How a County Clerk Upended the Alex Murdaugh Case | "Case by Case" | "48 Hours" Podcast | Forensic Files

I'm 48 Hours correspondent Anne Marie Green and this is case by case. There was dramatic news this week about
one of the most high-profile murder cases in years. On Wednesday, the South Carolina Supreme Court overturned the
2023 [music] convictions and consecutive life sentences of Alec Murdoch for the murders of his wife Maggie and son Paul
in 2021. Now Murdoch, who had been a prominent and wealthy attorney in the state, will be granted a new trial after
the court found that his original trial was marred by the quote improper influence of Colleton County Clerk
Rebecca Hill. Hill actually read out the jury's verdict in that original trial. Guilty
verdict. Signed by the forelady, 3 2 23. The state Supreme Court's unanimous ruling this week found that Rebecca
Hill, known as Becky, quote placed her fingers on the scales of justice by attacking Murdoch's credibility to the
jurors. Here's one of those jurors who was asked about Hill at a 2024 hearing. Was your verdict
influenced in any way by the communications of the clerk of court in this case? Yes, ma'am. And how was it
influenced? To me, it felt like she made it seem like he was already guilty. But another juror told NBC on
Wednesday that she never felt Hill was trying to push an agenda or push her to a certain verdict. Maggie and Paul
Murdoch were shot and killed on the Murdoch family estate. Murdoch testified in his own defense and has continued to
maintain his innocence. He did plead guilty to financial crimes. Here to discuss the latest developments in the
Murdoch case is University of South Carolina School of Law Professor Colin Miller. Colin, thanks for joining us.
Well, thanks for having me. So, first off, we're going to start off with just how unusual is this to have a
conviction overturned because of the behavior of a a clerk at the courthouse? It is exceedingly rare. I'm currently
working on a wrongful conviction case out of North Carolina. The jury in that case was hung,
and while they were hung, the bailiff for the judge told the jury, "The judge in this case doesn't accept a
hung jury." And so, we're currently appealing, and I looked across the country for cases where comments by a
court official led to a conviction being reversed. I only found one case out of Tennessee where the jury was also hung,
and a bailiff made inappropriate comments to the jury. So, this almost never happens across the country. This
is interesting. In response to the ruling, uh South Carolina's Attorney General said that the clerk's conduct
was inappropriate, but it was ultimately harmless. And some of the jurors sort of spoke about
whether or not they were influenced. But, what's your take on that? My take is the focus of the Attorney
General was the evidence presented at trial, which he was convinced made a compelling case for guilt beyond a
reasonable doubt. In my mind, the State Supreme Court correctly focused upon the inappropriate
nature of a court official telling the jury, "Watch his demeanor while he testifies.
Don't let the prosecution be defeated by kind of the lies of the defense." And so,
the whole goal of the American criminal justice system is a jury of someone's peers impartially deciding the case. And
I think the focus by the court on the inappropriate nature of this was absolutely the correct way to go.
Anyone who's interested in true crime knows about this case. Why do you think um so many people are interested in in
the saga of the Murdaughs? I think there's two parts of it. One, this is something we used to see
historically, we don't see as much now, and that is a very powerful big fish family in a small town here in
Colleton County in South Carolina. And they ruled the roost for decades in terms of government, private business,
etc. And so, there's that part of it. >> [snorts] >> And then second, there's this whole
family dynamic, this kind of a Southern Gothic feel, almost out of a William Faulkner novel, where you have all these
strange relations and crimes committed by this family, and this question of whether it was a smoke and mirrors
attempt by Alec to misdirect from his own crimes to commit these murders. And so, all of that, the salacious nature
and the power imbalance in this county, I think makes for must-watch TV and must-listen podcasts.
>> Absolutely. I think if you would were to write the tale of them, you would say it was too unbelievable.
Um just to remind people, he did plead guilty. Alex Murdaugh did plead guilty to financial charges. Uh he was charged
There was a an array of charges, defrauding victims to the tune of $12 million. Um so he pled guilty to these
charges, and that's why he's actually not going to be released even though this murder conviction had been overturned.
He's currently serving um concurrent state and federal sentences of 27 and 40 years for those charges. But Murdaugh
has also maintained that he never killed his wife, and he never killed his son. What's important to know
before we move forward about where where are right now, what's important to know
about the original murder trial in 2023? The state would say the most critical piece of evidence was this.
Alec Murdoch claimed at the time of the murders he was with his mother, who I believe is suffering from dementia.
Shortly before the murders the son Paul had done a Snapchat recording and the prosecution argued to the jury that
Alec's voice was on that Snapchat recording at the family compounds by the dog kennels where these murders took
place. And so for the state, this was the critical piece of evidence showing he lied about his location and in fact
he was at the scene of the crime shortly before the murders. Right, and that's the defense argues that that's actually
pretty weak and I don't think they ever found the murder weapon or anything anything like that. And so the defense
does appeal. And what they claim is that the county clerk of court tampered with the jury.
