close
close

Alex Murdaugh wants retrial; South Carolina Supreme Court hears appeal

play

GREENVILLE, SC – More than a year after the historic double murder trial of Richard “Alex” Murdaugh captured the nation’s attention, the disbarred attorney serving two life sentences for the murders of his wife and son has a chance at a retrial.

Last year, Murdaugh, who destroyed a South Carolina law dynasty, was convicted of the murders and pleaded guilty to state and federal charges related to a sweeping, decade-long series of multimillion-dollar financial fraud that claimed victims in several South Carolina counties. Murdaugh continues to deny killing his family. His request for a retrial, accusing a court official of jury tampering, was initially denied.

On Tuesday, the South Carolina Supreme Court granted Murdaugh's request and said it will hear his appeal, meaning he can skip the lengthy appeals process. The focus of the appeal and review is not Murdaugh's guilt or innocence, but whether former South Carolina Chief Justice Jean Toal was right to deny him a new murder trial earlier this year. The Supreme Court could reverse or overturn that ruling — and could order the court to grant him a new trial.

According to Christopher Adams, a Charleston attorney and former president of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, it is not impossible that Murdaugh will get a new case.

“Former Chief Justice Toal's findings of fact at the evidentiary hearing were significant, significant findings of misconduct by the clerk in connection with her interactions with the jury,” Adams said. “So it will be very interesting to see how that plays out. This is not – this is definitely not – a frivolous appeal. There is a lot of substance to it.”

How did Murdaugh's case get to the Supreme Court?

A few days after Murdaugh was sentenced to two life sentences for the murder of his wife Maggie Murdaugh (52) and his son Paul Murdaugh (22), his lawyers announced that they would appeal. They later accused Colleton County Clerk of Court Rebecca Hill, who read the verdict and later published an exposé about the historic murder case, of jury tampering and called for a retrial.

In January, Toal held a hearing on the allegations. A woman identified as Juror Z said Hill instructed jurors to watch Murdaugh “closely” and “made it look like he was already guilty.” When asked if that influenced her decision to find Murdaugh guilty, the juror said “Yes, ma'am.”

Hill has resigned from her post, admitted to plagiarism in her book, and is facing numerous complaints for violating professional ethics laws.

Toal said Hill's conduct was inappropriate and that she was not a credible witness, but denied Murdaugh a retrial. Toal's ruling was based on a South Carolina precedent that required the defendant to prove that Hill not only acted inappropriately, but that her actions prejudiced the jury and influenced its verdict.

Murdaugh appealed the ruling to the South Carolina Court of Appeals, where it has yet to be heard. He argued his case should be judged under a different, less stringent legal standard typically used by federal courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court. The federal standard presumes a jury was biased if the defendant can prove there was some kind of inappropriate communication, according to John Mobley, a longtime personal injury attorney and former South Carolina prosecutor.

In July, Murdaugh's lawyers filed a motion asking the state Supreme Court to review the case before the appeals court hears it. This can happen if a case meets certain legal standards, such as “a substantial public interest or a legal principle of great importance.” Murdaugh's lawyers argued his case met both criteria.

Murdaugh's motion asks that the court review Toal's conviction and calls Hill a “wart” in the South Carolina legal system. The motion describes Hill as “an elected public official who is responsible for presiding over juries and who intentionally engaged in jury tampering in a murder trial to obtain a guilty verdict so that she could make money selling books about it.”

Could Alex Murdaugh get a new murder trial?

Mobley, the former South Carolina prosecutor, said it was no surprise to him that the state Supreme Court decided to take Murdaugh's case, since that's where it would likely ultimately go. Mobley, who has worked with one of Murdaugh's lawyers, said the defense clearly met its burden to prove that a juror's decision was influenced by Hill. He said it was “more than likely” the Supreme Court would overturn Toal's decision.

“The trial was rigged and the jury was poisoned,” he said. “So I didn't understand why … from a legal perspective … that wasn't enough for the judge.”

Mobley said the court likely would not agree that Murdaugh's case should be tried under the federal standard, but that would not be necessary to grant him a retrial. If they did, he said, a retrial could ultimately benefit the defense.

In other words, a second chance could help Murdaugh get a better outcome in the trial.

“I think there's a better chance of a better outcome… Once you get the case to court, you see what wasn't effective, not just because of what you did as a defense attorney, but because of the state's portrayal,” he said.

Larry Cunningham, dean of the Charleston School of Law, said he had no opinion on whether Toal was justified in denying Murdaugh a retrial. But Cunningham, a former prosecutor in Virginia and New York who has handled similar cases, also said the defense faces an “uphill battle” to get the court to apply the federal standard and that the burden of proof for the defense that inappropriate conduct influenced the outcome of the trial was intentionally set very high.

Cunningham acknowledged that prosecutors are unlikely to want to retry the case, but disagreed that a retrial would benefit the defense. He also said courts must weigh the defendant's right to a fair trial against the possibility of re-traumatizing victims' families, the possibility that witnesses may be unavailable or their memories may fade, and the cost and time of a retrial.

“These motions are very rarely granted because finality is one of the things the legal system values,” he said. “If we had to retry a trial every time a mistake was made, we would be retrialing all the time.”

Could Alex Murdaugh be released?

If Murdaugh were granted a new trial and acquitted, it would be unlikely that he would be released immediately. He is serving not only the two life sentences for the murder of his wife and son, but also a 27-year sentence for fraud in state court and a 40-year sentence in federal court for financial crimes.

Murdaugh has also appealed his federal sentence, arguing that the sentence was “wholly disproportionate to the crimes committed.” In that appeal, Murdaugh's lawyers claim that Judge Richard Gergel and federal prosecutors sought such a long sentence to create a safety net and ensure that Murdaugh would spend the rest of his life behind bars, regardless of successful appeals or alternative sentences during possible retrials.

Murdaugh's legal team has less than 30 days to file its initial brief and legal arguments in the jury tampering appeal to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court's order did not set a date for the review hearing.

For now, those being pursued in the case and Murdaugh himself will have to wait.

You may also like...