Alex Murdaugh was convicted of killing his wife, Maggie, and younger son, Paul, in June 2021
COLUMBIA, S.C. — Alex Murdaugh's lawyers are arguing for a new trial for the convicted murderer at a hearing at the Supreme Court of South Carolina.
Live coverage of the hearing is streaming now in the video player above and on WLTX+, News19's free TV streaming app.
Murdaugh was convicted of the June 2021 murders of his wife, Maggie, and youngest son, Paul, in March 2023. His lawyers, Dick Harpootlian, Jim Griffin, and Phil Barber, will present arguments of jury tampering and an appeal of the January 2024 decision to not grant Murdaugh a new trial as reasons to grant their client a new trial. The arguments will be in two parts:
- Appeal from 2024 denial of motion for a new trial: Harpootlian against State prosecutor Creighton Waters, each side gets 20 minutes to present arguments
- Arguments stemming from the appeal of the underlying trial: Griffin against Waters, 20 minutes each side
- Reply from the defense: Barber gets 10 minutes
Court is scheduled to begin at 9:30 a.m. There will not be a decision made in court today, it may be a matter of months before a decision is made for a new trial.
Updates on the hearing will be found below:
12:16 p.m. Chief Justice addresses and praises both sides on their presentations and arguments. Court is adjourned.
11:57 a.m. Phil Barber handles the defense's reply.
Chief Justice: Waters is trying to defend the admissibility of 404 factfinding for his theory of motive. Can you address the issue?
Barber said, “Look at what was actually admitted, victim impact statements, Mr. Waters had a theme throughout his questions “did you really know Mr. Murdaugh”. “because you don’t really know be you don’t really know that I’m evil…..” “that was the purpose of that evidence.”
Barber wants to speak to the cell phone evidence: the iPhone has a data base that records when the screen turns on and off. A separate feature records orientation. Maggie's phone was lit consistently and stayed on while Alex was trying to call Maggie's phone and goes off before 9:08 p.m., before it is found alongside the road.
The phone had to have been thrown out before 9:08 p.m., the time of the murder.
Chief Justice: Is there any dispute that Murdaugh, called 9-1-1 20 seconds after he arrived?
No, Onstar and phone logs agree.
The only evidence was the testimony deemed uncredible at the initial trial was by Becky Hill. Toal found there was improper comments made but the verdict would have been the same is an error of law.
Justice asks about the tool mark on the cartridges: criticism of how to reach a conclusion is more about the application of the theory rather than the validity of the process. Barber connects the tool test to that of DNA testing, you have to quantify the definition of marks.
11:25 a.m. Waters goes through his side, his case boiled down to motive, means to commit the crime (two family weapons unaccounted for after the incident), opportunity (patterns of behavior in regard to Alex's movement that night) and acts of guilty conscious.
Waters said defense called cell phone forensics expert to show even a gentle movement would cause a rise to wake feature on the iPhone. The State's counter was that if a gentle movement would trigger a rise to wake, a violent motion would not trigger the same reaction because the phone is constructed and programmed in a way to ignore "violent" motions such as jogging or running with a phone, or, in this case, tossing a phone.
Justice: Why take Maggie's phone and not Paul's?
Waters says Alex had Maggie's passcode but not Paul's. Paul's phone showed Paul was in an active conversation with a friend, Rogan Gibson, when Paul's phone went inactive. Alex also calls Rogan Gibson and Maggie's phone multiple times after Paul's phone becomes inactive. Leaving Moselle in haste, Waters says, Alex tossed Maggie's phone.
Justice Verdin: “I’m not asking you specifically in this case, but in general how plausible does motive have to be”
Waters: “The trial judge has to evaluate evidence under 404 analysis, and is the gatekeeper for evidence”
Chief Justice: was there any 404 evidence that was denied?
Chief Justice: Our version of case law is exclusion not included, the grandeur detail and how everything under the sun was allowed is arguably problematic” “Tony Satterfield we had to hear about the disabled brother, how does that relate to motive evidence”
Waters: Satterfield was part of the gathering storm of pressure that eventually led to Murdaugh killing his wife and son.
Chief Justice: The sympathy of the victim of the crime is not related to the motive.