What I should ask you is of course what does the county clerk do? Yeah, the county clerk they're kind of the command
center of the courtroom. They are managing what's going on, subpoenas being sent out so witnesses can appear,
reading the verdict which Becky Hill did in this case, managing the jury, is doing all of the administrative duties
that help the courtroom run. So in that role is it conceivable that you would chitchat with the jury, you
would have like some sort of casual conversation or is that normally not done at all?
Normally not done at all other than giving them their marching orders, right? So anything administrative
fair game for communications between the clerk and the jurors. Beyond that anything having to do with the evidence,
the testimony, the parties, strictly forbidden. So, can we talk a little bit about
though what the clerk is accused of saying, right? There's like several different instances when Alec Murdaugh
is going to testify, she says something like, "Oh, this is going to be epic." Something along those lines. Um
and she says, I don't know if she says it to all the jurors, but she says, "Watch his body language."
>> Mhm. What What could she be inferring and why could that be problematic? Yeah, and so in addition to the comments
you mentioned, another juror said a comment about don't let the defense fool you. Mhm. And so I think in combination
with the comments and demeanor and behavior, I think at least some jurors interpreted that to
mean his body language is going to show the lies across his forehead and it's going to [clears throat] show that the
defense is smoke and mirrors and this is a guilty man trying to prove his innocence to you.
And that, according to the defense and the state Supreme Court, likely led to the jury
not being impartial in assessing his testimony. And I think the defense also suggested that Hill, the clerk, had an
ulterior motive, right? She was planning on writing a book, which she did. Absolutely. And so their claim by the
defense is she was incentivized to grease the wheels on a guilty verdict because that would allow her to publish
this book, which she did and profit from it. Of course, she denies this, but that
was absolutely the allegation by the defense. Right. So, the defense uh presented their allegations in September
of 2023. At first, it looked like it was going to be an uphill battle for the defense. In early 2024, a state judge
set a very high bar for evidence that Hill tampered with the jury and then ruled that the defense couldn't prove
that anything Hill had done had actually influenced the jury or prejudiced the jury in any way. But then over the
course of the next year, a lot came to light about Hill's actions and this is when we're really learning the details.
What did we learn about some of what Hill not what she said, but something that she did that really caused her
uh I guess caused the focus to sort of zoom in on her. She inappropriately shared photos connected to the crime
disclosed information that was supposed to remain under seal. And to the point you raised earlier,
when this first judge heard the case, this was interesting actually, the former Chief Justice of the South
Carolina Supreme Court, Jean Toal, and it was found that she lied during her testimony before Justice Toal regarding
how she had handled the evidence when in fact she had improperly leaked this and
presented it to the public when it was supposed to remain under seal. Mhm. She showed a member of the media, I think,
right? And then lied about it. So then then there's perjury as well. Um she eventually pleaded guilty to those
charges, uh the charges obstruction of justice and perjury for lying, as well as two counts of misconduct in office
and taking bonuses and promoting through her public office a book that she wrote
on the trial. All of these charges were felonies. She did plead guilty. She apologized for her behavior. We should
also tell listeners what happened with this book. Um Becky Hill apparently said in kind of a casual conversation to
somebody in the courthouse that uh she hopes that there's a guilty verdict cuz it it would be really good for her book
sales. So she did write the book. It's called Behind the Doors of Justice, The Murdaugh Murders. But she was hoping to
maybe use the proceeds to buy a lake house, she said. Probably not going to happen. Becky
Hill's book was pulled from publication after her co-author discovered that she actually plagiarized portions of the
text. Have you come across many clerks who've written books about the trials they have worked? Never. There's been a
few judges who have handled high-profile cases who have written about it. I've never heard of a bailiff or a clerk of
court doing so. It's not a good look for the clerk, but it doesn't necessarily prove that she tampered with the jury,
right? >> Correct. Um there was a hearing earlier this year. I want to play some of what they argued.
This is Murdaugh's defense attorney. His name is Dick Harpootlian. So, this matter we're discussing this morning,
a fair trial, a jury not poisoned by outside influences. I would submit to you is 51 years ago as
I stood there, I did not realize what I was swearing to do, but I do today. And that is to defend Alex Murdaugh's
right to a fair trial. And I've got to admit in the 51 years since then, I've never seen a factual
pattern like this where the clerk of court >> [clears throat] >> where the clerk of court sets out to
influence the verdict to get a guilty verdict for financial gain. So, Colin, I think the last line there,
you know, where he says, you know, a clerk of court sets out to influence the verdict to get a guilty verdict for
financial gain is kind of like the crux of their argument. She did this for the money. She did this to to sell a book.
Um But, there needs to be proof that the jury was actually influenced. It's one thing,
I think, to have loose talk, but it's another thing for the jury to say that affected the outcome of the case, which
