"Murdaugh" Episode Twenty Five | A New Trial?

0:10 Hey everyone, and welcome back to Exposed Scandalous Files of the Elite. I am your host, Jim Chapman, and we are back with this twenty fifth episode of the mrdall series. And the last time that I left you, there were a ton of allegations regarding jury tampering in this case that came out just weeks after Alex mrdall was found guilty. The egg jarr became a household name, and it was discovered that not only was this juror out of her own mouth, going to find Murdall not guilty, but that the whole reason she was released from a jury really boiled down to a Facebook post that, according to her and really anyone outside of then clerk of court, that Hill did not exist. This discovery right here, I can't tell you how dire things were looking for the state of South Carolina after these allegations came out. Could it be that Elec Murdock would be granted a completely new trial based off of this, Well, let's get into it.

1:21 So the pressure mounts quickly for Becky Hill, the clerk of court, after the motion for a new trial was filed. I went over that motion with you last week that was on September fifth of twenty twenty three, and because Judge Clifford Newman dismissed that egg jur he recused himself from presiding over this upcoming hearing. As a matter of fact, another well respected judge took the reins of this hearing and her name was Chief Justice Jean Told. To tell you a little bit about the very impressive and story career of Chief Justice Told, she began her career in the seventies as a trial lawyer. She then served as a state rep in the South Carolina legislature before becoming the first woman ever elected to South Carolina Supreme Court.

2:17 This was in nineteen ninety eight. Then in the year two thousand, she became the Chief Justice for the state of South Carolina, the highest ranking judge in the whole state. And she was no nonsense, extremely sharp on the law, and you could really not find a better judge for this type of thing. So time moves on a bit as both sides prepare for this hearing. And it's important to note here that with these hearings there is no jury. Lawyers for both sides present a case and they questioned witnesses, but it's done only in of the judge, and unlike a typical trial, a judge can question witnesses as well, and the judge decides the merit of the case either way, and the judge makes a verdict based on that end.

3:16 So on January twenty ninth, three months after the motion for a new trial was filed, the hearings take place and they focus on Becky Hill for the most part, and these jury tampering claims, and Becky Hill had to testify along with some others. But really it's the testimony you're about to hear that matters the most. So I'm going to play Becky Hill's testimony for you now and then I'll comment on it after you listen to it. It's a little lengthy, but very important. Do not skip through this one. Here it is miselle. How are you? I'm fine, I want to get started, if you would, if you could stay your full name for the record and spell it for the court or place.

4:01 My name is Becky Hill, Lasting Hill, H I L L all. Right, and if you would just give us you're currently the cork of court for Collinson County. Is that correct? That's correct? And just very quickly, if you would what year were you elected as clerk of court. At the end of twenty twenty. At the end of twenty twenty. Yes, And prior to that, did you have any involvement or experience with the state judicial system? I did, And could you tell the court what that was? Please? I was a South Carolina official court reporter for about fourteen years, all right? And were you in being an official court reporter, you had served in the courtroom, which is miss Harris is here today?

4:42 Is that correct? Or what was you And was that primarily in the fourteenth Circuit? It was primarily in the fourteenth Circuit. However, I did travel throughout the state. Did you have any other experience in your in professional experience prior to becoming a core reporter or clerk of court. I was a court reporter freelance for two years before. That, okay, And then any other professional proceeds you've had over the course of your career. I was able to be a middle school teacher, and I worked for the Board of Disabilities for a few years as well. Let me go ahead and just kind of get straight to it. In your capacity as Clerk of court and in your previous experience being a court reporter, Were you familiar with the rules that apply to court staff as it comes to interactions with JORGSD in the course of a criminal driwal or civil dropper that mat yes, all right, and could you tell the court generally what those rules are as far as what contact is permissible and what contact is not permissible.

5:49 Just very quickly, the judge gives the law and gives the instructions for a jury, and the attorney will state their opening argument, their opening statements, their closing arguments, and basically, uh, the clerk of court and anyone else court reporter, we're there to My understanding would be to make sure that everyone's taken care of. Do you need some Kleenex? Do you need some water? Different things like that, just to make sure that they're taking care of. Is it common for clerks of court to have interaction with jurors from the course of a trial to see to those various logistical needs that you that you just described, Yes, and did that happen in the Murdock case? It did, and can give us example of some of the logistical things that you or other things that you would see too, to deal with any needs that the.

6:45 Jurors may have. I mean, did you provide them food, coffee, make sure they were comfortable, things like that, yes, all of that. Provide blankets for. Them if they were cold. Our courtroom was very cold and call it in county. Yes. Did you provide them with asp or tiling off they needed, make sure coffee and snacks were available. Yes. Did you take lunch orders for them so that they were fed each day? Yes. At any time did you. Interact with any juror in an attempt to influence their view of the facts in the State. By Murdock case.

7:25 No? All right, I want to. Ask you some specifics about that and some allegations that have been raised. At any time, did you tell the jury not to be fooled by evidence presented by mister Murdock's attorneys. I did not. At any time, did you instruct the jury to watch him closely and look. At his actions? I did not. At any time, did. You instruct the jury or tell the jury to look at his movements. No. At any time, as the jury moved to deliberate, did you tell the jury. This shouldn't take long. No. At any time did you tell the jury that the defense case watch out for the defense case they're going to try to throw you off, or anything along those lines that was meant to influence the jurors against mister Murdoch. No, let me ask you if you ever made any comment to the jurors about the fact that the defendant was going to testify. Did you have a conversation in the presence of the jurors prior to the defendant testifying about the fact that he was about to testify.

8:46 It wasn't directly related to the jurors. I was talking to Misterville, who was our bailiff foreman, our bailiff over the jury, and I was talking to him about that. All right, And what did you say? I told him what I had just come from downstairs, telling my security and bailiff office that Judge Newman had allowed more testimony in regarding the financials, and then also the defendant had decided that he may testify, all right? And where were the jurors at the point that that conversation occurred. There were a few jurors standing in line, and there were some in the bathroom, I'm sure because they said they were waiting on jewors to get out of the bathroom.

9:32 And there were some in the jury room, just milling around from what I could see looking down the hallway, and uh. And again what were what were they? What were the words that you said? And during that conversation, what were the effect of. Them to mister Bill? And what did you say? I told him that the that Judge Newman had was allowing more of the financial evidence in which would prolong the testimony in the trial a little bit, and also so that the defendant had decided that he was going to testify. Did you say anything about this being an important day, pay attention, We'll get coffee for you, things like that. I usually give a little pep talk to the jurors.

