GREENVILLE, S.C. – Over a year after Richard “Alex” Murdaugh’s sensational double murder trial caught national attention, the disbarred attorney, currently serving two life sentences for the murders of his wife and son, may have an opportunity for a new trial.

Murdaugh was convicted last year for the killings that dismantled a prominent legal family in South Carolina and also pleaded guilty to a series of state and federal charges tied to an extensive financial fraud scheme affecting numerous victims across several counties over more than a decade. Despite his convictions, Murdaugh maintains his innocence regarding the deaths of his family. His initial request for a new trial, which cited alleged jury tampering by a court official, was initially turned down.

However, on Tuesday, the South Carolina Supreme Court agreed to hear Murdaugh’s appeal, allowing him to bypass the lengthy appeals process. The appeal primarily focuses not on Murdaugh’s actual guilt or innocence, but on whether he was unjustly denied a new trial by former South Carolina Chief Justice Jean Toal earlier this year. The Supreme Court has the authority to reverse that decision and potentially order a fresh trial.

According to Christopher Adams, an attorney based in Charleston and a former president of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, a new trial is indeed a possibility. He remarked, “The findings by former Chief Justice Toal during the evidentiary hearing highlighted serious misconduct by the court clerk concerning her interactions with the jury. It’ll be fascinating to see how this unfolds. This is not a frivolous appeal; it carries substantial weight.”

What Led to Murdaugh’s Case Reaching the Supreme Court?

Following Murdaugh’s sentencing to two life terms for murdering his wife, Maggie Murdaugh, 52, and son Paul Murdaugh, 22, his legal team vowed to file an appeal. They accused Colleton County Clerk of Court Rebecca Hill, who not only read the verdict but also authored a tell-all book about the trial, of jury tampering and requested a new trial.

During a hearing in January, Toal took up the allegations, where juror Z claimed that Hill advised jurors to watch Murdaugh “closely,” suggesting he was already guilty. When asked if this impacted her decision to vote guilty, she affirmed, “Yes, ma’am.”

Hill has since resigned, admitting to plagiarism in her book and facing multiple ethical complaints against her.

Toal found Hill’s conduct inappropriate and deemed her a non-credible witness, yet denied Murdaugh’s request for a new trial. Her decision was based on South Carolina legal standards that required proof of both inappropriate conduct by Hill and the resulting prejudice against the jurors which influenced their verdict.

Murdaugh subsequently appealed Toal’s ruling to the South Carolina Court of Appeals, which has not yet reviewed the case. His argument centers around applying a more lenient legal standard, analogous to what federal courts and the U.S. Supreme Court use. The federal standard presumes juror bias if any form of improper communication can be demonstrated, as explained by John Mobley, a veteran personal injury lawyer and former prosecutor in South Carolina.

In July, Murdaugh’s lawyers requested the state Supreme Court to review the case before it goes to the appeals court. This can occur if the case satisfies certain legal criteria, such as “significant public interest or a legal principle of major importance.” Murdaugh’s team argued that both points apply to his situation.

The motion filed by Murdaugh’s legal representatives demands that the court scrutinize Toal’s ruling, labeling Hill as a “blight” on South Carolina’s judicial system. It portrays Hill as an “elected public official who was responsible for managing juries engaging in deliberate jury tampering in a murder trial to secure a guilty verdict for financial gain through book sales.”

Is a New Murder Trial Possible for Alex Murdaugh?

Mobley, the former prosecutor, expressed that the state Supreme Court’s decision to take on Murdaugh’s case wasn’t surprising, given that it was probably

Mobley, who has collaborated with one of Murdaugh’s legal representatives, stated that the defense has effectively demonstrated that a juror’s judgment was swayed by Hill. He mentioned it is quite probable that the Supreme Court will overturn Toal’s ruling.

“The trial was compromised, and the jury’s integrity was undermined,” he expressed. “Therefore, I was puzzled as to why  from a legal perspective that didn’t suffice for the judge.”

Mobley noted that the court might not concur that Murdaugh’s case should follow the federal precedent, however, this isn’t a prerequisite for them to grant a fresh trial. If they do, he stated that a retrial could ultimately serve the defense well.

In simpler terms, having another chance could enable Murdaugh to achieve a more favorable result in court.

“I believe the likelihood of a more advantageous outcome is higher  Once you present a case, you can identify what strategies were ineffective—not only based on your actions as a defense attorney but also what worked within the state’s case,” he said.

Larry Cunningham, dean of the Charleston School of Law, stated he does not have a stance on whether Toal was right in denying Murdaugh a retrial. However, Cunningham, a former state prosecutor in Virginia and New York who has dealt with similar issues, said that the defense has a challenging road ahead to convince the court to apply the federal standard, and the burden is heavily weighted against them to show that misconduct affected the trial’s outcome.

Cunningham pointed out that prosecutors likely prefer not to retry the case, but disagreed with the notion that a new trial would lean in favor of the defense. He also emphasized that the courts must weigh the defendant’s right to a fair trial against the risk of re-traumatizing the victims’ families, the potential unavailability of witnesses, their fading memories, and the overall costs and duration of conducting another trial.

“Motions like these are seldom approved because one core value of the legal system is finality,” he remarked. “If every time a mistake occurs we have to redo a trial, we would be perpetually retrialing cases.”

Is There a Chance Alex Murdaugh Could Be Released?

If Murdaugh is given a new trial and is acquitted, it’s improbable he would be released right away. He is currently serving two life sentences for murdering his wife and son, in addition to 27 years for state fraud offenses, which run concurrently with a 40-year federal sentence for financial crimes.

Murdaugh is also challenging his federal sentence, claiming it is excessively harsh compared to the crimes committed. In this appeal, his legal team contends that Judge Richard Gergel and federal prosecutors imposed such a long sentence to serve as a safeguard, ensuring that regardless of any successful state appeals or different verdicts during potential state retrials, Murdaugh would remain incarcerated for life.

Murdaugh’s attorneys have less than 30 days to submit their initial brief and arguments to the Supreme Court regarding the jury tampering case. No date has been set for the Supreme Court to review the hearing.

For now, both the public following the case and Murdaugh himself must remain patient.