I think is a little harder to prove. But then this week, the Supreme Court handed
down its unanimous ruling overturning the convictions. What did the Supreme Court find?
Yeah, and this is critical to the point you just raised, which is to say Justice Toll found the defense had not
proven the comments by Becky Hill influenced the jury. The State Supreme Court and they correctly applied Supreme
Court precedent. They found if a court official makes inappropriate comments to the jury, our baseline
presumption is that that improperly influenced the jury and facilitated a guilty verdict, and it is up to the
state to rebut that presumption and prove it didn't influence the jury. And so by shifting
that presumption pursuant to precedent, I think the State Supreme Court correctly found that presumption was not
rebutted. And we have every reason to believe this had influence in the jury. So then there's another layer as well,
right? In addition to the findings about how the clerk of court allegedly tried to influence the jury, the justices also
came to some conclusions about the original judge in the trial and whether or not that judge had allowed a fair
trial. Can you tell us more about that ruling? So what we had here, as you noted earlier, was a litany of financial
crimes that Alec Murdoch committed. He fell behind, accrued debts, and stole money from his
clients. And the state's theory was because he had fallen into debt and committed these
crimes, these killings were kind of a Wizard of Oz scenario. Don't look behind the curtain, shifting the attention
somewhere else. And at trial the judge openly allowed very detailed evidence about all these financial crimes to come
in and the theory was we're not proving that Alec Murdoch is a bad guy, we're showing the motive for the killings in
this case. And the State Supreme Court unanimously said, "Look, we're reversing based upon the comments
by Becky Hill, but for the retrial at a minimum you should limit that character evidence." And some of the
justices even said it shouldn't come in at all. Mhm. So then what happens now? We're talking
about a retrial all the way back to square one. I suppose if there's evidence all of all new evidence can come up
whether it's for the prosecution side or the defense's side. Absolutely. And it's
interesting because if we look to the first trial the defense was all about telling the
jury there's an absence of evidence of guilt. You noted earlier the firearms weren't found.
It was all about saying we can't prove Alec Murdoch's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. If in fact they do have evidence
of an alternate suspect or affirmative evidence of innocence, that could be a game-changer, but of course they're
keeping it close to the vest and we're not sure whether they're just posturing or whether they actually have something.
>> Yeah, they certainly spoke like they were enthusiastically looking forward to
a retrial. Like any good defense attorney would do. But I mean to go back now and start all over again, it has to
be a challenge for the prosecution or or is it more of a challenge for the defense? From my research it's more of a
challenge to the defense. I published an article a couple of years ago called Stand by Judges in the Florida State Law
Review and I did extensive research on what happens when there is a reversal and we have a retrial.
And it's interesting because going into a first trial, the defense actually knows a lot more
about the prosecution case than the prosecution knows about the defense case. And so the studies and the numbers
I've seen all show the prosecution tends to fare better on a retrial than the defense. There are some advantages to
the defense, but overall prosecution is the major beneficiary. So in this case though, we're talking
about an incredibly high-profile case. How difficult is it going to be to hold a new trial with a jury that has not
seen or heard anything about this case? I mean, it's been everywhere. It's sort of a cottage industry talking about it.
There have been countless podcasts, documentaries, even a scripted drama. Yeah, and so two
things have been discussed. One is actually shipping in jurors from out of Colleton County into that county to hear
the case. And the second is transferring the case out of Colleton County to another area
in South Carolina. But beyond that to your question, and there's a lot of controversy around
this, the Supreme Court has said, "We don't require ignorance by jurors coming into a trial. Generally, if jurors say,
'I've heard some things about this case, but I can set aside what I've heard and
decide the case solely based upon the evidence in the courtroom,' usually we take the jurors at their
word. In this case, given the publicity you mentioned, that might be more difficult to accept than in most cases.
I mean, as you look at how this continues to unfold, I mean, what is the lesson to be learned here? The lesson to
be learned here, I think, is I would like to say this is the exception rather than the rule.
The overwhelming majority of court officials take their jobs seriously. They're not seeking financial gain, and
they are dutifully performing in a way we expect them to do so. Unfortunately, in this case we had a
rogue clerk of court and perhaps based upon wanting financial gain, she took matters into her own hands and she made
comments that arguably led to the jury being influenced. And so, I think this speaks both to the respect
we have for court officials as well as thankfully seeing the the system correct itself when we had a rogue clerk acting
improperly. So, there's a really strong likelihood um calling that I will be talking to you again about the Murdoch
case because we could be looking at a retrial in our future. Thank you so much for your insight and uh and thank you
everyone else for listening. All right, thanks so much. And you can follow Case by Case wherever
you get your podcast and be sure to tell us what cases you are following. >> [music]

