Alex Murdaugh granted NEW TRIAL after court throws out murder convictions

Added: 2026-05-14

[00:00:00]South Carolina Supreme Court rules that Alex Murdoch, a former high-profile attorney convicted in the double murders of his wife and son, will get a new trial. Maggie and Paul Murdoch were shot to death in 2021 at the family's property. And in 2023, Murdoch was found guilty on both murder charges after a six-week long trial and received two life sentences. Alex Murdoch's defense argued the trial was compromised. The South Carolina Supreme Court wrote this in an opinion. The court's efforts to convict Murdoch were quote in vain because uh Colatin 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. The clerk of court, Rebecca Hill, allegedly told the jury, quote, "Not to be fooled by the evidence presented by Mr. Murdoch's attorneys, which was understood to be to mean that Mr. Murdoch would lie when he testifies.

[00:01:00]In August of 2024, jurors told Martha McCllum they believed Becky Hill manipulated the jury to make sure Alex Murdoch was found guilty.

[00:01:11]>> So, what you're all suggesting just to is that Becky Hill was manipulating this jury to make sure that Alec Murdoch was found guilty.

[00:01:24]Correct. Do you believe that?

[00:01:26]>> Yes. Do you believe that?

[00:01:28]>> I do.

[00:01:29]>> Do you believe that, Joe?

[00:01:31]>> Um, you know, I know Becky Hill only through this trial. I like her personally. Uh, I don't know whether she had this grand scheme. We know now that she was writing a book. Maybe she saw a guilty verdict as more profitable than a not-uilty. But whether she is genuinely the wizard behind the curtain in all of this, >> Yeah. Uh, I don't think anyone knows that.

[00:01:55]>> Moments ago, Alex Murdoch's team released this statement on the overturned conviction. Alex has said from day one that he did not kill his wife and son. We look forward to a new trial conducted consistent with the Constitution and the guidance this court has provided. Your first reaction, Caroline.

[00:02:12]>> Taxpayer dollars dumped down the tube because they didn't get it right the first time because this clerk prejudiced the whole process. Look, two things can be true at the same time. This guy is not a victim. This does not mean complete innocence. He admitted to stealing millions of dollars from clients, including vulnerable ones, over decades. That's why he's serving 27 years for the financial crimes that he committed. But when you externally influence the jury deliberations, you've tainted the whole thing. This is no longer due process. You've completely compromised due process and you have undermined trust in the legal system and the validity of convictions for future defendants like this. And and I think that's the tragedy. The other part of this is this is the peril of turning the courtroom into entertainment. The fact is that this was a true crime spectacle and that means there's a lot of opportunities for rent seekers and grifters. How about just a tame case?

[00:03:04]Can we can we ask for that? Then there won't be opportunities for making money on book deals.

[00:03:10]>> Yeah, it's so interesting what you say because you've got the Netflix documentary and so many other properties, if you will, that came out of that particular story, Lisa. when I'm guilty of watching them because it's interesting and I'm into true crime.

[00:03:21]>> I didn't say I didn't watch them.

[00:03:23]>> I did. I admittedly did watch them.

[00:03:25]>> We were just talking money.

[00:03:27]>> But this gets to the heart of the American justice system. I mean, the question isn't whether he's a good man or or not. He's admitted that he's not.

[00:03:33]He's admitted that he's a liar. He's a thief. He's a fraudster. As Caroline pointed out, he's serving a 40 sentence a 40-year sentence alone based off of stealing $12 million, 22 financial accounts against him. But the bottom line is every defendant, even despicable or not, which this man is, deserves an impartial trial in America. I mean, we've seen this even from Nicholas Maduro reportedly was surprised at the rights that were granted to him. And that's what makes America such a beautiful country. Unfortunately, uh, you know, this woman, Becky Hill, was serving her own financial interest because she was writing a book that she wanted to monetize, probably wanted to get famous, as you pointed out, and tainted the whole system. Uh but we'll see a new trial and it'll be based off of the evidence. Um and ultimately, you know, that will be what we go by. But, you know, that gets to the heart of the American justice system. Everyone deserves a fair trial. Charles, >> you know, it's interesting because uh one thing we do is and there's a court, our official court system and legal system, and then there's a court of public opinion. And I think sort of to what you were talking about, they've been more and more intertwined, I feel, uh, over the years. And we come to a quick conclusion on who's guilty and who's not guilty. And, and I think that already is problematic with respect to the to the trial system, particularly trial by jury. Um, you this clerk obviously this is some really awful. I just saw the movie Nuremberg, which is ironic because one of the central key figures beyond the the the uh the main character was someone who was writing a book, accumulating data on this so he can write a book about it afterwards.

[00:05:08]And you know, reading that she that she actually also had to plead guilty about lying to another judge. And it just we have to have confidence in it in the legal system. We really really do. And it's already tested. It's already being tested by this sort of celebrity environment we're in, this sensationalist environment that we're in. So, it already has major tests against it already.

[00:05:32]>> Kayla, >> well, and what's remarkable is that as clerk of the courtroom, Becky Hill's primary responsibility was to preserve the integrity of that courtroom. And yet, she became invested in a financial outcome of a guilty verdict, which obviously proves that she was not doing her job very well. I will just say, you know, this has implications for some of the other very big high-profile cases that we've been covering, including the one for the assassin of Charlie Kirk.

[00:05:57]You hear a lot about different motions that are put forward before the judge from both the defense and the prosecution. It is so important for the judges in these cases to handle these things delicately and impartially because one wrong move contained the entire case. And especially with that one, we've seen many motions about cameras and what he's being wearing. And >> um again, you want to make sure that the verdict is safe and final because if one thing goes wrong, then you have to relitigate the entire thing. It >> it's so interesting because we have some of these cases. We're watching Luigi Manion and the killing of he's the suspect in the killing of Brian Thompson, the CEO of United Healthcare just in Midtown here. Uh, and then you've got Charlie Kirk obviously in Utah and Taylor Robinson in that case and all the delays and and there has to be careful taking now with all of that for all the reasons that you mentioned, especially Charles. Be sure to like and subscribe for all the Fox News latest on YouTube and catch full shows streaming now on Fox