How Court Clerk Conduct Led to Alex Murdaugh Verdict OVERTURNED, w/ Vinnie Politan & Charlie Condon

Added: 2026-05-14

[00:00:00]No one had any issue with what the judge did or what the lawyers did. It was the damn clerk. Vinnie, have you ever seen it before in all your years at Court TV?

[00:00:10]>> No. Never. Never. Ever. Ever. And and in most of the cases we cover, the clerk doesn't even have any sort of role in the case. There's a baiff.

[00:00:20]>> No. The clerk gets no air time.

[00:00:21]>> No. The baiff will bring the the jury back and forth and that's it. There's like one one person usually. Here again, it's about the moment. You have to understand how small this town is, Megan, when when we all showed up. They were afraid that we were going to starve because the restaurants in that town are open a couple days a week, some of them only at night. So, they brought they made sure that there were food trucks for all of us. They coordinated everything. They bent over backwards to welcome everyone into town.

[00:00:52]>> But you have but the people there aren't used to that. And and and again, I I think uh Charlie's right with what happened with Becky. She didn't meet the moment. It got out of control and it snowballed on her. So everything that she did after the fact and trying to like, oh my goodness, what am I doing here? Um makes her look even more. You guys are both She wasn't going to make money on her book. Megan, how much she wanted to sell her book and she knew a girl a guilty verdict would be more helpful.

[00:01:21]There's that's all over the record.

[00:01:23]That's not my speculation. That's fact.

[00:01:24]How much money can you make from a self-published book? Come on. Have you seen enough to do a hotel that only has restaurants open twice a week?

[00:01:32]>> Have you Have you read the book, Megan?

[00:01:34]I did. Have you read the book?

[00:01:37]>> Well, we did read large portions of it when we covered her plagiarism. Vinnie, there's a pattern of dishonesty. You stepped right in it.

[00:01:47]>> I have to say >> she plagiarized her book.

[00:01:49]>> Yeah, I have to say >> I'm trying, Becky. I'm trying for you, Becky. I'm trying my best. Go ahead, Charlie.

[00:01:55]>> She needs better counsel.

[00:01:56]>> Yeah, I do have to say that I did read the book and I thought, boy, this book is really not that great except that the beginning is really good and that's the part that Becky plagiarized.

[00:02:06]>> She plagiarized it. If memory serves off of a journalist, right, with whom she had corresponded, >> was good or whose stuff she had read.

[00:02:12]>> That was really good.

[00:02:16]>> Was really good.

[00:02:18]So, the court, we've we've talked about it a little, but I just want to get explicit on it because we have had this legal debate on this program when it came up and it was what standard will the court use in deciding whether Becky's behavior is reversible error, you know, for the judge not to have considered it as a deal breakaker. And um the the question was whether they would was it enough to allege and prove interference, which my understanding is that would do it at the federal court level. If you can prove interference with a juror, you know, material interference, then you can get a reversal in a new trial. or did you also have to prove interference and prejudice like and it did affect the verdict and you can prove that it affected the verdict and um that's that was the higher South Carolina standard and amazingly the defense team in my view met they met it they got jur to take the stand and say the following here in sat three >> was your verdict influenced in any way by the communications of the clerk of court in this case?

[00:03:35]>> Yes, ma'am.

[00:03:36]>> And how was it influenced?

[00:03:44]>> To me, it felt like she made it seem like he was already guilty. Did that affect your finding of guilty in this case?

[00:04:00]>> Yes, ma'am.

[00:04:04]>> They had it right there like >> except so open.

[00:04:08]>> Yeah.

[00:04:08]>> Except that the defense put in her affidavit which had this business about about hey, I was pressured by the other jurors and then the court relied upon that.

[00:04:18]>> Yeah, Charlie, let me just read that.

[00:04:20]Let me just read that and then I'll give it to you. This is from the Supreme Court's opinion. Again, South Carolina Supreme Court jury testified that when the jury began deliberations, Becky Hill told the jury, "This shouldn't take us long." In addition to referencing Hill's statements, Jur a verd in her affidavit, quote, "I had questions about Mr. Murdoch's guilt, but voted guilty because I felt pressured by the other jurors." She doesn't say by Becky Hill, the clerk, by the other jurors. And that's what um the judge, Judge Tol picked up on and said to Jur, quote, "I asked you previously, was your verdict influenced in any way by communications from Becky Hill, the clerk of court." You answered that question. Yes. In light of what you said in the affidavit, which is, "I had questions about his guilt, but voted guilty because I felt pressured by the other jurors." Is that answer that I just read a more accurate statement of how you felt? And juror Z answered yes.

