The Alex Murdaugh - Becky Hill Fiasco

Added: 2026-05-19

[00:00:00]Well, I didn't want to have to do this, and nobody really wanted me to do this, but as soon as I heard what the clerk, Becky Hill, did in the Murdoch case, I knew I'd be here discussing this issue.

[00:00:14]I'll tell you more in just a minute.

[00:00:23]Hi, Tony Dit here. Formerly, I was a Missouri attorney in active practice.

[00:00:28]Then I retired. Then I unretired and started a YouTube channel. And I bring you all kinds of stuff about trials and the law. So no legal advice is given, but stay tuned. This is what we're talking about today.

[00:00:44]There are some things you can't predict.

[00:00:46]You can be the best trial lawyer in the world, best prosecutor, the best defense attorney, and somebody completely beyond your control can screw things up beyond imagination. And that's pretty much what happened in the case of Richard Alexander Murdo, or Alex Murdo, as he goes by, because it appeared to be a pretty cleanly tried case. they got to the jury phase and somebody had to go stick their thumb on the scales of justice. So today we're going to go through the brief of the or not the brief but the opinion of the Supreme Court of the state of Carolina, South Carolina, and look at how they decided this case and why. And I won't bury the lead. The reason they decided this case the way they did is because they had to. Because if they had not decided the case the way they did on habius relief, that would have been overturned. And if it wasn't overturned on habius relief, it would have been overturned at the fourth circuit. So again, they just cut the time back with regard to how quickly you'd be able to get a retrial in this case, which I think is laudable.

[00:02:03]Now, you may remember the facts of the case, but if you don't, let's take a look at them now. For 6 weeks in early 2023, the eyes of the nation focused on Colatin County, where the state prosecuted notorious former attorney Richard Allen Murdo, or Alex Murdo, for the murders of his wife Maggie and son Paul. Both the state and Murdo's defense skillfully presented their cases to the jury as the trial court deafly presided over this complicated high-profile matter.

[00:02:35]However, their efforts were in vain because Colatin County Clerk of Court Rebecca Hill placed her fingers on the scales of justice, thereby denying Murdo 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 toward a biased verdict. And that's one way or the other. Although we are aware of the time and money and effort expended for this lengthy trial, we have no choice but to reverse the denial of Murdo'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's not necessary for us to review every evidentiary issue he raises on appeal. However, we do address the admissibility of Murdo's financial crimes to offer guidance on this thorny issue to the trial court on remand. Now, here is what the facts are according to the South Carolina Supreme Court, at least the ones that matter. On October 7th, 27th, 2023, Murdo moved for a new trial, asserting Hill tampered with the jury by one, advising it not to believe Murdo'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 affidavit from several jurors to support his motion.

[00:04:11]Justice Bey appointed Chief Justice Tol posttrial to preside over this motion because the trial court had recused itself. And you all probably remember that the trial court did recuse itself.

[00:04:23]And of course, one of the reasons that it recused itself is because Murdo requested that he recuse himself because he was too close to Becky Hill and because he also played a part in the removal of juror number 785 who comes up in this case quite a bit. So that was the basis for essentially his motion for a new trial.

[00:04:48]and Justice Tol, female judge had been on the Supreme Court of South Carolina for quite a while, had retired, came and did this particular uh hearing, lasted several days, and you may remember some of the testimony from that hearing. Basically, there was one juror who stuck by the notion that she was convinced to guilt to vote guilty, and she was influenced by the the machinations of Becky Hill. Now, juror Z was the one who most eloquently put into her affidavit all of the statements that were made by Becky Hill. And this is what she said. 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. Murdo's attorneys, which I understood to mean that Mr. and Murdo 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 look at his movements, which I understood to mean he was guilty. Now, I'm sorry, but I don't understand how that would make you think he was guilty.

[00:06:01]It might make you think, well, you know, I need to look at him pretty closely.

[00:06:04]But the other part about not to be fooled, okay, that's over the top and that should never have happened. Now, it won't surprise any of you, particularly those of you who know that Becky Hill has now been convicted of perjury, that Hill just lied assiduously throughout the hearing.

[00:06:26]So, this is from juror 785. She have heard that at the trial at the hearing before the trial court and in an in affidavit Murdo attached to his motion that Hill interrogated her about the social media posts and whether she had been in contact with her ex-husband. In the affidavit, juror 785 related that Hill, knowing the juror's fears about her ex-husband, informed her that law enforcement officers questioned the ex-husband about the posts, offered to reinstate restraining orders juror 785 had against him, and speculated that the Murdo probably got to the ex-husband when he called juror 785 on the morning of the verdict.

[00:07:06]Juror 785 asserted Hill asked her whether she and other jurors were inclined to vote guilty or not and told her that everything Murdo had said lies.

[00:07:15]She also stated that before Murdo testified, Hill told the jurors not to be fooled by the evidence Murdo attorneys presented. Now, of course, I would tend to agree with Becky Hill that pretty much everything Murdo said was a lie. But you can't tell a jury that. You can't influence a jury in that manner.

