Becky Hill, Judge Newman, jurors may testify in Murdaugh’s appeal hearing, lawyers say

In a filing in the S.C. Supreme Court, attorneys for convicted killer Alex Murdaugh say jurors, Colleton County Clerk of Court Becky Hill and possibly Judge Clifton Newman should testify in an upcoming hearing about whether Hill unduly influenced jurors at Murdaugh’s murder trial last winter.

At least four jurors — identified in the filing only by their numbers — will be able to testify that Hill made questionable statements to them about Murdaugh’s guilt during the trial, Murdaugh’s lawyers said in a 32-page court filing. As a general rule, neither officials nor anyone else is supposed to make statements to jurors about evidence during a trial or while they are deliberating.

Two hearings are scheduled for later this month on the allegations. They are a major part of the Murdaugh lawyers’ quest for a new trial because, they contend, Murdaugh’s constitutional rights to a fair trial were violated by Hill’s alleged improper tampering with several jurors. Murdaugh, who says he is innocent, is now serving two life sentences in state prison for killing his wife, Maggie, and son Paul.

First, a one-day hearing has been scheduled for lawyers for Tuesday, Jan. 16, to discuss the legal issues raised in the defense filing and a state filing that has not been made public.

A second hearing that will likely feature witnesses and evidence is slated to begin Monday, Jan. 29, and last several days.

Both hearings will be at the Richland County courthouse. Judge Jean Toal, a retired S.C. Supreme Court chief justice, will preside. The judge who presided over Murdaugh’s murder trial last year, Clifton Newman, has retired.

The defense filing made it clear that Hill’s credibility will be intensely scrutinized during the upcoming hearings.

“If they testify consistently with their affidavits and witness interviews, Juror 630 will testify Ms. Hill said they should not be fooled by the defense and that they should watch Mr. Murdaugh’s body language with suspicion when he testified in his own defense, Juror 785 will testify that Ms. Hill told them not to be fooled by the defense, Juror 741 will testify that Ms. Hill told them not to let the defense confuse or convince them, and Juror 254 will testify that Ms. Hill told them to watch Mr. Murdaugh’s body language when he testified in his own defense,” the filing said.

When not in the courtroom, the jurors were typically split between the jury room and Judge Perry Bruckner’s office, according to the filing. Murdaugh’s attorneys have argued that Hill made the statements in question to the jurors in the jury room. In an attempt to head off a possible strategy by the prosecution, Griffin and Harpootlian have objected to the testimony of jurors who were in Judge Bruckner’s office.

It is part of a larger argument made by Murdaugh’s attorneys to head off a possible strategy by the state to present “a cascade of witnesses,” including other jurors, bailiffs and court staff, who would testify that they “never heard Ms. Hill make inappropriate statements” to the jury.

But this is immaterial to the jury tampering charges, according to Griffin and Harpootlian. “There are millions of people in South Carolina who did not hear Ms. Hill say what certain jurors heard her say, because they were not in the room with them,” Murdaugh’s attorneys wrote.

“The only witness to directly contradict the testimony of these jurors will be Ms. Hill,” said the defense filing by Murdaugh’s lawyers, Dick Harpootlian, Jim Griffin, Phil Barber and Margaret Fox.

“The only witness to directly contradict the testimony of these jurors will be Ms. Hill, but even she admits she met with the jury foreperson ‘a few times’ to discuss“ jurors who were having a hard time with anxiety during the trial and the foreperson’s “ability to keep the peace within the jury room due to many large personalities,” the filing states.

In a preview of the arguments they intend to make at the hearing at the end of the month, Griffin and Harpootlian wrote that the law does not require them to prove that Hill’s statement affected the outcome of the trial. Instead, Murdaugh should be granted a new trial if it can be proved that Hill’s statements harmed his constitutional right to a fair trial.

The South Carolina Attorney General’s office, which prosecuted Murdaugh, has made its own filing, but for the time being that filing is not public.

“In accordance with procedures provided by Chief Justice Toal, our brief was sent directly to the Judge and the parties yesterday (Wednesday, Jan. 10) but will not be publicly filed until a later time; no later than the evidentiary hearing,” an Attorney General’s spokesman said Thursday in an email to The State.

Hill’s attorney, Will Lewis, declined comment.

In an affidavit, Hill has denied any improper contact with jurors.

”Ms. Hill’s denials should not be credited because her many acts of fraud and dishonesty, which will be explored and detailed during cross-examination, demonstrate that she has a character for untruthfulness.... With Ms. Hill’s denials uncredited, the juror testimony will be uncontroverted,” the filing said.

The filing also referred to Hill’s efforts to promote her book that went on sale in August, an insider account of the Murdaugh trial called “Behind the Doors of Justice.” Sales were halted on the book late last month after Hill was discovered to have plagiarized part of it from a BBC story about the case.

In a reference an investigation of Hill by the South Carolina Law Enforcement Division, the defense filing said, “Ms. Hill especially is an elected public official accused of malfeasance in office, whom Mr. Murdaugh has accused of violating his constitutional rights in a criminal proceeding.”

The defense filing went on to say that Hill has “voluntarily provided an affidavit directly contradicting Mr. Murdaugh’s claims (of jury tampering). She does not need to be shielded from scrutiny in the same manner as anonymous jurors involuntarily summoned to serve. She is a witness against Mr. Murdaugh in a criminal case whom Mr. Murdaugh has a right to challenge in open court.”

The defense filing said, “Jurors 254, 630, 741, and 785 have not appeared on television or otherwise given interviews or sought any publicity for themselves. They have not sought any payment for their story. They did not seek to be placed on this jury, they have maintained their anonymity ever since, and they have nothing to gain from false testimony. Their testimony therefore should be credited over the testimony of a Clerk of Court who has been repeatedly caught seeking wrongful money and publicity from this case, even going so far as to writing a book about the case that was removed from publication for her plagiarism.”

The defense filing also said Murdaugh’s lawyers do not object to jurors testifying in camera, a legal expression meaning out of sight of the public. But the questioning should be done by Murdaugh’s lawyers, not the judge, because the lawyers are intimately acquainted with details of the situation, the filing said.

The defense filing also raised the possibility that Judge Newman could testify.

“If testimony is needed from Judge Newman, Mr. Murdaugh believes it should also be conducted by the Court in camera, to preserve the dignity of his judicial office,” the filing said.

The defense filing also contends that:

▪ All the defense team needs to prove to get a new trial is that Hill made improper statements to jurors. (State prosecutors contend that the defense also needs to prove that the jurors were influenced by the statements.)

▪ Hill helped engineer the dismissal of a juror who would have been favorable to Murdaugh.

▪ Hill improperly sent “emails directly to prosecutors and law enforcement witnesses for the State during trial about the merits of testimony from defense witnesses under examination at that moment.” The emails went to lead prosecutor Creighton Waters and one of his top assistants, Carly Jewell, the filing said.