[00:05:22]So Juror Z did tell Judge Tol, the greater influence on me was my fellow jurors who guilted me into finding him guilty. And that was enough for Judge Tol to say that's this is not something we would reverse a guilty verdict on.

[00:05:40]And now, Charlie, you believe the standard has been changed as a result of this opinion to sort of just say material interference is enough to get a a verdict overturned.

[00:05:50]>> Yes. The the Supreme Court now has made it very clear and they acknowledge it's a murky had been a murky era of the law.

[00:05:56]It's no longer murky. It's very clear.

[00:05:58]Remmer versus United States is is our standard. So that if you have this kind of unproper conduct, you get a new trial unless the the government or the state can rebut it. And so we've got a very clear roadmap here. And this is a bit off topic, but I have to say this, Megan, the way you um phrase these questions. It just shows that you have just really high level of intelligence.

[00:06:20]And I can remember that I can remember and really well well articulated. And I remember seeing maybe a couple weeks ago something about the president saying something about you maybe not being so bright. I want to say for the record that you are extremely bright, very talented, and uh the president is wrong about you. Uh for sure.

[00:06:40]>> Oh, you are so sweet, Charlie. I I appreciate you vouching that I am not in fact a low IQ nut job. I I love it. I didn't see it coming, but I love it. Um, my crack crack team has reminded me on our discussion about your best friend Becky Vinnie that the person she plagiarized. I knew it was a journalist was BBC journalist Holly Hondurich and um the plagiarism stemmed from emails from this reporter who accidentally sent them to Hill. Uh, they were discovered after a trove of Becky Hill's emails were made public in response to a foyer request. The email showed that reporter Holly Hondridge sent Hill two drafts of an article she was writing about the double murder trial. Uh, and Hondurich had intended to send the drafts to her editor, also named Rebecca.

[00:07:32]>> When she discovered the mistake, she asked Hill to delete her emails. Hill said she would. Instead, months later, Hondurich's words appeared. And right at the beginning, by the way, of Hill's book. Now, your sweet little cupcake, Vinnie Palletan, has got a history of dishonest behavior.

[00:07:53]>> Again, in over her head, she wanted to write a book. She didn't know how to write a book. She's like, she committed to the book and now I've got to put words on paper. I thought it'd be a little bit easier. Oh, wait. Here are some words. Let me put them on.

[00:08:04]>> Oh, who? My my muse. My muse from the BBC.

[00:08:09]Okay, I want to keep going because there is a real question now about what's going to happen, Vinnie. What's going to happen now?

[00:08:16]>> Oh, I I'm making my reservations already. Unless they get a change of venue.

[00:08:22]>> You are right.

[00:08:22]>> Yeah, of course. The the See, this is the great thing, right? Cuz I believe, you know, I I listen to the evidence. I saw the evidence. I believe he did it. I think it was obvious. Um once we saw the whole case, I thought it was put together very well. The defense did their best, but like it is what it is.

[00:08:37]the facts are what they are. Um, at the end of the day, when a criminal defendant wins an appeal, they win the right to be convicted again on Court TV.

[00:08:49]So, I I think that's I think that's where we're headed in this one.

[00:08:52]Although, it does seem there'll be a another slight change in some of the evidence. I think uh prosecutors will have to pull back a little bit on in the way that they present some of the financial crime evidence in the case.

[00:09:04]That was another big point by the defense in their appeal. So, I think they may have to rein that in a little bit, but at the end of the day, it's it's the there's such great evidence in this case and you have the defendant himself. I think the the the the only outstanding question will be will he testify again?

[00:09:25]>> Yeah, that's a good question. Wait, before I get you because I know Charlie, you're an expert on all this and what's likely to happen or what is going to happen next and and I want to hear that.

[00:09:32]Before that, I wanted to make an additional point on Becky. Um, one of the issues, sorry, but one of the issues about what she did. Okay, so she spoke to the jurors directly the day that Alex Murdoch testified and apparently the day that they got the case as well. You know, this this shouldn't take long, the deliberations. Um, but she there was also the problem of what Becky Hill did or did not do with respect to the so-called egg juror.

