What Becky Hill did that led to a new murder trial for Alex Murdaugh
The South Carolina Supreme Court sent shockwaves across the Palmetto State and beyond Wednesday when it announced it was overturning Alex Murdaugh’s double murder conviction in the 2021 deaths of his wife, Maggie, and youngest son Paul.
While the S.C. Supreme Court justices, who were unanimous in their ruling, said the prosecution did not meet the burden of proof it required to uphold the convictions, it was clear that one person’s actions were the greatest reason that Murdaugh will have a retrial on the murder charges.
Former Colleton County Court Clerk Rebecca “Becky” Hill tampered with the jury and prevented the disgraced and disbarred attorney from receiving a fair trial, the S.C. Supreme Court said in Wednesday’s ruling. The S.C. Supreme Court said it had “no choice,” but to grant Murdaugh a new trial in circuit court, because of “Hill’s improper external influences on the jury.”
“The breathtaking and disgraceful effort of Hill to undermine the jury process is unprecedented in South Carolina,” the ruling said.
What did Hill do that caused the S.C. Supreme Court justices to say that she “placed her fingers on the scales of justice, thereby denying Murdaugh his right to a fair trial by an impartial jury?”
Murdaugh’s attorney’s, Dick Harpootlian and Jim Griffin, contended that Hill:
- Advised the jury not to believe his testimony and other defense evidence
- Pressured the jury to reach a quick guilty verdict
- Misrepresented information to the trial court in an attempt to have the court remove a juror she believed to favor the defense
Tipping the scales?
How was Hill able to have such an impact?
As clerk of court, Hill was responsible to attending to jurors’ needs and helping prosecutors, defense attorneys and the judge with court affairs to make the trial run smoothly.
It was the access and influence on the jurors that Murdaugh’s legal team attacked and the S.C. Supreme Court ruled upon.
Harpootlian and Griffin first lobbied for a new trial for Murdaugh in October 2023, using affidavidts from multiple jurors from the original trial to support their motion.
One juror, identified in the S.C. Supreme Court ruling as Juror Z, told the lawyers that Hill instructed jurors to watch Murdaugh’s actions and to watch him closely.
Juror Z explained Hill’s statements influenced her finding Murdaugh guilty because “to me, it felt like she made it seem like he was already guilty,” the ruling said. “Toward the end of the trial ... before Mr. Murdaugh testified, the clerk of court, Rebecca Hill, told the jury ‘not to be fooled” by the evidence presented by Mr. Murdaugh’s attorneys, which I understood to mean that Mr. Murdaugh would lie when he testifies.’ ”
Juror Z testified that when the jury began deliberations, Hill told the jury, “This shouldn’t take us long.”
Juror Z went on to say “I had questions about Mr. Murdaugh’s guilt.” But she felt influenced to find Murdaugh guilty by Hill’s remarks and additional pressure from the other jurors to reach a guilty verdict, the ruling said.
Another juror, Juror P, testified that on the day Murdaugh was to take the stand, Hill made a comment to “watch his body language.” But he denied Hill’s comments influenced him in any way.
Following the jurors’ testimony, Hill was called as a witness. Although Hill denied making most of the comments the jurors related, she admitted that on the day Murdaugh testified, and within earshot of some jurors, she spoke to the bailiff about Murdaugh’s decision to testify, according to the ruling.
She said that she gave the jurors a “little talk,” instructing them to pay attention and that the day was a “big day,” but she denied attempting to influence the jury, the ruling said.
Juror 785, who was dismissed on the day deliberations began for allegedly discussing the case with third parties, also said that Hill crossed lines, the ruling shows. Juror 785 said that Hill interrogated her about the social media posts at one point believed to have been shared by her ex-husband and whether the juror had been in contact with her ex.
According to an affidavit from Murdaugh’s defense team, Juror 785 said Hill, knowing the juror’s fears about her ex-husband, informed her that law enforcement officers questioned the ex-husband about the posts, offered to reinstate restraining orders Juror 785 had against him, and speculated that the “the Murdaughs probably got to” the ex-husband when he called Juror 785 on the morning of the verdict.
Juror 785 said Hill asked her whether she and the other jurors were inclined to vote guilty or not and told her that everything Murdaugh said had been lies, according to the ruling. She also said that before Murdaugh testified, Hill told the jurors not to be “fooled by” the evidence Murdaugh’s attorneys presented, the ruling said.