10:13 It's sometimes hard sitting a long time, but my usual and I do remember saying, pay attention, it's a big day to day. Whatever you need, let mister Bill know or one of the other bailiffs, and they'll be glad to get it for you. Did your comments or were your comments in any way phrased in favor of one side or against another side, or were they at more of a neutral comment about paying attention? No, it was not for one side or the other. Were you present when the jury went to the Mozielle property to conduct the jury view I was, and was. Judge Newman there as well. He was.

10:53 During the time that you were on the property, traveling there, traveling back. Did you have any conversation with the jurors where you made any comment about the substance of any testimony or any comment about this merriage or the strength of the case. No? No. Did you have. A quick comment to the four lady about how the property was beautiful and there were t olive trees there that. Bloom and smell good, or words to that. Effect, I did, all right. And was there any other conversation related that you had that you where you made any comment about the case or the merits or anything like that. Oh no, No.

11:35 During the course of this trial, did you have a bailiff employee whose primary job it was to see to the jury and their security and to keep them separate from everyone else that was involved in this trial? I did? And who was that, mister Bill Pulk. All right, and he was ultimately the jury coordinator in this particular case, that's correct. During the course of the the deliberations once the jury went back there, did you have any contact with the juris or have any substantive discussion with them, not at all. Did you have any discussion with them about logistics, about staying in a hotel or. Anything like that, I did not.

12:17 Did you have any interaction with the jurors or anything to do with them having smoke brakes or anything like that, I did not. During the course of the trial. Did you have any discussion or interaction with the jurors about them giving any interviews to the media or making themselves available to the media. I'm asking during the course of the trial. Yeah. Not. During the course of the trial. After the verdict had been reached and the case was in sentencing, did you have any conversation with any jurors at that time after they had already entered their verdict and been individually pulled. Yes, after the sentencing. All right, and tell the court what that interaction was. At that time, there were several outlets, news outlets that wanted to interview the jury as a whole and really wanted to get them up north to New York, and so I was trying to get a hold of all the jurors to talk about that. That was something we had not prepared for.

13:16 Did you at all pressure the jurors to speak or did you just tell them that it was their option to speak or not, and here's the contact information. I did not pressure the jury to speak. Now, did you advise them that it was their decision and their decision alone, whether or not they wished to speak to the medium? It was totally their decision? And did you advise them of that? Yes? Yes, I asked again, But I just want to be sure. At any time did you make any comment. To any duror, or in the presence of any duror, in which you had.

13:56 All tried to influence them in fai over one side or against another. I did not. Did you understand, being a longtime court employee in clurk of court, that that is outside the boundaries of what is appropriate interactions with the jurors. During the course of the trial? Absolutely? And did it any time? Did you violate that rule that you understood? I did, not, of course indulgence. One money, mister Harkutan on cross examination, Ms.

14:37 Hill, we spent six weeks together, didn't we? We did, and during those six weeks you were helpful to me, as you could be correct. I was accommodated just about every request I made. Yes, sir, Where were we Oh yeah, we're old friends. You heard Uh that was the microphone that was supposed to You're fine where you are? Absolutely fine? Yes, And it was obscuring my ability to question a witness. Yes. Well, what I'm wondering is whether you can be heard without a microphone. Do we need to try to get a microphone on this poti? Yeah, that would be good.

15:25 All right. I don't know who's supposed to hear this other than you, but I assume they can hear us. Core reporter. I'm sorry, she's more important as important as you. Yeah, I agree. Oh yeah, we're old friends. Right. We spent six weeks together in a very pressure filled situation. Correct, it was a long six weeks. It was a long six weeks. And during those six weeks you were helpful to me in a number of different way, accommodating friends that I had the one to come watch the trial, for instance.

16:05 Correct, that's correct. You even allowed me to use the private restroom down on the first floor so I didn't have to stand in line with the rest of the people trying to that breaks correct. Correct, So we have no animosity towards each other. You didn't do something to me and I didn't do something to you during that trial, right, absolutely? Okay. Now, given that I'm going to ask you some questions today that may indicate to you that I have some antagonism towards you, let me disabuse you of that. I'm here doing a job representing my client, and you've been around the court system for decades. Correct, Yes, sir, So you understand what we're doing here today.

16:46 Yes. Now, let me understand a couple of things I think, And I've read your book one some editions of your book. There are several We got a bunch of emails in which you have drafts that you forwarded to your co author. Correctly believe out of Jack Jrrellance, I believe any drafts you center or co author with the book is beyond the step of the cent query here today of the route you may. Perceive, you thank your honor. And in those drafts you say certain things about the trial, about the process, which you later did not include in the final version. It's called editing. Is that correct?

17:35 I would agree with that. Okay, Now let's talk about this book for just a second. When did you first decide you're going to write a book? I think a thought was there a very fleeting thought before the trial. Did you take any steps before the trial or at the initiation of the trial to begin writing this book or working with somebody on this book? No, sir, when did you and your co author get together? It was several weeks after the trial? Okay. Did you talk to anybody about the fact you were going to write a book before the trial? There were several anchors and several journalists that I did speak with about the possibility of writing a book.

18:27 Yeah, I'm so disorganized, I apologize. Did do you know did you seek assistance in this trial from other coirks of court? Yes, sir, I did. And who were the Ronda McElveen who was the Barnwell County Clerk of Court, and Renee Elvis from the ri County Clerk of Court. And did they Were they there with you the entire sixth weeks? No? I mean how long were they there? How often were they there?

19:07 Rhonda Macklevin was there as often as she could be, probably several times a week. Renee Elvis helped me during the jury selection. Thanks, and from miss macklebean. Did she begin working with you prior to jury selection? Can you repeat that question when.

19:48 We began Jerry selection. I think on January twenty third, correct? Correct? Was she working with you or consulting with you prior to the twenty third No, sir, did you have any conversation with about the trial? Not until she got to the trial on what I can't remember the exact day she came. Okay, Now, is she a friend of yours? She was a friend? Yes? What, well, she is a friend? Okay, yes, and she's done nothing to make you any less a friend. Now, did you tell her about the time of the trial that you were going to write a book that you had thought about and were going to write a book?

20:35 I can't remember exactly. I think we did have a conversation about a book, possibly in the future. And did you tell her you're going to write a book because you thought it would make a lot of money? Oh, no, sir, You never said that, No, sir. And did you tell her that you were going to write a book to make a bunch of money so you could buy a quat and build a house. On it, No, sir. Okay, Now, did you ever tell her that you had given a juror a ride home that you would accompanied mister Bill what's his worst name, Phil polk Right? Did did you and he took a juror home one night?

21:17 Did you tell her that? Did you take a juror home one night? I didn't take a juror home one night. Did mister pok and you take a juror home one night? No, sir. We never gave a juror ride in a car with mister Polker. Without no, sir, okay. Now, also, during the trial, your your daughter ended up on the VINII is that right? She did? And she was coming up? And did you talk to me and and mister Waters about putting her on the jury if at all possible. I'm not sure that we wanted her to be on the jury, if at all possible. But I think the question was would she make a good juror? And I said sure, she sure would.