Justice Few: If you had condensed your theory of motive, and left out all the other stuff, what is the level of inquiry that the trial judge goes into if it's a logical motive.
Waters: This is complicated. The motive is not an element, it is the element. What is relevant is that he knows what is about to come out, it's all interconnected and you cannot truly understand the boiling point if you don't understand the slow burn.
Justice Few: the disconnect, how do you get from the financial issues to murdering your wife and son?
Waters: I think the trial judge makes the determination if it's a reasonable inference from the evidence and it should go to the jury.
Justice Few: I am struggling with the logical connection...
Waters: This is not just a speculative motive, it all ties together. Ultimately, if you look at the validity of this, it (the motive) actually worked. Paul became the liability, Maggie's name is on the property at Edisto and Moselle when this (the murders) is happening. Everything changed. All inquiries stopped, the boat inquiries stopped.
“Even though this a unique case, a life time set of facts that we might not see again, unique individual, unique set of family circumstances….it was all about to come unraveled…when this took place his liability went away and so did all those hounds at the gate”
Judge Few: During cross-examination about the Blackout 300 cartridge's tool markings, the State's expert witness fails to discuss the central theory of the method
Waters: looking at the testimony, the witness went over SLED procedures, historic procedures and the applicability and reliability of the science. Another blind examiner came to the same conclusions.
10:53 a.m. Jim Griffin takes over the argument for a new trial: Five evidentiary instances that affected the trial -- court omitted evidence from a cellphone, gunshot residue form a blue raincoat was actually a blue tarp, excessive financial evidence admitted, firearms testimony based on unproven testing procedures.
No time of death was established.
No physical evidence, no eyewitnesses to the deaths of Maggie and Paul
Not an overwhelming evidence case, cell phone and automotive data "proves" Murdaugh's innocence
A week after defense's expert witness
Justice James: What is Griffin's theory as to when Maggie's phone was tossed out the window?
Justice James: If Murdaugh had thrown the phone out the window, would it have registered a movement in its position? Whoever put the phone where it was found on the side of the road
Judge Verdin, you (Griffin) cross-examined the witness who conducted the phone and whether or not it registered a movement.
James, the "phone expert" was called an experiment by the prosecution and Judge Newman and was an opinion, not expert testimony.
Chief Justice: should the financial evidence (where Murdaugh was found to have been taking funds from clients and his law firm) been presented as a motive for the murder?
Griffin: “I still don’t think it's(financial evidence) motive, for motive it has to be the person murdered was the victim, a threat to report the crime, person murdered has life insurance, or would get them out of financial hardship.”
Judge Few: you make good arguments for the jury. At what extent does the trial judge consider the theory of motive to clearly allow evidence into court?
Griffin: It should be "more than a prosecutor's best theory."
Judge Few: “perhaps this looming cloud would have given him motive to do harm to someone who was going to blow the whistle on him, but according to you too many serpations of murdering his wife and child." Was there any evidence Maggie had an idea of Alex's financial situation?
Judge Few reads the testimony of Murdaugh when Waters is questioning Alex's credibility where Waters asks if Alex lied about his financial crimes to his partners, his family and others. Few asks if the information would have come into the trial anyway?
Griffin: Yes, but not in such wide scope.
What about the admissibility of the weapons that were found at Moselle? Griffin says it was to prejudice the jury against Murdaugh.
Judge Vern, after the guns were admitted into evidence, were they ever used again? Yes, they were used to be demonstrative, Griffin objected to the guns going into the jury room during deliberation.
Again with the phones, what does it mean with the cell phone extraction that there was a call on the Verizon list not on Alex's phone, about 10 or 12 calls deleted from Alex's phone. Was there any explanation as to why there were deletions? Griffin says it did not come up in court.
10:47 a.m. In-studio, lawyer Dayne Phillips was asked how he is leaning so far after this morning's proceedings. Phillips says, Murdaugh was denied his right to a fair trial, purely as a legal issue. It is a fundamental bedrock issue and an outside influence cannot be allowed. Phillips says if Murdaugh is granted a new trial it could still be years before the actual trial takes place.
The next portion of today's hearing will be the relevance of the financial evidence presented in the murder trial.