[00:07:33]And more importantly, she knows that.

[00:07:36]She absolutely knows that you can't influence a jury that way. And I find it just completely beyond the pale that she would try. But she did it. And at least for a short time, she managed to get away with it. But that came crashing down in October. And then in addition to that, she lied about whether she gave the media access to some of the sealed exhibits. You may recall that some of the crime scene photographs were pretty graphic and pretty gory, but Becky Hill gave the media access to those and let them photograph the exhibits.

[00:08:15]Now, that is a violation of the court order. It's a violation of her duties as the clerk of as the clerk of court. And it's also just downright despicable.

[00:08:30]Those people who were murdered did not deserve to be remembered that way.

[00:08:36]And trying to pad your nest and get a good review for your book you're writing that again, Becky Hill acted despicably in this case. And she no doubt knows that at this point. Now, I'm not really sure where this came from, but the post-trial court found that these comments did not affect any juror's verdict. It explained Juror Z's assertion that Hill's comments affected her verdict were ambivalent, self-contradictory, and not credible, emphasizing how juror Z had acknowledged her statement in her affidavit that she voted guilty due to pressure from other jurors and that that was the more accurate statement.

[00:09:19]Again, in the context of the law, that does not matter, as we'll see here in just a moment. In appealing to the Supreme Court, Murdo argued he was denied his constitutional right to a fair trial by an impartial jury free from outside influences and he cited Rimmer versus United States in 1954 case that pretty much held that prejudice should be presumed. The state argued that the jury convicted Murdo because he was obviously guilty and not because three jurors heard foolish and fleeting comments about his upcoming testimony.

[00:09:53]It contends the post-trial court correctly declined to presume prejudice and any presumption of prejudice was rebuttable.

[00:10:00]We agree with Murdo and the state failed to overcome this presumption and I think that's absolutely the right answer. Now, the court then goes through a very long dissertation about all of the case law, and I could go through it, but I don't think it it amplifies this very clear, very plain language that's right here in front of us. He got denied a fair trial because she put her fingers on the scales of justice. And pretty much all of the case law explains that.

[00:10:32]Now, there are certain cases in the Fourth Circuit that go a little bit toward the other way, but they shouldn't have been persuasive to Judge Tol in this instance. Nevertheless, I can't let a few really good quotes go to waste.

[00:10:50]Hill's attempt to insert herself into the jury's deliberations through these comments was in line with her stated desire for a guilty verdict to sell more copies of the book she planned to write, her meddling in events around juror 785's dismissal, and her self arandizing conduct throughout and after the trial, from granting favors to media members, such as allowing them to view sealed exhibits and sitting a writer with court staff in the courtroom to granting interviews. As the post-trial court found, Hill was attracted by the siren call of celebrity. No truer words have ever been spoken in the context of external influences influencing a jury.

[00:11:33]Now, when you're fighting a losing battle, unfortunately, you just have to pick up every rock you can and throw it at the other side. And that's pretty much what the state did in its brief. And it's really kind of sad.

[00:11:48]Finally, we hold the state has not met its burden of proving the trial court's instructions to the jury cured any prejudice arising from Hill's comments.

[00:11:56]And they note that generally jurors are expected and deemed to follow the instructions of the trial court and to ignore any incompetent evidence to to if you know we said strike evidence then you don't consider it. But as the Supreme Court notes, and this is very apt, the trial court never had the opportunity to even attempt to cure the prejuditial effect of Hill's comments because they did not come to light until months after the trial. So that was kind of a dumb approach to begin with. I don't believe that wasraton waters saying that. I think he would have had a much more intelligent argument to make and probably did, but that is not a winner for sure. And of course, the court didn't find that to be a winner.

[00:12:42]Then they address the financial crimes evidence and they say, "Because we order a new trial on the basis of Hill's improper influence on the jury on appeal from the order denying Murdo's motion for a new trial, it is not necessary that we address the evidentiary issues Murdo raises on appeal. However, we elect to offer the trial court on remand the following guidance regarding the admissibility of evidence of Murdo's financial crimes.

[00:13:09]Now, you may remember that this is a this is a horse they never stopped beating long after it was dead and decomposed. They continued to beat on him being a thief and a liar and a schemer and a plotter. All those things which he was, but those are character faults.

[00:13:32]The state offered this evidence as motive for the crime because he tried to deflect attention away from him. Oh, it's, you know, owe me, poor me, my wife and son got murdered in order to keep his financial misdoings from coming to light. That was the state's theory.

[00:13:54]If that's the case, all you have to do is point out that there were multiple convictions that arose from that on on remand. But you don't have to go into all of the details. And one of the details was especially troubling to the Supreme Court. And in its review, here's what it said. We emphasize, however, the trial court should have limited the state's presentation of this evidence.

[00:14:21]We illustrate this point with an example from the direct examination of Tony Satderfield.

[00:14:27]State. Why were you the personal representative and not your brother?