22:02 No, I don't think we asked you. I think you told us she would make a great jury. Did you not? I remember you asking? Okay, okay, I was considering putting your daughter on the jury. Yes, sir? And who does she work for? She works for Compass South? Did she work for the Sheriff's department at some point? No, sir, Okay, does she work in law enforcement at. All, No, sir. Okay, Now, let me ask you this. How many jury rooms were there? We have two jury rooms in Colleton. In this trial. How many jury rooms did you have? How many? Okay? So the entire jury wasn't together at any one time? They were separated in the two rooms. Yes, okay.

22:52 And did the when they're separated into a two jury rooms like that? Are they next door to each other? Are they down the hall from each other? They are next door to each other? Okay, So but if you close the door to one, can they hear what's going on in the other one? Some women probably have very good hearing in men too, but I would say probably not. Okay. Are there restrooms in both of the jury's rooms? There are? Okay, we're I mean, are there two restrooms or just one? There's one restroom in each jury room? Okay, we're either one of those restrooms designated men and women or did everybody use the same one?

23:34 They were unisex? They were unisex. Okay. Now, prior to your testimony here today, have you met with the Attorney General's office in sweat a half on how many occasions? I want to say twice okay. And remember when the first time was. I think the first time was in September. Okay, and the second time was last week, yes, sir, and that was in Walterborough, Yes, right. And do y'all spend about four four and a half hours together? I want to say, maybe two hours together, okay. And in those two hours you went over your testimony here today.

24:19 They asked me questions. Did they ever correct your answers or suggest you answered differently? Oh? No, no, no, So you you just went through what you went through in twenty minutes here it took two hours to go through. When you were with them, there were times when I would step out of the room and come back in, but I would say we were there for about two hours. Now. You have described in your book your role is Switzerland. Is that correct? Correct? Okay? And that is that you should not be in any way opinionated about what's going on in the trial.

25:01 Is that correct? That's true? Okay? Yet in your book you indicated a number of different points during the trial you had concluded he was guilty. Is that correct? I think you are right? Piculous point. I don't know if her conclusions in the book are in any way relevant to what occurred during the trial and whether or not there was any communications with the jurors, which is the sole issue that we're here for today, is whether or not missus Hill had any extraneous influence on the jurors. And so I think this is going a little far ill to object to the relative. Let me give you example. You indicate writing back from Mozelle that you and three other people were in a car and you all decided adamantly. I think, what's the word you use? That he was guilty, that he had killed his wife and son. Is that what you put in the book?

25:57 I can't remember if I put that in the book, but if you say I did, then I will wigree that we did have a conversation about what each of us thought. And the all four agreed that he was guilty. Correct, And none of us were jurors. No, no, trust me, I know that. But you had an abiding conviction, at least by the time of the Mozelle visit, that he was guilty. And the other people in the car with you were bailiffs? Were they not? No? Who were there? Some were not baylists, one was a court reporter, one was our security officer head security, and another was a deputy sheriff.

26:39 Okay, but the four of y'all wrote out there, and based on what I mean, I can well, you want me to read you how chilled you were and how you felt this that poor Paul and and Maggie had been executed by him on that scene, that visiting the scene convinced you that he was a horrible, horrible murder. You want me to read that to you, or you will seed that's what you wrote. I will concede that's what I wrote. But if I may, I will I would say that that a lot of that is poetic license in writing a book and in making it sound like that. Okay, so some of it's poetic license, and some of it you just stole. You you you proloinded from that BBC writer, right right.

27:20 You're not object to not only the relevance but the sky cross out objects also under rule six oh eight. I don't believe that's appropriate. Cross the daminag overaru. You may continue, miss Hart. Did you steal part of the book? I did plagiar rice, Mister Hart. That's stealing, is it? It is? And for that I'm very sorry and I have apologized, okay, and. That makes it okay. What I did, I did and I apologized for that. And part of the book is you say literary license exaggeration. I wouldn't call it exaggeration. Okay. Now, let me ask you, this is Switzerland, and this is you're saying, this is happening while you're supposed to be Switzerland. You've decided the defendant's guilty. And if Ms Mackelman says that it's gonna make you more money if you if he's found guilty, don't you think it's reasonable to assume that you may have crossed the line from time to time.

28:21 You're on our object to the form of the question semi faxx not in evidence overru. Can you repeat that question one more time? It Let me just move on to something else. Let me ask you you had interactions with some jurors, and I believe in a conference in judges chambers you indicated that you had seen a post on is Walterborough word of mouth. Your honor again out of ject. I think he's delving now into the Facebook inquiry. We believe again that that's irrelevant to the inquiry for your honor. I will allow a limited he's, as I understand it, trying to impeach her testimony and explore her credibility. And I think I've already told mister harprutin Liam that I don't want a whole trial about the business of Facebook and the egg your or, but I will allow limited examination on this point. You may perceive Miss.

29:26 Hartcrut am I oversimplifying that you. I mean, it's in your book. You saw something on Walterborough word of mouth which appeared to you to be from the ex husband of one of your jurors. Is that correct? Am? I oversimplifying that I. Remember reading one night something on Walterbirg word of Mouth, and when I was in the courtroom on a Monday morning listening to the judge and the attorney's talking about it matter, it sounded like it was relevant to each other. Okay. And you became a where somehow that this juror had a restraining order out for her ex husband. She told me that herself, Okay.

30:08 And tell me how it came for her to tell you about that? Where did she tell you? She was very talkative. And when I was instructed by Judge Newman to go and get her from out of the jury room with a deputy following me. She was talking to me all the way back to the judges chamber since she mentioned that there were restraining orders out when they had divorced. So how did the judge who brought it to the judge's attention about this Walterborough word of mouth there? I let the judge know, thinking that it could be. Related, okay, And you let the judge know what that I.

30:49 Had read something on Walterborough word of mouth. Okay, and that you knew it was tied to that juror. I didn't know that it was. Who do you think it was tied to? From what y'all were talking about at the bench. I felt like I needed to let him know just in case it was related. There was something about an ex husband and an ex wife and somebody being on the jury. You didn't tell the judge that you had found what we call the apology post. You didn't tell the judge that I didn't call it that. No, you don't remember producing it, saying that producing it to the judge saying this is a post in which the guy that posted it on Friday night says the devil got in him and drinking and he apologized for what he posted. You didn't produce that.

