly could have influenced the verdict. So whose job is it to determine whether or not it influenced the jury? Does the state have to say, we have proof this did not influence the jury, so let's not worry about it? Or does the defense have to say, no, we have proof that it did? In other words, if there is no proof either way whether it influenced them or not, what do you do?
- [26:56]
B
Yeah, good question.
- [26:59]
C
The first court that looked at this felt that it was up to the prosecution, up to the state to pardon me. They felt it was up to Mr. Murdoch's team, the defense team, to prove that this did influence the jury.
- [27:16]
B
Right.
- [27:17]
C
And let me say this. Every trial in the country is done by human beings. There's always mistakes made. The question is, were the mistakes made in a trial significant enough that they would influence the verdict? And so the question is, does the defense have to show that, oh, this influenced the verdict, therefore it was a significant error, or does the prosecution have to say, oh, you assume that it was significant, but here's why it's not? And the initial court said, it's up to the defense to show that it influenced the jurors. And there were some jurors who offered testimony saying, well, no, we, we didn't find this to be a factor.
- [28:05]
B
Because I imagine for most of the jurors, she's just some random court official who's lingering around and kind of cornering you a bit. Like, I'm sure for most of them who are looking at the evidence, that's what's so frustrating about this. It's like, yeah, it almost feels like it wouldn't matter. Like, but then again, you know, I mean, it's so complicated.
- [28:29]
C
Yeah. So that post trial court, the first court that looked at this said, we believe she did this, we believe she said these things, but we don't think it influenced the jury because the jurors,
- [28:42]
B
what they're saying is that, you know, yeah, I based it off of this and that and this. Not, not, not what Rebecca Hill was saying.
- [28:49]
C
And furthermore, they say the, The. The judge, before he sent the jurors off to deliberations, you know, gave them great instructions. So if there was any problems, the instructions that they were given should have handled it. So therefore, Murdoch didn't prove that this was actually a problem. Problem solved. While the defense obviously is taking a different tack, they say, you should assume that something like this is so potentially significant that we don't have to prove that it caused a problem. Just look at the facts. And they quote a proposition from the Remmer case, the Remmer v. United States, which the states quote, any private communication, contact or tampering, directly or indirectly, with a juror during a trial about the matter pending before the jury is, for obvious reasons, deemed presumptively prejudicial. In other words, if it happens, we are going to assume that it was prejudicial. We are going to assume that it caused a problem. The defense doesn't have to prove it. We are going to assume it. I'm going to get back to reading this quote. Deemed presumptively prejudicial if it is not made in pursuance of known rules of the court and the instructions and directions of the court made during the trial with full knowledge of the parties. The presumption is not conclusive, but the burden rests heavily upon the government to establish after notice to and hearing of the defendant that such contact with the juror was harmless to the defendant. So they're saying, if you can establish that there was improper communication, we're just going to assume that it was harmful.
- [30:40]
B
Oh, man. Yeah.
- [30:41]
C
But the government can rebut that. They can come back and offer evidence that says no, even though you assume it was prejudicial, here's evidence that shows it wasn't. And they're taking. The Supreme Court is saying the earlier courts should have looked at it through this lens, and it was wrong for them to make the defense team of Mr. Murdoch try to prove this, try to prove that it was a problem. Does that make sense?
- [31:14]
B
Yeah. So had they switched it up, would it have gotten overturned? Had they basically been like, the burdens on the state to prove that it wasn't a problem, Would they. Could they have actually saved the trial? Had the state come in and been like, here's all the jurors saying they don't care.
- [31:29]
C
I'll get I'll get. I'll get to that now.
- [31:31]
B
Okay.
- [31:32]
C
Yeah. I'll jump ahead a bit, and I'll come back to this. They quote some a line of cases and rules that say it is inappropriate to even ask jurors in a trial proceeding what influenced their decisions, because you don't want to have a situation where the sanctity of the jury room is violated in that way. We have a principle in this country that the deliberations in a jury room are, you know, private. You can just say whatever you want and deal with it. However. And if we're going to start having a precedent where people in the jury room have to go and testify, well, this may have influenced me, but this didn't influence me. And here's how I made my decision. That could open up a whole can of worms. And can you imagine participating in a trial as a juror and then having to go through litigation? No.
- [32:37]
B
That's awful. Yeah.
- [32:38]
C
Having to discuss, well, this influenced me, but this didn't.
- [32:42]
B
Maybe this influenced me 1%. And this was more. More 90%. And. Yeah. Yeah, that's a nightmare.
- [32:46]
C
So the rural states, the jurors can say, this happened. I. I got this improper communication. That's a fact. And that's something the court should look at. But they shouldn't be allowed to start saying, well, this did or did not affect me.
- [33:04]
B
That makes. I mean, that makes sense based on, you know, you don't want people to just get called for jury duty and then get sucked into years of endless litigation. I mean. Yeah, and we're talking about, like, the litigation court side of things. Obviously, jurors are free to talk about whatever they want to talk about after they leave. Right. In terms of the press or whatever. But not, you know, I think I'm with them on that. I mean, that makes sense.