An alternate juror described to Murdaugh’s legal team an incident where Hill made comments before Murdaugh mounted his defense, according to the ruling. While the jurors were assembled in one of the two jury rooms or standing in the hall, Hill stood at the doorway and told them, “They’re going to say things that will try to confuse you. Don’t let them confuse you or convince you or throw you off,” the ruling said.
Rhonda McElveen, the Barnwell County Clerk of Court who assisted Hill with the trial, testified that, after hearing Hill had given a juror a ride home, McElveen counseled her that it was inappropriate, and while Hill admitted she gave the juror a ride, she claimed the bailiff was with them, and they did not discuss the case.
Although McElveen did not hear Hill say anything inappropriate to the jurors, she stated that Hill made comments to her, staff and media members strikingly similar to those Juror Z reported, such as advising them not to be fooled by Murdaugh’s attorneys and to look at Murdaugh’s actions and movements while he testified.
“We have no reason to find Hill did not make all of the statements the jurors reported,” justices said in the ruling. “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 prosecution and Murdaugh’s defense.
Why did she do it?
Why would Hill tamper with the jury? The quest for fame and fortune is the culprit, according to the ruling.
More than 20 books have been written about the Murdaugh saga. Many more are likely to come now that a retrial has been ordered.
One of the authors of a book immediately following the 2023 trial was Hill. She collaborated with co-author Neil R. Gordon to write “Behind the Doors of Justice: The Murdaugh Murders.”
Plans for the book were in the works during the trial. Court rulings have found that Hill wanted to write a book, which she believed a guilty verdict would help sell more copies.
McElveen testified that Hill repeatedly told her she wanted to write a book so she could buy a lake house, and a guilty verdict would be the best way to sell books, the ruling shows.
Additionally, McElveen testified that Hill seated a writer with court personnel, and this person wrote the foreword for Hill’s book.
In discussing her book, Hill said there’s a passage in it which she stated she believed Murdaugh was guilty but was concerned he would be acquitted because of his family’s goodwill in the community, according to the ruling.
A post-trial court determined Hill was “attracted by the siren call of celebrity,” and “allowed her desire for the public attention of the moment to overcome her duty to her oath of office and her oath as a witness.”
The book itself turned out to controversial. The book was pulled from publication because Hill plagiarized portions of it, including the preface.
“I was blind sided by Becky Hill’s ethical gaffe, and have sold my portion of the business back to Becky and her husband,” Gordon said in an April 2024 news release. “The Hills can’t legally re-publish ‘Behind The Doors of Justice’ without our permission.”
Fallout
Hill resigned her $101,256-a-year clerk of court job In March 2024 after she was charged with obstruction of justice in the leaking of confidential court information to a reporter. Hill later pleaded guilty to perjury and misconduct charges and received probation.
“There is no excuse for my mistakes,” Hill said following her December 2025 conviction. “I am ashamed of them, and I will carry that shame with me for the rest of my life.”
Columbia attorney Will Lewis, who’s Hill’s lawyer, was unavailable Wednesday and unable to comment, his office said.
Et tu?
Even one of Hill’s once-staunchest supporters has turned on her following the S.C. Supreme Court’s decision.
South Carolina Attorney General Alan Wilson was close to Hill during the trial, and affectionately called her “Becky Boo” in front of dozens of reporters at a news conference following the jury’s 2023 verdicts.
But there were no cute nicknames used by Wilson on Wednesday in a televised interview. Wilson only referred to Hill formally, or by her former title, pointing out the culprit responsible for a retrial.
“It was the conduct of the clerk of court. And, hopefully, that conduct will never happen again,” Wilson said Wednesday during an interview on FOX News.
When asked if this ruling reflects poorly on his office, Wilson disagreed and again zeroed in on Hill.
“The conduct of Ms. Hill is to blame here,” Wilson said. “We spent six weeks in a hotel prosecuting this in Walterboro, South Carolina. So, no, this is not on us. This is on Ms. Hill.”
BEHIND THE STORY
MOREThis is a breaking news story
In a breaking news situation, facts can be unclear and the situation may still be developing. The State is trying to get important information to the public as quickly and accurately as possible. This story will be updated as more information becomes available, and some information in this story may change as the facts become clearer. Refresh this page later for more updated information.