[00:10:03]>> Vinnie made a joke earlier about, you know, the clerk of court maybe tells you you have your eggs back in the jury room. That that was an on-point joke and and he was referencing something that it really did happen in the case where one juror got disqualified the day of the deliberations, the day of the closing arguments into deliberations. And the reason she got disqualified was there had been a question about whether she'd been discussing the case outside of the courthouse and and she shouldn't have been discussing the case at all at this point because they hadn't even gone into deliberations. And there was a possibility that her disgruntled ex-husband had maybe said something online about this, etc. Well, I did not I did I have followed this case closely, but apparently not that closely because I missed what what Becky Hill allegedly said to the egg juror who did get dismissed and replaced by an alternate the day that they that she was egg juror found herself in trouble and had to go see the judge because this stuff had come out. Did she talk about the case out of school? She and good old Becky had a discussion and testimony was submitted about what that discussion was and here is a bit of that from the proceeding before Judge Tol.

[00:11:23]>> So she called or she spoke to Miss Hill.

[00:11:26]Correct.

[00:11:27]>> Yes sir.

[00:11:28]>> And Miss Hill told her according to the egg juror the Murdoch probably got to him. You agree that's what she said in her affidavit?

[00:11:36]>> That's what she said in her affidavit.

[00:11:37]>> Okay. And then Miss Hill asked her if she was leaning one way or the other.

[00:11:44]And the juror egg juror said, "Uh, Mr. Waters closing was good, but I still have questions."

[00:11:53]And she said, "What kind of questions?"

[00:11:54]And she told Miss Hill she had questions about the guns. I suppose couldn't find them or they were too used. And then Miss Hill asked her what makes you think he's innocent. And she said the video at the kennels.

[00:12:08]Uh, and then she said, Miss Hill said, "Everything the defendant has said has been lies and you should be forget about the guns.

[00:12:18]They will never be seen again." Are those uh fleeting comments or are those egregious?

[00:12:25]>> Your honor, those would be hard pressed to defend. Yes, sir. That would be much different from what I'm arguing this record. And then Miss Hill told her that the four person should just go in and ask for a raise of hands and this will be over and done with and everybody needs to be on the same page.

[00:12:40]>> So I'm struggling number one with why the egg juror wasn't allowed to testify because that was directly impeaching of Miss Hill's testimony that she said nothing.

[00:12:54]>> That's amazing. So clarifying obviously that was not Judge Tol who's female.

[00:12:58]That was one of the judge judges on the South Carolina Supreme Court who's wondering why at the judge toll hearing this egg juror dismissed juror testimony was not allowed because it's a smoking gun on the character of Becky Hill. I mean honestly, Charlie, have you ever heard of something so egregious?

[00:13:18]>> Well, you you uh you're doing a very good job of prosecuting Becky, I must say. It's uh it's it's it's getting harder and harder to defend her. But I still stick with my earlier comments relative to to I I do think that the Benny's right. If you'd been there, I mean, Walter Burough, it's the front porch of Low Country, very small town, really nice people. It's a the county is is population-wise small. And so this massive international media just comes into Walterboro. And I do think it went to Becky's head. And again, not to defend her at all, what she did with this with the with the jurors, but I just think deep down inside, I think basically she's not a morally corrupt, horrible woman. I think she's got some really good qualities, but again, it's very clear she did not meet the moment here in this trial.

[00:14:08]>> Thanks for watching this clip. If you're new here, subscribe. We got a whole lot more goodness where that came from.

[00:14:14]Would love to hear your feedback. You can email me, too. Megan megnanc kelly.com or just leave a comment below.

[00:14:22]But join the community by becoming a subscriber. We really really value your input and your support. We may not always agree, but we are always going to talk about it and respect. No BS, no agenda, no fear. Think about this. In 2006, $20,000 equaled roughly 33 ounces of gold at spot price. At today's prices, those 33 ounces would be worth about $165,000.

[00:14:47]That's why many smart Americans diversify a portion of their savings into precious metals. And that's why you should consider buying gold from Birch Gold Group. For thousands of years, gold has been a store of wealth. And today, it's a crucial part of any balance strategy. Even better, Birch Gold can help you convert an existing IRA or 401k into a tax sheltered retirement account in gold. Just text MK to the number 989898 to receive your free info kit on gold. There's no obligation, just useful information. With an A+ rating with the Better Business Bureau and tens of thousands of happy customers, let Birch Gold help you diversify with gold. Now that's peace of mind. Again, text MK to 989898 today.