The South Carolina Supreme Court just issued a stunning unanimous ruling overturning the 2023 double murder convictions of Alex Murdaugh. In this episode of “Case by Case”, “48 Hours” correspondent Anne-Marie Green and University of South Carolina School of Law professor Colin Miller break down the jury tampering allegations against Becky Hill that sent this notorious case back to square one.

True crime. Real justice. "48 Hours" investigates the most intriguing crime and justice cases that touch on all areas of the human experience including greed and passion. "48 Hours," which premiered in 1988, has developed a rich history of original reporting and impact journalism that has helped exonerate wrongly convicted people, caused cold cases to be reopened and solved, and along the way changed lives.

For video licensing inquiries, contact: licensing@veritone.com

Brief Summary

The South Carolina Supreme Court overturned Alec Murdoch's murder convictions due to jury influence by Clerk Rebecca Hill, leading to a retrial.

Key points

Alec Murdoch's Conviction Overturned. The South Carolina Supreme Court overturned Alec Murdoch's convictions due to improper influence during his trial.
Clerk's Inappropriate Conduct. Rebecca Hill's actions during the trial led to the Supreme Court's ruling.
The Unusual Case of a Clerk's Influence. Legal experts discuss the rarity of a conviction being overturned due to a clerk's behavior.

Episode highlights

Episode quotes

She made it seem like he was already guilty.

A juror's reflection on the clerk's influence.

1:31WatchMay 15, 2026

Tension

75/ 100High tension

More from 48 Hours

Solve the Crime

Read a real case one clue at a time, then see how your call held up against the investigators.