31:40 My staff did one of my sounds, but. You gave that to the judge and gave it to us. Did you know? Yes, we did, as if it were from that jurors ex husband correct, correct, and you know it wasn't. I don't know that, mister Hartpoollian. No so. And you did not take that juror out and talk to her before you took her to the judge. I never talked to that juror about stuff like that? Okay? Did you ever talk to the four lady of the jury separate from the jury? I did, okay? And tell us where did that occur?

32:27 When I would go into the jury room and I would speak with the four lady, we would be in like the hallway in the two jury rooms were side by side, and the opening to the jury room went out into the hallway, and we would be surrounded by the jurors at all times. Mister Bill would be very very nearby or another bailiff as well when we would speak. And what did you speak to her about? There were several instances. One was. There was a juror who needed some feminine products. There was another time when band aids were needed. There were times when talinol would.

33:10 Be needed other than items that were needed by the jury's health object. Did you ever discuss that She ever discussed with you if some issues jurors had emotionally or some issues with dissension in the jury room. She only told me that there was some loud jurors and it made some of the other jewors a little upset. But other than that, what did you tell her to do? I told her if it got out of hand, to write a note to the judge and that she could sign the note and get mister Belle to give it to the judge and the judge would handle that for her. Okay, Now, you did publish a book after after this trial?

33:55 Is that correct? We did, and you went to New York and took some of thes to the Today Show. The Today Show did invite us. Yes, Now, one of those jurors that went up there with you the day of the verdict war for the first time I can remember, wore a suit to court. You remember that, you honor again, I would object to discussion of the jurors wearing a suit or a post trial trip to the Today's Show. I don't believe there's any connection to the inquiry. That's that's focused for your honor, and that is whether or not there was any extreme's influence during the course of the trial. I'm going to connect with y'all. I believe right over may continue, miss help Fruit. Did you text, email or communicate on the morning before final arguments were completed that to people that they this was on a Thursday, that they probably if they're going to see the trial, should come on that Thursday because it'd be over by them the next day it would be the jury would not be out very long. Did you ever communicate that email, text, or verbally?

34:59 I do remember saying that, yes. And why did you think the jury would not be out very long? Had you communicated with yours I. Had not communicated with Jews about anything related to this trial at all. I've been a court reporter for at least fourteen years. I was a clerk of court for three and you just get to where you kind of see things happen as they progress, and it's a guess, it's a gut feeling, and that's all that I meant by that. Well, why are you telling this young man who wanted passes for the next day in an email, you know it won't be happening tomorrow. That was your or did you say? You didn't say. I don't think. You just said you'd better come today if you're coming. Remember doing that?

35:46 I don't remember that. But you know, if if he wanted to come, I knew that the trial would be ending shortly as far as testimony, So if he wanted to come, he needed to come. Why wouldn't the jury have been out a week on a six week trial. They could have, but you apparently were telling the press and others that would be a quick verdict, were you not. That was just a gut feeling that I had, Okay, and that was my opinion. You're painting. You were right, Jerry was out three hours on a six week trial. Correct, that's true. How much money did you make off that book?

36:34 There was not a whole lot of money made off of the book, after paying different things and paying for some expenses that went along with that. But I want to say roughly around one hundred thousand. Okay, that's not a lot of money. No, especially when you publish your own book. But that was one hundred thousand you. Made with my co author. Okay, in what period of time? Six months? I would say six months. Yes, it was the book published August first, Okay. The trial is over. That's six months after the trial's over.

37:17 You've published a book, correct, Correct, And then I believe you've recently stopped selling the book because of the plagiarism you've admitted to correct, Correct, and so there's no more money. Correct. Now. You also indicate in the book that the Murdaws had a reputation of criminality. I think is kindly what you put. Did you not, well, mister Hartpooley and my grandfather and old Mambuster were very close. What were they criminals? I wouldn't know, You wouldn't. Know, But you believed and you published that the Murda family had run that part of this and they'd been participated in criminal conduct. Correct.

38:03 You want to getting out with Jack. It's a general testimony about the alleged criminality of this family. I'm not sure how that has any bearing on the focused inquiry Fourth Court. He's asking about what she said in the book. I'm gonna allow it. Yes, did you say that in the book that they they were criminals? In the book, that was more of the literary ease that we that we take, I think to make a story a little more interesting for the reader by. Calling people criminals. I guess what I'm saying is this, were they criminals? Objecting that particular question?

38:47 Oh root? Were they criminals? I wouldn't know that. Okay, So you either made it up or you're lying about it. About the reputation of people that can't defend themselves they're dead, you're gonna call them criminals? You did that in the books? She could sell a book? No, I didn't do that to sell a book. What'd you do it for? Made it more readable? You said? Which sells the book ease? What? Literary? Literary? What? Uh? The literary ease that that you can take with when writing a book. Literary ease you can take with writing a book. You can make stuff up, you can lie, you can lie about people. Not with that, you know, it's I think the public perception was one that it was very interesting during this time.

39:34 So you're feeding you're feeding the monster out there that wants to believe bad things about the murders, and you'll make stuff up to do it. Let me give you another example. During I read your book and I found there's somewhat here in mursus my co counsel did not. In describing mister myself and mister Griffin in the book, you say that I neutered him. We've both been very interested in what you meant by that. What do you mean by I mean new ring Jim. Griffin, mister Hartpulian? It was a book? Did you make it up? I know it was a book. The Bible is a book. I mean just because it's a book doesn't mean you can lie in it. It's just a word that was.

40:16 Strange. Don't argue with the witness. But the witness, Miss Hill, you instructed to answer his questions. You made proceed, mister hart Putin. So let me get this straight. The book and I'll see if I can cut to the chase on this. I could read you chapter after chapter, verse after verse, which is not true, Okay, not true based on my experience of being in a courtroom, and not true based on knowing some of the people you describe. You say, you say. That is mister Putin object the counselor is just testifying right now as to his observations about the book. Putinin, Please you have conceded there are things in the book that you don't know to be true. Correct, correct, Okay, you would concede then that you have lied in the book.

41:04 It's only because I wasn't there at the time. I can't interview my dead grandfather, I can't interview mister Buster. There's just things that we can't interview them on. We can go about what was written in a newspaper and get facts from that. And take the inference that one of the murdads was a pedophile. You could have printed that and they're not here to contradict it. You could have printed anything you wanted and made it up to sell books. That's what this whole scheme was about, selling books. As you told Ronda mcelvene, if him being found guilty would sell more books. True. Out of Jackson's argument of nature of the question of the compound question in a semi facts on.

41:48 The compound question, if what you're asking is what boy she told, Uh, there's Michael vine gone and asked that, but don't preceed it with uh yes testimony. Thank the court's indulgence for just a moment.