10:35 a.m., a 10-minute break is announced
9:33 a.m., Supreme Court justices enter the courtroom. Judge Kitteridge says lawyers will have five minutes of uninterrupted arguments before the justices will begin to ask questions.
Defense attorney Dick Harpootlian begins his argument, thanking the court and remembering as Chief Justice Wilson swore him in to the SC Bar 51 years ago, he swore to uphold the Constitution and is honored to argue the 6th Amendment of the Constitution -- right of a fair trial --today. Harpootlian said he has never seen a case where the clerk of court try to influence a case like Becky Hill. He said that Hill had a book deal and had said a guilty verdict "would be better for the sale of books."
Harpootlian then goes over comments allegedly made by Hill to jurors, about "not being fooled" by evidence presented by the defense, to "look at (Murdaugh's) actions."
Harpootlian said Hill had expressed a financial interest to overcome her professional duties.
Harpootlian said Toal was not going to allow lawyers to talk to jurors, then she did. She put onus on the defense to prove burden of influence of Hill on outcome of the trial. Statements by the egg-lady juror and an alternate were not considered in the first hearing for retrial in 2024.
Clerk of court tells everyone she need a guilty verdict to buy a lake house and proceeds to tell jurors how to view Murdaugh's testimony.
Toal found Hill's statements were limited and not an influence and were cured by Judge Newman's charge to the jury to find a verdict based solely on the evidence, the judges ask Harpootlian if this was a statement of fact or of law... Harpootlian says fact that led to statement of law.
Harpootlian said “she (Toal) had a two-prong test (regarding Hill's comments) and how did it affect the verdict? You are asking jurors to unpack what influenced their opinion." He quotes the 1807 trial of Aaron Burr for trying to sell US to Mexico, Justice Marshall said “a juror must be indifferent, true regardless of heinousness, character of accused, or apparent guilt no matter diminishes right to a fair trial."
Chief Justice said they (the judges) understand the gravity of the situation.
Harpootlian says defendants are guaranteed twelve unbiased jurors, a fair trial. The defense spent months with witnesses and jurors interviewing for today's arguments.
Creighton Waters agrees jurors are presumed to take the oath to heart and looking at this particular case, the six-week trial had only a few "fleeting" comments by Hill. Waters says Hill's comments were found neutral by the court and not prejudiced by Toal in the previous arguments for a new trial.
The evidentiary hearing by Toal had Hill testify and Hill's statements were found to be not credible.
Judge Verdin asks Waters about Juror Z, regarding her testimony of the affect of Hill's comments on Z's decisions. Portion's of Juror Z's testimony was found factual, but others not. Toal did not credit portions of Juror Z's testimony because Juror Z allegedly was the only one who heard certain comments/statements by Hill.
Chief Justice says when viewed after the fact, the seemingly innocuous statements take on a very nefarious meaning.
Waters said you have to take in Judge Newman's charge to jurors to not be swayed by outside influences when determining a verdict in the case.
What is relevant is the timing in which the comments took place. Clerk of Court in Barnwell says she never heard Hill talk about case in front of jurors but did hear Hill make comments similar to what some jurors allegedly heard.
Toal did credit the affidavits of eleven of the twelve jurors on the case, and that, Waters says, should be what is being considered in this argument.
Justice Few says argument boils down to what Hill said about Murdaugh. Few says, “There is no eye witness, no DNA, no eye witness to confirm he (Murdaugh) was guilty so the State had to piece together for six weeks, small pieces of evidence to prove he did it.” On his side, whether he is guilty or innocent comes down to one thing, him on the stand saying he didn’t do it."
Waters: what we rely on is not the testimony of Hill before Toal. "I think that Justice Toal did not specifically find that she (Hill) is a liar but did not credit parts of testimony. We don’t rely on testimony of Becky Hill, it is the other 11 other jurors who said there was no improper influence on their verdict.”
Chief Justice asks how to deal with Hill and her testimony? Waters: Hill said she did not remember doing these things, Juror Z is what is in play if there was something egregious, and Toal found Juror Z not credible.
The egg juror was removed the day of deliberation. The egg juror said her husband called her that morning. She had a restraining order against him. Allegedly, she talked to Hill that morning and Hill asked what what the egg juror thought of the case and the egg juror responded that she thought the prosecution was coming up short proving guilt. Hill allegedly told the egg juror to not believe a thing Murdaugh said on the stand.