- [33:28]
C
So I think it would be difficult, if not impossible, for the state to prove that these comments did not harm Mr. Murdoch. I don't think there'd be any way for them to meet that burden.
- [33:42]
B
Yeah, that's really. And it's like trying to. It's like you're baking a cake and like, you know, how, like, you maybe do a pinch of cinnamon, but how much does that impact the flavor? I don't know. Like, you know, it's kind of. It's kind of hard to say, like, did that interact with the other ingredients in a way that it wouldn't have otherwise? Like, I mean, it gets really, really complicated.
- [34:05]
C
They mentioned an earlier Supreme Court case. This is from 1966. This is U. S. Supreme Court Parker v. Gladden. That's a case. Quote, a bailiff who oversaw a sequestered jury during an eight day trial stated to a juror in the presence of other jurors, oh, that wicked fellow, he is guilty. And that was found to be an improper communication. And that doesn't to me seem to be too dissimilar from the sort of comments that Ms. Hill was making.
- [34:37]
B
I mean, it seems like she was definitely trying to sow doubt about Murdoch's, you know, I don't, she didn't really come out and call him guilty necessarily, but it was just like, oh, don't fall for their tricks and stuff. I mean, it's bad. I don't know if it's quite wicked fellow bad, but it's definitely bad.
- [34:55]
C
If you're. Presumably when Mr. Murdoch testified he was going to be explaining that he was innocent, and if she's saying don't believe him, I don't really see much difference there.
- [35:07]
B
I mean, I do, but I don't think it's meaningful. I mean, it's, and also the persistence of her comments to these people, it seems, it's not just like one idle statement of, you know, oh, here's what I think. It's like a, it's almost a campaign. It's almost like, yeah, let's keep checking in. I mean, I just, I don't, I don't know.
- [35:33]
C
This court believes that she did make all the comments that the jurors made reported, and they feel that, quote, by urging the jurors not to be fooled or convinced by Murdoch's defense, Hill essentially implored the jurors to find him guilty, the ultimate issue in the case. Even Hill's seemingly innocuous comments that the day Murdoch testified was an epic or important day became nefarious when considered with her other comments insinuating that there was something unusual or suspicious about his decision to testify, end quote.
- [36:14]
B
Right, yeah, I mean, that makes sense.
- [36:19]
C
So her comments were very improper. They had the potential to impact the jury. We've talked about how you can't question jurors about what impacted them or what didn't impact them. And then this was interesting. I mentioned that the state said, well, if there was anything improper about this influence, you know, the judge gave great jury instructions. Shouldn't that have made it all better? Here's what the Supreme Court said. Quote, the trial court gave the standard instructions and admonishments to the jury, none of which provided guidance on what to do when the county clerk of court. An officer of the court made comments disparaging Murdaugh's credibility and urging the jury to reject his defense. The trial court never had the opportunity to even attempt to cure the prejudicial effect of Hill's comments because they did not come to light until months after the trial. If we were to accept the proposition that standard charges could cure such prejudice, then no defendant would be entitled to relief when improper extrajudicial information reaches the jury's ears, regardless of its content or context, end quote. So what they're saying is the judge could not have specifically dealt with this issue in his jury instructions because he had no idea it was an issue.
- [38:00]
B
Yeah, I can't know what he doesn't know. I've heard very good things about the judge in this case, about how he handled everything, but it's. Yeah, it's like this is posing a really specific threat based on the nature of her role. She's not some woman kind of like leaning in the window, you know, the local gossip coming in like she is in a position of authority like that. I think that influences things in a very negative way.
- [38:26]
C
Quote, in summation, Murdoch met his initial burden of establishing Hill's comments to the jury were more than innocuous interventions, which triggered the Remmer presumption of prejudice and shifted the burden to the state. The state simply was unable to meet this heavy burden of proving that there exists no reasonable possibility that the jury's verdict was influenced by these highly improper comments, end quote. Yeah, I, I, yeah, I think it's almost impossible to prove that there was no influence here by these ridiculous comments. And think if you were on trial and were found guilty and then you found out that this sort of thing had happened behind the scenes, or if it was a trial of someone you cared about, I think you would be outraged and justifiably so. And I think you'd have real cause for legitimate concern about the fairness of your trial. What do you think?
- [39:35]
B
Yeah, I completely agree. I feel like this is such an outrageous situation. I hate to say it, because, I mean, it just feels like it totally invalidates all of the excellent work done, you know, in, in terms of. It just invalidates all of it. But at the end of the day, you can't really. I mean, I think it's been a pretty common take that I've seen that people are like, yeah, you know, like, this is kind of inevitable based on the extent of what this person was telling the jury and the context of it and whatnot. And, I mean, I Don't. I don't disagree with that. I think it stinks, but I, I don't, you know, I can't. I can't fault the, the court for saying, you know, this is just. This is next level bad and we gotta redo it. I mean, again, it's not. It's not ideal, but this is how our system works, and we should. Even when. Even when folks who, you know, I think a lot of people who follow this case are passionately opposed to this happening. They feel like this guy is guilty. And they've also, you know, heard a lot of reporting on this guy's part of this old, good old boys network down there. And he's, he's, he's like, he's. He's powerful. And I don't think that's why this is happening. I think this. This is happening because his rights were violated. I mean, pretty clearly. And we can be disgusted with it, but I think it is important to recognize that by having rights that are protected, we can, you know, our rights can be protected.
