RICHLAND COUNTY, S.C. — In less than two weeks, Alex Murdaugh will be back in court, fighting to get a new murder trial. In March, he was convicted of murdering his wife and son and sentenced to life in prison. Now, Murdaugh’s defense team claims the Colleton County Clerk of Court tampered with the jury.
At the status conference on Tuesday, Justice Jean Toal lay the groundwork for the upcoming evidentiary hearing. As for the jurors, she decided that only the 12 people who deliberated would be questioned. When it comes to Clerk of Court Becky Hill, Justice Toal decided the questions will be narrowly tailored, focusing only on what exactly Hill said, how she said it and how that impacted the jury’s final verdict.
To get an idea of what that all means ahead of the hearing, News 19 spoke with a local attorney.
“This is a kind of a new area of law that we don't see too often,” criminal defense attorney Taylor Bell explained.
Bell is not related to the Murdaugh case, but has been following along as it has unfolded.
“Most cases end when the jury comes back and then you have your appeal and then a decision is made on whether or not the law was followed, not a decision based on whether or not there was jury misconduct,” Bell said.
But that’s how this case is moving forward.
“Becky Hill has gotten a target on her back since this case. Since there was any type of inkling that she had done anything improper, the defense has latched on to that trying to make her the subject matter of the new trial, not Alex and whether or not he actually committed the murder or not, which the verdict came back as guilty,” Bell detailed.
“As it involves questions to Miss Hill similarly, this is not a time to explore every mistake or incorrect statement or false statement that ever has been made by this witness,” Justice Toal said in court.
As Bell explains it, Toal narrowed the scope of questioning for the hearing, where she’ll be trying to do two things.
“It's a two-step: first you've got to find the acts actually occurred,” Bell said about the alleged misconduct. “Second, you've got to find that there was actual prejudice, meaning that their decision would have been different, meaning it would have been a not guilty.”
Because of this limited scope, Justice Toal said she would only be calling the 12 jurors who delivered the guilty verdict, despite the defense’s push to question others who served on the jury but were dismissed before deliberation.
“I think to the actual prejudice, that is probably the correct decision, because those 12 jurors are the ones that actually deliberated and had discussions and made the decision on guilt or not guilty,” Bell said about his opinion on Toal’s decision. “Whereas whether the act actually occurred, you know, I think there are other parties that could potentially testify in this matter as to the conduct of Becky Hill because that's the issue in question as to whether or not that conduct was juror misconduct…and if they were in the room and witnessed firsthand something that occurred, to me, I believe that that is open for testimony.”
That is only in terms of “whether the act occurred,” Bell clarified, “not into consideration of whether there was actual prejudice. That should be left to just the 12 jurors.”
When it comes to that group of jurors’ testimony, however, Bell says there’s a question of what they might say.
“The bigger question is, does it mean that all jurors or just one? Because you only need one juror to get a hung jury,” Bell said. “And if one juror comes back that says, ‘Yes, this did affect my decision-making,’ what will Justice Toal’s decision be?”
It’s a decision Toal says she’ll make based on her own questioning of the jurors and Hill.
“I think I'm also perfectly capable of evaluating the credibility of Miss Hill and the jurors for that matter,” Toal said to defense attorney Dick Harpootlian in court.
When it comes to what that looks like, Bell says this process is known as “sua sponte.”
“That's kind of how I take this, that she is going to be doing the questioning outside the presence of the jury to get a determination of what is relevant to her inquiry because she's the finder of fact here and the finder of the law, so she’s going to decide on credibility,” Bell said. “I guess it's up to her wandering mind as to what she deems to be relevant to her decision-making as to whether or not this is a credible witness or not a credible witness, meaning to believe this witness or not to believe this witness.”
Toal will be conducting the questioning all in front of media and spectators, which Bell said was surprising to him.
“Given the openness and the publicity of this case, I believe it was probably more of a smart decision on her behalf to keep everything open in the public's view so there can't be questions down the road of ‘Was that what was really said back there?” Bell explained about the possible thought behind the decision.
Because of that decision, we’ll be able to watch it all starting on Jan. 29.
“I'm not sure what to expect at this hearing. I do believe that our court is designed to put the decisions of fact and guilt or not guilty in the hands of our peers, which is those 12 jurors that made that decision,” Bell said. “If we're going back and second-guessing the decision by those 12 jurors, I think the courts kind of maybe shun upon that a bit and that's not necessarily what the inquiry wants to be on every case.”
Bell says he thinks this decision was an attempt at transparency, citing the discussion about “whether or not we have a fair and just judicial system here in South Carolina.”
“I think this was a push towards showing that we do and that we have open courts here while still protecting those jurors,” Bell elaborated. “It's a learning environment for us lawyers, criminal defense, prosecution in learning more about how the justice system works and to make it a better justice system overall.”
All of these decisions were based on case law from South Carolina specifically, which Toal referenced at the beginning of the status conference.
“I do intend to tell you right away that I will be relying on South Carolina’s jurisprudence and South Carolina’s jurisprudence specifically on what must be proved in a hearing of this nature and who bears the burden of this proof,” Toal said. “All those cases say that prejudice must be proved, not presumed.”
“She's smart. I think she made a good decision. Whether or not I think is the correct decision, obviously from the defense, I'm going to always argue that my client, you know, should get the case of law that benefits them best. And that's what a defense lawyer does, right?” Bell remarked, referencing Toal’s choice to rely on South Carolina jurisprudence. “Your right to a jury trial actually goes back to the federal constitution. So if it implicates the right to a fair trial underneath the federal constitution, the federal cases would then control, but she looked at what has been decided on by our Supreme Court here in South Carolina, and deferred to that as the controlling law in this case.”