Alex Murdaugh murder convictions overturned by South Carolina Supreme Court

The South Carolina Supreme Court has overturned the murder convictions of Alex Murdaugh, who was found guilty of killing his wife and younger son, finding that the court clerk's "improper external influence" on the jury denied him a fair trial.

Murdaugh's wife, Margaret "Maggie" Murdaugh, 52, and younger son, Paul Murdaugh, 22, were found dead from multiple gunshot wounds near the dog kennels at the family's hunting estate in 2021.

Murdaugh was convicted in 2023 of murdering them following a six-week trial, with jurors deliberating for nearly three hours before reaching a guilty verdict.

The five-member court ruled in an unanimous decision that Murdaugh must have a new trial, citing the "breathtaking and disgraceful effort" of former Colleton County Clerk of Court Mary Rebecca "Becky" Hill, the court clerk who served during the double murder trial, to "undermine the jury process."

Hill "egregiously attacked Murdaugh's credibility and his defense, thus triggering the presumption of prejudice, which the State was unable to rebut," the court's opinion stated. "As noted at the outset, Hill's shocking jury interference was accomplished outside the presence and knowledge of the outstanding trial judge and superbly competent and professional counsel for the State and the defense."

In a footnote, the justices said they "commend the post-trial court, which inherited Murdaugh's motion for a new trial and was placed in the unenviable position of evaluating unprecedented jury interference by a clerk of court within the context of a murky area of law."

Following the decision, South Carolina Attorney General Alan Wilson said his office will "aggressively" seek to retry Murdaugh for the murders "as soon as possible" -- possibly by the end of this year.

"Let me be clear -- this decision does not mean Murdaugh will be released," Wilson said in a statement. "He will remain in prison for his financial crimes. No one is above the law and, as always, we will continue to fight for justice."

Murdaugh's lawyers said they "look forward to a new trial conducted consistent with the Constitution."

"Alex has said from day one that he did not kill his wife and son," they said in a statement.

Murdaugh was also convicted on several financial crimes following the murder trial and is serving a 27-year sentence on state charges and a 40-year sentence on federal charges related to those crimes.

In the murder trial, prosecutors made the case that Murdaugh, who comes from a legacy of prominent attorneys in the Lowcountry region, killed his wife and son to gain sympathy and distract from his financial wrongdoings, while the defense argued that police ignored the possibility that anyone else could have killed them.

Murdaugh has continued to maintain his innocence about the deaths of his wife and son. His defense alleged that jury tampering and evidentiary errors -- including the inclusion of his financial crimes -- denied him a fair trial.

Murdaugh's attorneys contend that Hill tampered with the jury by "advising it not to believe Murdaugh's testimony and other defense evidence, pressuring it to reach a quick guilty verdict, misrepresenting information to the trial court in an attempt to have the court remove a juror she believed to favor the defense."

During oral arguments before the state Supreme Court justices on the matter in February, the defense alleged that Hill tampered with the jury to ensure a guilty verdict because, they claimed, it would help her sell more copies of a book she would go on to write about the high-profile case.

Murdaugh's defense claimed that Hill influenced the verdict through remarks heard by some jurors during the trial, including in one instance to watch Murdaugh's body language during his testimony, according to court filings.

"The clerk of court allowed public attention of the moment to overcome her duty," Murdaugh's attorney, Dick Harpootlian, said during the February hearing.

Lead prosecutor Creighton Waters countered during the hearing that Hill made a "few fleeting comments" over the course of a six-week trial that included nearly 90 witnesses and almost 600 exhibits, arguing that they weren't enough to influence the verdict.

Chief Justice John Kittredge called Hill a "rogue clerk of court" during the hearing and said he wanted to make note that the "overwhelming majority" of clerks in the state are "dedicated, conscientious public servants" who "do not act like this."

Hill resigned as the Colleton County clerk of court in March 2024, amid the South Carolina Law Enforcement Division's investigation into allegations she may have abused her government position for financial gain.

She pleaded guilty in December 2025 to obstruction of justice, perjury and misconduct in office for showing photographs that were sealed court evidence to a reporter during the trial and then later lying about doing so on the stand during a hearing related to Murdaugh's bid for a new trial.

The charges did not allege any jury tampering, and she denied any tampering with the jury during her testimony.

The state supreme court's opinion did not address all of the evidentiary issues raised by Murdaugh, ordering a new trial on the basis of Hill's behavior alone, though the justices did address the "thorny issue" of the admissibility of his financial crimes, which supported the state's theory of motive. The justices found that the trial court acted within its discretion in admitting some evidence of the offenses, though they did note that the evidence could have been presented in a "fraction" of the 12.5 hours the state spent on it during the trial.

If the trial court decides to admit evidence of Murdaugh's financial crimes on retrial, prosecutors "must complete its introduction of that evidence efficiently without the lengthy presentation of inflammatory details with little to no probative value that was permitted in the first trial," the opinion stated.

Waters addressed the court's guardrails during a press briefing Wednesday.

"The Supreme Court multiple times in the order said that this was viable evidence of motive, but ultimately gave us some guidance about the extent," he said. "That's how it works. You know, you don't hit a home run if you're afraid to strike out."