Court overturns Alex Murdaugh's murder convictions and orders new trial

A South Carolina court has overturned the 2023 murder convictions of Alex Murdaugh, a disgraced lawyer who was convicted of killing his wife. son.

The state's supreme court on Wednesday ordered a new trial for Murdaugh over the June 2021 killings.

Murdaugh has been in prison serving two life sentences for the murders of Maggie and Paul Murdaugh. He is also serving two additional 27- and 40-year sentences for state and federal financial crimes.

Once a powerful lawyer, the 56-year-old. his legal troubles captivated a global audience and inspired documentaries, podcasts and book deals. The trial itself was also televised.

In a 5-0 ruling. the South Carolina Supreme Court said Murdaugh deserved a new trial because the local county clerk had unfairly biased a jury against him.

"Both the State. Murdaugh's defense skillfully presented their cases to the jury as the trial court deftly presided over this complicated and high-profile matter," the justices wrote. "However. their efforts were in vain because Colleton County Clerk of Court Rebecca Hill placed her fingers on the scales of justice, thereby denying Murdaugh his right to a fair trial by an impartial jury."

In a statement, South Carolina Attorney General Alan Wilson said his office would "aggressively seek to retry Alex Murdaugh for the murders of Maggie. Paul as soon as possible".

Murdaugh's lawyers told US media that their client "has said from day one that he did not kill his wife. son".

Last December, Hill pleaded guilty to charges of misconduct in office, obstruction of justice. perjury over accusations that she misused public funds as a clerk and shared sealed court information with a reporter, among other claims.

Wednesday's ruling cites a number of comments that Hill allegedly made to jurors during the trial.

One juror wrote in an affidavit that Hill made comments telling jurors to "watch [Murdaugh] closely". which she said influenced her decision to find Murdaugh guilty because she thought the clerk was implying he was.

A jury found Murdaugh guilty of the murder of his wife. son - who were shot at close range near the family's dog kennels - after an extensive six-week long trial. Murdaugh was sentenced to life in prison.

In their bid to overturn his conviction, Murdaugh's lawyers had argued that Hill tampered with the jury, telling them not to trust his testimony. to speed up the verdict.

In the ruling. the justices cite testimony from jurors who say Hill told them "not to be fooled" by the evidence presented by the defence team. Jurors also said Hill told the jury when they began deliberations: "[T]his shouldn't take us long."

A few months after Murdaugh's trial, Hill published a tell-all book about the court proceedings.

In their ruling, the justices mentioned the book, called behind the Doors of Justice: The Murdaugh Murders.

"As her book's title suggests, it turns out Hill was quite busy behind the doors of justice, thwarting the integrity of the justice system she was sworn to protect. uphold," the justices wrote. "The book was pulled from publication because Hill plagiarized portions of it."

The justices said Hill denied making most of the comments jurors claimed she had, though she admitted that on the day of Murdaugh's testimony, "within earshot of some jurors", she spoke to the bailiff about his decision to take the stand,. told the jurors it was a "big day".

During Murdaugh's murder trial, the jury heard accusations that for years, he had been stealing from his law partners. clients to feed an addiction to painkillers and an extravagant lifestyle.

They argued that he killed his wife and son in an attempt to conceal years of financial corruption. Murdaugh had pleaded not guilty in the case.

The next year, Murdaugh was sentenced to 40 years in prison at a separate trial for federal financial crimes.

The supreme court did not take up Murdaugh's financial crimes case,. said too much evidence from that case was allowed to be included in his murder trial, giving "rise to considerable danger of unfair prejudice".

A new trial date has yet to be set in the case,. legal experts say jury selection in such a high-profile case could mark an uphill battle.

"Finding fair. impartial jurors that can leave anything they may have seen or heard outside of the courtroom will be difficult," said New York Law School professor Anna Cominsky. "

It will be the rare juror that knows nothing about the case. rather they will be looking for jurors that can contain their analysis to only the evidence in front of them during the new trial."