- [40:59]
C
Yeah, I believe he did it. I believe he's factually guilty of these murders. But whether you are guilty or innocent, you deserve a fair trial. And I'm not convinced he got one.
- [41:13]
B
I think what's frustrating to me is like, he may have gotten one. Most of these jurors may have just dismissed it, but it sounds like maybe a couple. It influenced. So, I mean, that if that's the case. Yeah, he didn't. If it's a case where everyone kind of disregarded her, he did. But you can't really know that because it's just the level of. This is. So.
- [41:33]
C
Yeah, the. The state said, you know, there was so much evidence against this man that he. It was inevitable he'd be found guilty. So this is just harmless error, I guess.
- [41:42]
B
Ye.
- [41:43]
C
But I don't. I don't find that argument compelling. I wish I did. I don't like the idea of this community and people who knew and love these victims to have to go through and revisit the trial again and go through that again and have to relive all of this trauma of these terrible events. That, that, that breaks my heart and it infuriates me, but I don't think there's an alternative.
- [42:12]
B
I don't. I don't either. I don't either. I don't think there. That's the thing. I think they're forced to. I mean, like, I think this has to happen. You know, you can't, you can't let this stand. And I hope that, you know, I hope that people can understand, like, you can't do this with juries. Like, this is just, I mean, I don't know how this happened in the first place. I don't know why would someone act like this? But I mean, it's, it's wild to me.
- [42:36]
C
And, and this is all my experience in court. Court employees have it drilled into their heads. Don't interfere with the jury. Don't say anything in front of the jury. Be very careful what you say in front of the jury.
- [42:47]
B
Any situation where anybody treats a true crime case as a get rich quick scheme, you know, that's not gonna lead to anything good. But when it's someone in a position of power, an officer of the court, I mean, that's really not gonna end well. And I think it's important for people in positions of power to be like, you know, it's your job. And maybe, maybe like years and years down the road, you write a memoir. But it's not something where you're going to be able to just like pump out a book really quickly to capitalize on the interest in the trial. Like, that's just not appropriate. And that's something you should just set aside, you know, in, I would say majority of cases, that would be better. And treat it, seriously, treat it like you're trying to protect the integrity of the case and the integrity of this person's rights, not exploit them in order to get an outcome that you desire.
- [43:45]
C
Yeah. So was there anything else you wanted to say about this?
- [43:50]
B
No, no, no, that was it. Yeah. I mean, thank you everyone for listening. And we're going to probably follow this more closely going forward.
- [43:59]
C
Yeah.
- [43:59]
B
Now that it's in play, I mean, I think we could probably do a whole nother episode on maybe some of the financial issues.
- [44:08]
C
Yeah. Whether or not those should be admitted. And yeah, I just, I do think it's appropriate not to be asking jurors questions in a legal setting about the deliberative process. Putting other jurors on the. That just needs to be kept private.
- [44:26]
B
Yeah, I completely agree.
- [44:28]
C
And I know a lot of people might be constrained from deliberating openly during that process if they think, oh, if I say the wrong thing, someone is going to bring it up in a post trial proceeding.
- [44:43]
B
Yeah.
- [44:44]
C
It's just, it sounds counterintuitive because you, you would think you would want courts to ask questions like that, but hopefully it makes sense as to why that would open up a can of worms and take you somewhere. You, you don't want to go.
- [44:59]
B
Agreed, Agreed. Well, disappointing and, you know, troubling news out of South Carolina, but certainly something, you know, that ultimately I think we have to, I have to personally support because, you know, guilty people also have rights and, you know, you can't violate them. And this stuff needs to be taken seriously. But anything else that we wanted to
- [45:25]
C
say, I think that's it.
- [45:26]
B
All right. Thanks everyone for listening.
- [45:28]
C
Thanks so much for listening to the Murder Sheet. If you have a tip concerning one of the cases we cover, please email us@murdersheetmail.com if you have actionable information about an unsolved crime, please report it to the appropriate authorities.
- [45:48]
B
If you're interested in joining our Patreon, that's available at www.patreon.com murdersheet. If you want to tip us a bit of money for records requests, you can do so at www. Buymeacoffee.com murdersheet. We very much appreciate any support.
- [46:11]
C
Special thanks to Kevin Tyler Greenlee, who composed the music for the Murder Sheet and who you can find on the web at kevintg.
- [46:21]
B
If you're looking to talk with other listeners about a case we've covered, you can join the Murder Sheet discussion group on Facebook. We mostly focus our time on research and reporting, so we're not on social media much. We do try to check our email account, but we ask for patience as we often receive a lot of messages. Thanks again for listening.