The justice asks if they should consider the egg juror's affidavit.
Justice asks about "timing": The clerk is the public official the jurors have the first contact with at the courthouse and the last. Administrative face of the court, names on the letterhead of jury summons, she swears the jurors in, all the witness, she coordinates the jury schedule, she's the liaison between the court and the jury, and she reads the verdict, and she signs their paychecks at the end of the trial. Justice is supposed to be blind, court officials are supposed to be mute.. it is only human nature that after 6 week trial the jurors get close with this person.”
Water counters that Hill was not the only person handling the jury and that “No other juror except Egg lady said hill went in depth with them, 11 are credible so it rejects the claims of the others that all have credibility issues.”
Chief Justice notes that even Waters acknowledges Hill's behavior was improper, perhaps not to the point of reversal, but the overwhelming majority of our clerks of court are dedicated public servants and do not act like this.
9:20 a.m. in-studio question: how will the notoriety of the case affect any new trial? It will affect both sides, Phillips says, because the attorneys will have to hone their arguments based on some decisions made today.
Hobbs said the format today will be heavily focused and structured, a lot of specific legal questions will be scrutinized, it will not be like a television drama.
9:10 a.m. from News19's Kiki Gushue inside the courtroom: the courtroom is almost full, the back row is reserved for court officials, the timer has been set to countdown to 9:30 a.m.. Defense attorney Dick Harpootlian and prosecutor Creighton Waters are chatting and looking out into the crowd. Attorney General Alan Wilson has arrived and takes a front row seat.
No photography or recording will be allowed in the courtroom, but reporters will be allowed to use a laptop.
9 a.m. Hobbs says the atmosphere inside the courtroom will be formal and professional, and decorum will be enforced. Phillips says judges will enter the court in order of their status on the court.
8:30 a.m. doors open at the South Carolina Supreme Court building and individuals must go through security check before entering court. Clemson pre-law society members got in line around 5 a.m. in hope to get inside. The hearing is scheduled to begin at 9:30 a.m.
In-studio, attorney Kyle Hobbs says misconduct by court personnel (Becky Hill) is rare in South Carolina; Dayne Phillips says things do happen -- off-hand comments made before jurors -- but the situation with clerk of court Becky Hill is very rare and very few cases are reversed and remanded for a new trial. Hobbs says Hill should have known better because of her exposure and access to the jury in Murdaugh's murder case.
Phillips and Hobbs break down what viewers can expect in court. Murdaugh will not appear in court and will not be able to view the televised proceedings.
Hobbs talks about retired Justice Jean Toal's decision denying the motion for a new trial in 2024. She had interviewed jurors and determined that although Becky Hill may have made comments regarding the case, there was not enough evidence to believe her comments swayed the opinion of the jurors and the outcome of the trial.
Should the financial crimes been included in the murder trial? Phillips said yes, but limited in scope. What was let in, while relevant, in his opinion, was too much. Phillips believes the clerk of court argument is the stronger of the two arguments that will be made today. His personal opinion is that the court will grant Murdaugh a new trial based on prejudice and the wide scope of introduction of Murdaugh's financial crimes.
If granted a new trial, Hobbs believes the new trial will still captivate audiences.
8:15 a.m. In-studio discussion outlines what will be the focus of today's hearing. Justices will be hearing arguments and asking questions of attorneys on both sides of the case. Viewers can ask questions to the attorneys by texting questions to 803-776-9508
8 a.m. Line to get into the courtroom wraps around the building. There is limited seating, and no cameras are allowed inside the courtroom. Pre-law students from the University of South Carolina and Clemson, prominent attorneys, and members of the media are waiting in the line that formed before sunrise.
7:30 a.m. Lawyers Taylor Bell and Dayne Phillips discuss possible jury tampering arguments in the News19 studio; Phillips says the majority of the state Supreme Court justices must agree to grant a new trial; a line forms outside the Supreme Court of South Carolina building for a chance to observe the hearing inside the courtroom.
All day: News19 is streaming live commentary with local legal experts on WLTX+