[00:14:32]Satderfield. Because my brother is a vulnerable adult and has a disability.

[00:14:38]Can you repeat those words for me? You may remember in my cousin Vinnie, there's a point where he says, "Wait a minute. I was all over here by the jury jury box. Did you what? Say that again."

[00:14:49]And it's a technique that trial lawyers use to drive home a point. This is one they should not have driven home because it annoyed the Supreme Court.

[00:14:58]Satderfield that my brother, he is a vulnerable adult and he's not able to function as a normal human being to deal with stuff like that. He's a vulnerable adult. Yes.

[00:15:08]So we get in vulnerable adult three times in the course of one bit of testimony. This particular testimony had zero probitative value as to Murdo's motive for the murders and obviously high potential for unfair prejudice as it portrays mur portrays Murdo as a man who prays on vulnerable victims. Well, of course, Murdo is a man who prays on vulnerable victims. But again, that's a character issue, not a motive issue. A motive issue is keeping things from being discovered. Being a rotten bad attorney, stealing from your clients, that's character and that's not allowed under the state rules, under the federal rules, under the constitution. You can't define somebody by their character. You define them by their actions, even if their character is terrible. So again, the the Supreme Court is making a very good point here. Essentially on remand, it says you can admit some of this, but you can't admit all of it. You know, use a little discretion here. And the way they say this, they also give the trial court on remand an out here. And here's what they say. By holding the trial court in this case acted within its discretion in admitting some evidence of Murdo's financial crimes. We certainly do not intend to require the evidence be admitted on retrial. As is often the case, the facts and circumstances on retrial may be materially different from those presented in the initial trial.

[00:16:52]Thus, the trial court on remand must do as the trial court did here. carefully and thoughtfully apply correct principles of law to the facts and circumstances before it. We do intend to require, however, that if the trial court decides to admit evidence of Murdo's financial crimes on retrial, the state must complete its introduction of that evidence efficiently without the lengthy presentation of inflammatory details and with little or that have little or no probative value that was permitted in the first trial. So, there you have it. They're going to remand this to the trial court. There'll be a new judge. There'll be a new jury. It'll be a Colin County jury. And if you think there's anybody in Colatin County who has not heard all of the facts of this case at this point, you they've been running their still in the mountains then. I mean, that's essentially what they'd have to be because pretty much everybody has heard this story. Pretty much everybody knows what's going on. And I'll be honest, I don't know how in the world that man can get a fair trial in Colitton County. I strongly suspect that Murdo is going to move for a change of venue, which is exactly what I would do. I'd move for a change of venue to a county that was a little bigger, a little more cosmopolitan, a little further away from the scene of the crimes. And in that way, he might have a chance at getting a fairer jury, especially when you consider that the jury is drawn from the population of the county. So if you move it to a bigger county, you have a better chance of getting a jury pool that is less informed of the contents of the first trial because I think once somebody has been convicted and you send it back for retrial, it's the rare case that gets a different verdict on retrial.

[00:18:50]And I wouldn't anticipate a different verdict here just because the evidence the state has is pretty solid.

[00:18:58]But this out this sort of goes to another point that I referenced in the last trial I did, which is there is always bad mojo for a prosecutor that guilds the lily that essentially piles on. Instead of being satisfied with getting one or two financial crimes in, they just dumped a bucket full of trash on the jury. And it was the kind of trash that makes a jury mad. And when you do that, you suggest an emotional verdict, not a logical one. Now, I'm not saying it wouldn't be logical to convict Murdo. I have my own opinion on that.

[00:19:40]But by the same token, you can't allow juries to make emotional determinations when you're dealing with facts, not with emotion. So, at any rate, that's what I have for you today on the murder appeal and the outcome.

[00:19:56]According to Kraton Waters, he was interviewed by Court TV. They say that they're going to try to get a trial in the fall. Maybe they will, maybe they won't. I don't know. But I will be doing that trial for sure. It's what I have for you. Thanks for being here. Thanks for watching. I appreciate you being here today. And if you're a new subscriber, a double thank you. That means a lot to me. One of the themes on this channel, in case you didn't know, is kindness. If you have the opportunity today, try to do just one thing to help somebody else. It doesn't have to be a big thing. Any kind thing will do. Buy somebody a Coke. Get them a cup of coffee. Hold a door open for somebody struggling with a package. Or my favorite, return a shopping cart in the north 40 of Walmart rolling towards somebody's nice new vehicle to the cart corral. Or another thing, overtip your waitress or waiter if you go out to eat tonight. Those kinds of things make their day brighter, and you may find yourself noticing other people when they do kind things for you.

[00:21:01]That'd be a good way to make the world a better place. After all, isn't that what we're all about? I'm going to drop my email address up here in the event you have a comment or some suggestions you might want to make. I always appreciate it if you'd send me something that tells me you'd like you'd like me to make a video on a particular topic. Now, YouTube has a few things they think you might be interested in, and they're going to be showing up right up here.

[00:21:26]Thanks for watching. Have a great day.