42:36 Write your book. Your your ex husband had posted something we now know probably wasn't her ex husband? Did she have any other ex husbands that you found out about? I have no idea, Well, you wrote, we learned later the ex spouses hadn't seen each other in fourteen years and she had three restraining orders against him? Did she have three restraining orders against him? I don't know, that's what she said. Okay. Hm.

43:29 Did you tell jurors at the end of the trial after President's Day break? Present's day break would have been a Monday, correct, correct? But before mister Murdaud testified, did you tell the jury not to be fooled by the evidence presented by mister Murdad's. Lawyers, Mister HARTPOOLI and I never talked to the jurors about any of the evidence. Yes, it would be yes or no. Then you can explain. Did you say that? No? Okay? Did you all? Did you ever instruct the r to watch him closely immediately before he testified, looking at his actions, looking at his movements. Did you ever tell Jerry to do that? No? Did you ever tell the jury to pay attention to mister Murdo's testimony.

44:16 To pay attention not specifically to his testimony? I did tell the jury to pay attention to what just generally in the hallway when I was speaking, not to him, no. Just to any witness. Right, okay. Did you did you ever warn the jurors the defense is about to do their side. This is right before, right at the beginning of the defense case. 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. Did you ever tell the jury that, No, sir? Okay. Did you ever tell the jury if you get emotional, we want to see your face because that is what they want to see.

45:13 Do you ever tell them that? No, sir. Did you ever tell the jury that mister Murder was about to testify? I didn't tell the jurors that. Now. Did you tell the jury that if they didn't reach a verdict by ten o'clock they were going to have to spend the night? No, sir, I did not. Did you ever tell them they were going to have to spend the night? Yes, sir. Did you ever tell them that they couldn't smoke? No, sir. Okay, you got any other books in the world, No, sir, I mean, edn't this Lincoln good book?

46:05 Okay? Yes, sir, there were a few matters came up on cross obviously that I'd objected to.

46:51 Are you more wave your find you You may reserve your rights to object to the entire line of testimony, but you may if across examination, so to the assertion of your objection, you about have to test And thank you here. I one of the things you were asked about is finding this Facebook post, and you brought that to the court's attention after a different issue had already arisen related to adjuror is that correct? Correct? All right? And are you technically capable of manufacturing a Facebook post? Is that anything that you have any capability to do? I'm not all right? And did you ask your staff member to go see if she could find this post?

47:35 I did? Did you tell her just generally what you recalled reviewing? Yes? And did she did you get her any further instruction other than that? No? Were you sitting behind her as she was doing this particular search or anything like that, or did she eventually report back to you? She is very very techy. And then she reported back to me. All right, So you weren't there when she was searching anything like that? Yeah? And she was like, I couldn't find that post, but I did find this and handed you the Facebook paces. Correct, and you provided that to Judge Newman, and ultimately to it was provided to the parties. Is that correct correct? You were asked about conversations that you had with the four Lady. Did those involve logistical issues and things like that?

48:23 The conjury, the conversations with the four Lady was to everything. There was nothing in regarding the defendant and this trial. All right, So they were logistical issues, not anything to do with the substance of the trial. Is absolutely yes. You were asked about whether or not you had texted some people this won't be long. Was that at all in any way based on any conversation you had with adjuror as to their internal thinking or anything like that, or was that just your assessment being an experien person in the court. Absolutely not, It was based on just your assessments.

49:04 Just my assessments. Yes. Did you ever communicate with the jurorsm how long they would be or did any juror ever tell you how long they thought they would be? I never talked to any jurors about anything like that. You were asked about your book, and I don't want to get into too much detail about that. But you were asked about some of the assertions that you made in the book, and you were asked if these were lies. Were they lies or were they ultimately things that were based on inferences from newspapers and community stories? All right, you are leading by this is your witness, mister von Waters. So please I ask a. Direct question, thank you?

49:46 Was your some of the statements that you were asked about in your book? Were they lies? Or were they based on your inferences from just general community knowledge and things that you had researched in them? All right, thank you. He's right about that, mister Wafers. Just ask him the direct questions. Did you lie in your bug? No? I did not, thank you. You were asked about when you told the jury to pay attention when you asked that question. Did you also mention anything about we got coffee for you or things like that. I knew that mister Bill would take care of that, and the jeworsk new too. Coffee. We had done some dunkin donut runs, We had provided coffee, different other things to help stay awake in the cold courtroom that we were found ourselves in. And so I knew anything that they needed, mister Bill would see that they got because that's what he did.

50:45 At any time, did you have any conversation with any juror in which you tried to influence their decision? I did not have a conversation with any juror about anything related to this case. I want you to turn your attention to a hearing that Judge Newman had uh about the alternate who was uh dismissed uh sometimes called the egg jurro. Do you recall that hearing, yes, ma'am. In the hearing, Judge Newman expressed his uh unhappiness with you for questioning that juror before he questioned her.

51:31 Do you recall that I do remember seeing that. Well, then let's go back and talk about that juror uh you that you're on uh examination in this court room. You s said that she's talked about a lot of things to you, but you didn't uh ask her any questions. But that's not completely accurate, is it? Yes, ma'am? That is true. Well, you asked, you asked her direct questions uh uh, and that came out in the hearing that Judge Newman had you asked her questions before She was even examined by the judge. Did you not, your honor, I did not ask for any questions.

52:11 The juror was examined by the judge in a hearing. Do you recall that hearing? Since the second hearing. On this map, I do you recall that hearing? Yes, and. Asked you about The court asked this juror about postings on Facebook? Did he not correct? And the juror said, she gave miss Becky my full access to my Facebook. I put pastor posts on it. I've done that for the past three years. Do you recall her testifying in that regard?

52:54 I do remember reading that. And the judge said, has anyone posted anything on Facebook about you? And the juror answered, I was not aware of it until miss Becky told me today. Do you recall that I do you remember her saying that? And do you recall the judge saying what did she tell me? And the juror said, she asked me if I had an ex husband? And I said, yeah, did you ask her that? I remember her saying this, your honor, but I did not ask her any of these questions. And she further says, she asked me if I had talked to him about the case or being on jury duty, and I said no, I had questioned her about why she was asking me that I haven't seen my husband since twenty fourteenth. Do you recall her testifying to that.

53:42 I do remember that, yes. And with that, having jarge your memory, do you asking her about her husband and his post? I don't remember saying anything about that. Well, what was the post that you read in the Walter her a word of mouth? What what was the nature you read that? Did you not? I did? What did it? Sut? Uh? My memory is a little fuzzy without but it was about a ex husband who found out that his ex wife was on a jury and he didn't think that she would be a good juror. And it just sounded very similar to what I had heard the judge and the attorneys speaking.

