Criminal Practice – Improper Jury Influence – Constitutional Right to a Fair Trial

Improper jury influence by Colleton County Clerk of Court Rebecca Hill deprived appellant Richard Alexander Murdaugh of his constitutional right to a fair trial before an impartial jury.

The South Carolina Supreme Court reversed Murdaugh’s murder convictions and ordered a new trial. Although the court acknowledged the significant resources devoted to the six-week, nationally watched murder trial, it determined that Hill’s conduct fundamentally undermined the integrity of the proceedings and required reversal. The court held that Murdaugh was entitled to a new trial because Hill improperly inserted herself into the jury process and made comments that effectively encouraged jurors to distrust Murdaugh and reject his defense.

Murdaugh argued that Hill tampered with the jury by instructing jurors not to be “fooled” by defense evidence, encouraging them to scrutinize his behavior and testimony, pressuring them to quickly reach a verdict, and allegedly involving herself in efforts concerning the dismissal of a juror believed to be favorable to the defense. Multiple jurors testified about hearing remarks from Hill suggesting Murdaugh should be watched carefully and that his testimony was especially significant. Witnesses also described Hill’s broader conduct surrounding the trial, including testimony that she sought publicity and believed a guilty verdict would help sell a book she intended to publish. The court found that Hill’s denials lacked credibility and that the record supported findings that she repeatedly made statements aimed at influencing jurors’ perceptions of Murdaugh.

The court adopted and clarified application of the federal framework derived from Remmer v. United States, holding that when a defendant shows outside contacts with jurors were more than innocuous interactions, prejudice is presumed and the burden shifts to the State to prove there was no reasonable possibility the verdict was affected. The court found Hill’s comments crossed well beyond harmless procedural communications and instead directly targeted Murdaugh’s credibility and the merits of his defense. Her status as clerk of court amplified the seriousness of the misconduct because jurors naturally would attach significance to statements from a court official overseeing the proceedings.

The court further held that the State failed to overcome the presumption of prejudice. It rejected arguments that only a few jurors heard the comments or that the evidence against Murdaugh was overwhelming. The court reasoned that credibility was central to Murdaugh’s defense and Hill’s remarks struck at the heart of that issue. Because the jury process had been tainted by improper external influence, the court concluded that reversal was required and remanded the case for a new trial. It also offered guidance on evidentiary issues likely to recur on remand, particularly concerning the admissibility of evidence relating to Murdaugh’s financial crimes.

Reversed and remanded.

The State v. Murdaugh (Lawyers Weekly No. 010-014-26, 27 pp.) (Per Curiam) Appealed from Colleton County Circuit Court (Clifton Newman, J., and Jean Hoefer Toal, J.) Richard A. Harpootlian, Phillip Donald Barber, and Andrew R. Hand, all of Richard A. Harpootlian, P.A.; James Mixon Griffin and Margaret Nicole Fox, both of Griffin Humphries LLC, all of Columbia, for Appellant. Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson, Deputy Attorney General Donald J. Zelenka, Senior Assistant Deputy Attorney General Samuel Creighton Waters, Senior Assistant Deputy Attorney General Melody Jane Brown, Senior Assistant Deputy Attorney General Mark Reynolds Farthing, and Assistant Attorney General Joshua Abraham Edwards, all of Columbia, for Respondent. South Carolina Supreme Court