COLUMBIA, S.C. — Alex Murdaugh’s defense team has filed a motion for a new trial.
The disgraced former lowcountry lawyer was convicted of killing his wife, Maggie, and son, Paul, back in March. He was sentenced to two life sentences in prison.
Now, his lawyers are asking for an investigation by the FBI and have filed a motion to get a new trial because they say the Colleton County Clerk of Court tampered with the jury.
“Alex Murdaugh maintains and still maintains his innocence in the murder of Maggie and Paul, and believes the truth will only prevail,” lawyer Dick Harpootlian said to media from all across the nation.
Harpootlian was joined by attorneys Jim Griffin and Phillip Barber. Together, the team explained their 65-page motion, which details why they think Clerk of Court Becky Hill tampered with the jury.
“I've been doing this almost 50 years,” Harpootlian said. “The bedrock of any trial, and I've done hundreds of them, is that the clerk of court is the person that makes sure the jury gets the food. If they're put up for the night someplace to stay. their travel accommodations are met. They're not someone that ever should talk to them about the case. And I've never had it happen.”
The defense’s motion for a stay of appeal and for a new trial argues that: Hill had private conversations with jurors about the case, asked jurors about their opinions about whether Murdaugh was guilty, instructed jurors not to believe evidence, lied to the judge to remove a juror who Hill believed was going to vote guilty and pressured the jury to make a decision quickly.
The motion alleges that Hill told jurors who smoked that they were not allowed to take smoke breaks during the jury’s deliberation. Through the rest of the trial, however, the defense claims the six jurors who smoked were able to take breaks.
The motion also details various private conversations that Hill allegedly had with the jury foreperson, including at the visit to Moselle.
It also details the defense’s allegation that Hill fabricated seeing a Facebook post that ended up getting a juror excused.
“Was the subject matter of the improper private conversation material to the defense? If it's immaterial, like, ‘What do you want to have for dinner? Do you want to take a smoke break? You want to go home?’ Those are immaterial matters, but when the subject matter is and as reported under oath by these jurors, it was a direction on how you should receive Alex Murdaugh's testimony, ‘You should look at him. Don't be fooled by him,’ that subject matter is absolutely material,” Griffin said. “That is the core of our defense. And that is something that we had no chance to defend against. And so we strongly believe if that evidence is accurate, then the law will require a new trial.”
This comes after Griffin said Murdaugh’s team investigated and knocked on jurors’ doors once they heard rumors of potential tampering. Jurors weren’t interested in speaking, Griffin said, until Hill came out with her tell-all book in August.
“We didn’t stop investigating, but we were hitting brick walls until the book came out,” Griffin said. “And then jurors who obviously were not comfortable with how she handled matters were even less comfortable with her going on a book tour and making money off what she did. That's what was reported to us.”
Then, Griffin said he and his team presented the affidavits to their client, Alex Murdaugh.
“He's a lawyer. He was astonished,” Griffin said about Murdaugh’s reaction from behind bars. “He was shaking. He was in disbelief.”
“The clerk of court is an elected official by the people, not appointed by the judge, not appointed by the judiciary, as a public official is elected and is an independent state actor,” Griffin said. “And so that what we're complaining about in the motion that we filed today is the conduct of an elected official, not conduct by Judge Newman or anybody in the unified court system.”
News 19 reached out to Hill for comment. As of this story’s deadline, she has not gotten back to us.
South Carolina lawyer Alex Postic is not related to this case at all, but did share his opinion on the frequency that motions for a new trial are granted.
“I’ve never seen it happen. I'm sure it has, but I've never seen it,” Postic said. “And I think the standard is would that evidence be likely to cause a new outcome in the case? Is it not just cumulative or impeachable evidence? Is it truly after discovered evidence? It’s not something that could have been discovered by due diligence before the trial or during the trial? So I think that's the standard.”
But Griffin said, “I am very optimistic that, ultimately, we will get a new trial. How long that will take? I don’t know.”
The South Carolina Attorney General’s Office said it is “currently reviewing the defense’s latest motion and will respond through the legal process at the appropriate time."
“Everything, we’ve alleged, everything in those affidavits, is serious,” Harpootlian said. “This is a very serious matter.”
When asked about a timeline, the defense team said there is none. Harpootlian did say, however, that the SC Court of Appeals told them that the attorney general’s office has 10 days to respond to the motion.
Attorney Joe McCulloch said he is representing two jurors who have given sworn affidavits that the defense team alleges show potential jury tampering.
“Jurors have come forward reluctantly. They have given their best recollections. And now it falls to the court to figure out what to do with this,” McCulloch said. “They are serious allegations. The explanation may be less serious. I think that what happens from here is a defining moment for our court system.”
“Nothing about this case has failed to surprise me,” attorney Joe McCulloch said about the six-week trial that garnered national attention.
“This case continues to astound and amaze, and it continues to echo the past, so am I completely surprised?” McCulloch said. “No.”