54:31 So you then went to that juror on question her about that? Did you not? I did not? Your honor, Well, she. Says in this testimony that she didn't know about the Facebook and to him, Miss Becky told me was she what was that incorrect? I'm not some kind of conversation went between the two of her for her to know about that post. Correct, that's true, and I'm thinking that it could have been someone it wasn't me. I just know that it's it's not me that she talked to about that. Well, when the judge, the judge was questioned the juror about this, she also said that she had three restraining orders against him, and she also said, I was very upset after she told me that I have, Like I said, I have three restraining orders against him and I wouldn't have anything to do with him if I didn't have a child with him. But I haven't seen him since twenty fourteen. She didn't, y'all, didn't discuss that the restraining.

55:48 Orders on the way from the jury from the jury room to the back chambers where the judge was. She was very. Scared. She was talking about the three restraining orders that she had at on her husband at the time that they were divorcing, and she was scared that he would be trying to get back in contact with her again. Well, so you know that she tell you that. She was talking about that on the way to the jury room to the chambers with the judge. And in the court in this hearing. Now that I'm looking at that the court is conducted. She said, they're asking about this Facebook post, and she said Miss Becky said she had went to look for the post again and that it had been deleted. I don't know who she talked to or anything else, but she said, apparently, do you recall her saying that.

56:49 I do remember her saying that. And the court then said, what did she tell you about that? And the juror said, it was after you let us on the last break on a very upset. This is what you're talking about. And she came down and talked to me and said that apparently. I don't know who talked to him, but he said he was drunk and he removed the posts. Do you recall that? Uh, Well, she didn't tell me that, and I didn't talk with her about that. Wait, you saw that post, the so called apology post. Did you not write? I did, and you assumed that.

57:30 Was a post from her husband. Did you not write and then you talked to the juror about that? Did you not? I did not talk with the juror about that. Well, who did you talk to about it? Did you bring it to the judge's at teacher? No, we didn't get a chance to talk to the judge about that. The court asked, this, juror, has the clerk discussed anything about the case with anyone on the jury. The juror said, nah, that I'm aware of. The judge said, okay, she was just discussing with juror. She pulled me aside when we went downstairs after the last break. I want to say it was after lunch and we came back, and that's when she first told me about it, about this what we now know was a not a post from her husband.

58:20 But you assumed it was a post at the time, and y'all have a conversation about it, correct, don't just not? I asked answer the question. Yes, yes, ma'am. I believe that it was one of my staff that she talked to, but it was not me that she talked to. But the juror says, and I want to say, it was after lunch. We came back, and that's when she first told me about it. She's talking about you. Correct. Then we went back into the court and I never even got to sit on the jury, judge says. The judge then stops the questioning, and it's the room, mister Griffin, your honor. I think that satisfies that she hadn't talked to anybody, had an expressed an opinion, hadn't made up an opinion. She's got an ex husband, and she has three restraining orders against me, The court said, mister Waters, just obviously we're all invested in this. My main concern I certainly would love to but not love to, but want to hear you know what one of these individuals said.

59:26 But you know she answered the questions as she did talking about the jew Or. They then have a power for you about this juror and whether this was really her husband that put this post in that you talked to her about and apparently talked with the court about at some point. Am I right? That's right?

1:00:10 And then at the end the judge said that he was uh not too happy with your having talked to the juror before you talk to him. Do you recall the judge saying bad and did you pop right up there and uh say what you're saying now that you never talked to her. We never talked about it after that. I wasn't in the room when he said that.

1:01:02 The judge brought up another thing right after sentencing that I want to explore with you briefly, right. Uh. One of the big responsibilities of the clerk of court is to take control of the exhibits that are presented in court, Isn't that correct? Yes, s'am. And there were sealed exhibits presented in this uh uh case uh that were photographs uh of uh the two decendents uh at Moselle uh when the UH law enforcement authorities first investigated the murders you recalled out, Yes, Sam, And those photographs were sealed by the judge.

1:01:44 Were they not correct? And when the uh uh testimony about them was completed, they were under your control as the clerk of court. Were they not? That's correct? How was it that those photographs came into public view? Are you talking about after the I'm. Talking about the fact he alluded to it on sentencing and said that he was frustrated about it and was going to try to look into it. Those photographs that were sealed court exhibits under your control found their way into the public media, did they not?

1:02:34 I believe they did, And I think what happened it was someone from the gallery took a picture from a screen that had some of the pictures on it. If I'm remember incorrectly. Did you ever allow anyone from the press to view these sealed exhibits? No, ma'am. Did you allow net flicks to ever examine the exhibits. To try domain? How did you handle exhibits? Because you did have the press have great access to the exhibits, and you say several times in your book that you had to stay after to be sure that you interacted with the press about these exhibits. That's true, is it not?

1:03:25 That is true? If we had mister J. Bender, and then we had the pull photographers and someone from maybe the State of Believe or the posting courier along with the court reporters, someone from court administration, and then someone from the clerk's office every night that would go over the exhibits to make sure everything was correct and within our domain. Were any press people ever allowed to view the exhibits, even the sealed exhibits that you had on file.

1:04:06 No, ma'am, No, ma'am. What was the methodology for allowing them to examine the exhibits? How'd you handled that? I wasn't there a whole lot with when we did this every night. But it's my understanding that the people that were involved with the exhibits and especially the court reporters, and there was a certain time frame that they were allowed to take their pictures and everything was All of the pictures were looked at by the court reporters that were there and the lady from court administration along with someone from my office and mister J. Fender to make sure that everything was done correctly.

1:04:52 What I'm asking is how you handled having them The press would view these exhibits, if I. Remember correctly, the press. We had certain designated photographers, as in someone I think from the state or the posting career, and they were responsible for putting it out on a stream for the rest of the media too. Would they do that by photographing the exhibits as they were in your possession after court was over that day? That is correct? And how did you handle the sealed exhibits in terms of their availability When these press people of their photographing.

1:05:37 Exhibits, they stayed sealed. And so you think that you're aware of the fact that some of these on the scene photographs of the two decendents found their way into the public press. You're aware of that. Are you nasty? I am yes, And you contend that they photographed them in the courtroom. That is what I heard, all right.

1:06:23 Finally, you have indicated about your book that some things that you put in there were you called it literary license, not literally true. Correct? Correct? Did you ever buy any kind of email communication, or in any way, shape or form indicate or a state that you wanted a guilty verdict because it would increase the sales of book of the book. Did you ever say that in an email or verbally or in any other way. No, ma'am, I did not. It didn't matter to me if it was guilty, not guilty, or a mistrial.

1:07:12 Well, in your book you suggest that the guilty verdict was what you wanted, and you were fearful that the that a guilty verdict would not be rendered. You say that a lot about your feeling about warning a guilty verdict, do you not? I do agree that that is set in the book, and and part of that is because I think it was a guilty verdict. Well, this is why that you were describing a time way before the verdict was rendered. Uh, when you wrote about those things in the book. Isn't that correct? It is? Yes? And you even have something where you so your eyes met with Jewel Roars and others at Moselle, and y'all have an understanding unspoken h that he was guilty. You said that in the book, did you not.

1:07:57 I did say that in the book, and I would consider that part of the literary the word that we just said. But that that was there was nothing spoken with a juror at all at Moselle or anywhere else, at the courthouse or anywhere. I think that was That's that's part of that poetic license that that we write to make something more apparent. But at no time did I read or try to read someone else's eyes. And that was just one of those gut feelings that that I wrote in the book.

1:08:49 Yeah, you wrote at in the book, speaking of a time before the d jury verdict was rendered. I was conflicted about knowing the Murdoch family and about having so many people watching and listening to me as I read the verdict. I was mostly concerned about Alex being found innocent when I knew in my.

1:09:46 Heart he was guilty. I had this fair that the goodwill of the Murdochs had built up in the community would influence the jury. Uh you wrote that, did you not yes, fam, so you had those feelings well before the verdict was announced. In this case, you had some definite opinions and feelings about what the verdict should be, did you not. I did have a certain way that I felt, but wasn't. Any That's not any poetic license. What was said there, that's how you felt correct. Correct. Those are my questions. Anything further from from the state, mister Waters.

1:10:31 First, mm. Hm. Very briefly on UH, you were asked a number of questions about UH the interactions during the UH the in camera proceedings with the juror he was excluded. Were you in the room during the entirety of those interactions or just were brought in here or there as they has occurred. No, I was only brought in for my asking of my questions from Judge Newman.

1:11:12 And you were asked a little bit about sealed exhibits and about Judge Newman's comments at sentencing at the end of trial, And just to clarify, those were not pictures of any sealed exhibits. It was a picture that someone had taken in the gallery that had actually been disclosed, and that's what Judge Neuman was talking about to your understanding. That was my understanding. Yes, and then after the trial there was even a post trial hearing or some discussion about the fact that some bodycam videos had not been sealed, and Judge Neuman fixed that problem. After the trial. Is that correct? Correct?

1:11:54 Nothing further on, just a couple of plays. Let me understand this erectly. You would agree that you did release all of the exhibits in this case, sealed and unsealed to the Texas film crew. Is that correct? No, sir, No, sir, I did not release the sealed exhibits. What about to. Netflix? Didn't you indicate to the judge they'd been mistakenly released and you were getting them back. As an error before when we realized everything. Yes, those two did go and Netflix had not even they said they had not even looked at them. Did you get them back?

1:12:34 We did get them back. Yes. And what about a Japanese film crew. Did they get exhibits the sealed exhibits? They did not get any sealed exhibits. What about NBC Universal? No sealed exhibits. But you do can see that Netflix did get sealed exhibits. They did it as an error. It was air well. I would say the court recorder didn't market on the on the listing. Well, why were you in such Why were you so accommodating to these national documentary folks? I mean is this good for the book? I mean the more documentaries out there about the murder thing, the better your book sales are.

1:13:15 I mean, there was money in this for you. Right again, it's about the money, right. What's your question now? Isn't it financially beneficial to you at the time to get more of these photographs out, more publicity, more Netflix, more hbos, more Japanese? Doesn't that sell books for you? Didn't you see a financial advantage? Not at all? Okay, thank you? No for the questions. As here you massed step down. Let's say hang on from moment, mister Lewis, she'ssst I just want to make I want her to step down. Yes, she's still under supheena.

1:14:08 I haven't heard whatever what's going to be said and this to Harpool and still has some things he wants to raise about other witnesses and so forth. So what I would prefer is that she remain with Hugh mister Lewis until we see what else is going to happen. You may step down. I mean, however, many times during that did you get the same feeling that I got. Becky Hill, in my opinion, is lying through her teeth. And honestly, I think Dick Harpoulian blew away Creton Waters in this one. And it pains me to say that because I'm such a creating Waters fan, but I think Harpoolium won that exchange. And eventually it gets down to closing arguments, and both the prosecution and the defense they lay out their case. You got to hear this. Here's the closing arguments in this motion for a new trial.

1:15:17 All right, now we proceed closing. You prepaid very good, mister Waters. Thank you your honor. Just to go back and reiterate. As to the standard, and ultimately we've of course argued that the defendant has the burden. We've also discussed that the standard for your honor of courses. First of all, was there any misconduct that occurred, and then regardless of that, whether or not there was any effect on the verdict, and the standard has been expressed in multiple cases, is whether the verdict is solely the product of honest deliberation, the product of outside the influence, and that inquiry fundamentally is the court recognized from the very beginning, focuses on the jurors themselves, because it doesn't necessarily matter what was said as much or what was intended, or what was inadvertant.

1:16:19 Even assuming that those existed. What matters is is what the jurors heard, what they perceived, and whether or not it had any sort of effect on the verdict. And Your Honor went through that inquiry with these jurors. Eleven of those jurors. Were clear and unequivocal that there was no effect on their verdict, and also clear and unequivocal that nothing was said that could any way be inferred as any sort. Of attempt to influence them. And I think that's very important in Your Honor, because you know, there can be sometimes behind the doors, as we've talked about, I think some of the cases RECOGNI this that some conversations can go on and things like that can happen. But ultimately, and while I think there were some cases cited in some of the various South Carolina decisions, you know that it's not that's unrealistic and not surprising to think that sometimes things like that that can happen an untoward comment or something was said, but that that was an Aldrich, your honor, in the nineteen ninety nine Supreme Court case. But the mere fact that something like that may be stated, that could be stated in a neutral reason, is not enough to undermine the verity, because the inquiry ultimately boils down to what was it.

1:17:41 That those jurors heard? And in the end, though, did they listen to the instructions from the trial judge? Did they come to a fair and honest verdict? And Your Honor, the evidence here is overwhelming, I would say, from the people that matter, and that's those jurors, and that is there was no effect on the jersey. And you saw every single one of them, every single one of them very clearly and strongly looked you in the eye. All eleven at least, and I'll get to the twelfth one in a second, but looked you in the eye and said, No, that didn't happen. No, I didn't hear anything like that. No, there was no effect on our verdict. No, this was our verdict and it was based solely, which was your honor's question, solely on the evidence and the law and the testimony at trial. And I think that that carries the day. We have one juror, and I want to make sure because I'm about to say the number and I don't want to do that.

1:18:35 I want to go back to Jersey. And let's look at Jersey and what she said, because Jersey also said that yes, I said this was my verdict. I was polled and said this was my verdict. Jersey also said that my verdict was solely based on the evidence in the law of the testimony trial answer question number two, Yes, absolutely, yes, but then goes on after that to say she heard some communications from the clerk and then says, well, it had an effect on my verdict, even after she had already answered question number two when she said her verdict was based solely on the evidence in the law and the testimony at trial and beyond that, then, your honor, I think that it's very telling that the affidavit that was submitted from this particular jurk and we've been pointing this out from the beginning because it's very crucial and very telling because despite the things that she alleges that happened, even though the other jurors say it didn't, Despite the things that she alleges that happened. She says that she voted guilty because she felt pressure from other jurors, not that her verdict was in any way affected from some supposed external influence, and the affidavit that was filed with the defense motion from day one, that is what she says, that she felt pressure from other jurors.

1:19:59 In Your Honor, we've cited cases over. And over again that the internal mechanics of the jury room, the fact that one juror feels pressured by others, as long as there's not violence or things that go beyond the pale, that is not. A basis for undermining a verdict. That is part of the deliberative process, and it's expected and it occurs. But I think it's very telling that we have those conflicting answers and Your Honor without waiving any objection to the latest affidavit that we were just discussing from this juror. I think that's very telling because now we have answer number three as it relates to this particular juror, and of course it is clearly manufactured and rehabilitated to recognized after the fact. She, of course is this jurors represented by Joe McCullough. And ultimately we've gotten now a third version of events from this very juror.

1:20:54 So we have this juror who's given answers all over the place that are inconsistent with a level another jurors who were very strong and unequivocal that yes. This was our verdict. It was based solely on the evidence of the law and the testimony that there were no communications from Becky Hill that influenced that verdict. And I think ultimately, when you look at the case law, in the end, it's up to your honor to make that ultimate determination. And looking at all that law together, we cited another number of decisions, including as we discussed the questions to be had, I sent an email where we set out some questions that it's. Not uncommon.

1:21:35 Perhaps for a juror to have a second thought, but the law is very clear that it does not recognize that, because what that would do would be to consistently and constantly put every verdict that occurs in any court room and this state or in the. Nation at risk. Jurors don't have to vote in perpetuity. They vote on one day and one day only. And here, your Honor, the evidence is overwhelming that those jurors verdict was the product of honest deliberation, and the only bit of contrary evidence to that effect is from a juror who frankly not only said that it was purely the result of honest deliberation, but then has answers all over the place.

1:22:19 In Your Honor, I would say that the other eleven jurors are credible, They were strong, they were clear with your honor, and I think that ultimately that carries the day. Now, we've had testimony from other people since the jurors were here. We've had testimony obviously from Miss Hill, we've had testimony from Miss Randa, and we've had testimony from this alternate juror. But again, none of that testimony at all goes to what is the ultimate test for your honor, and that is whether or not this verdict was the product of honest deliberation.

1:23:00 And on that again, the. Evidence is overwhelming and strong and clear that it was the product of honest deliberation. It's very interesting. As we look at some of the testimony from the other witnesses, and obviously we have Miss Becky. And as Your Honor has pointed out, we're not. Here to go through some of the issues that have been alleged or are percolating out there. That's not the point of this proceeding here today. But Miss Becky is a court reporter and then became a clerk, and was clear to you that she never made any comment in an attempt to sway the jury one way or the other.

1:24:00 We have Miss Rondo. And Miss Ronda came in and testified, But I would submit to your honor that this is kind of a red hearing because what Miss Runa described, what conversations that she herself admitted, are just the kind of conversations that go on, and that's the reality of it. The conversations that go on among the trial team when we're not in an open court where we're discussing things, the kind of conversations that go on among court staff behind the doors. Those types of conversations go on. But that is not mean, nor does that necessarily indicate that somebody's not going to come out here and do their job fairly and understand the distinction between influencing a jury and not doing that.

1:24:45 And one thing that I think is very important is Miss Rondo was at that trial more than Miss Becky was, and she was very clear, and I probably was as repetitive as anyone here today and asking that question and over and over again, because I didn't want that point to be lost that Miss Ronda said. I was there more than anyone else, and I never saw anything or observed anything, or had anything happen that would cause me, independently to go to Judge Newman, because that's what I would have done, to go to Judge Newman and say something's not right about this, this needs to be fixed. Something's going on that's improper. And I think that that is an extremely crucial fact because Miss Ronda admitted and said, of course as she would that if something had happened that the judge needed to know about, she would have been the first one to do it. And it never happened, and she was here more than Miss Becky was. It never happened. When we look at the balance of those facts, when we have the Clerk of court come in and testify.

1:25:59 That, you know, maybe I did this, or maybe I did that. Maybe I plagiarized the book a portion of a maybe I did this, Maybe I wrote in things in there that are based on community knowledge or newspapers or poetic license or whatever you want. To call it. I don't care about the book, and I would submit that your Honor doesn't need to care about the book either, because the book and what happened with the book afterwards is not what is relevant to the inquiry. But she was clear that she did not have any attempt to influence that journey. She was clear about that, and Miss Ronda was clear that she was not aware of anything like that either. And what does that do but corroborate the most important witnesses here. The defense, I think, in one of their letters, tried to say that Miss Becky was the state star witness. And that's not what this inquiry is about. It's not what this inquiry is about at all, because, as I've said from day one, if there were not facts to be litigated, if we had not done an investigation and had those eleven jurors say that didn't happen, there was no effect on our verdict.

1:27:14 This was the product of honest deliberation. We would be the first ones here standing here to say that. But what we do know there are is that what Miss Becky said and ultimately what Miss Ronda said corroborates who are the true if you want to say it, I'm not and I'm going to use this term because the defense accused us of miss Becky being our star witness. There are no star witnesses here. This isn't about stars. But what Miss Becky. And is ron to do is corroborate who are the most important witnesses, and that are those jurors. And you have eleven of them, strong as a rock, saying this verdict was not influenced. Nobody tried to influence, and regardless, it was the product of our honest deliberation. And you have one juror who said that too, but then has answers that are all over the place. And if you go back to her original statement, what she says is not external influence. Anyway, it's not sufficient under the law.

1:28:15 So I think that the proof here is overwhelming. I think the proof here collaborates what those jurors say. I think the only juror that we have to contend with or testimony is compromised. And I'm not saying that that person is in here and maliciously lying. I just think that this process is a lot. But it's clear that if. There was any attempt to influence this jury. Those jurors who sat in that box, every single one of them, you saw them, and we saw them for six weeks. They are conscientious. They take their obligations seriously. They were not here to reward friends or punish enemies. They were here to do their job appropriately and fairly. You saw that in their eyes. You saw that in their mannerisms, you saw that in their demeanor, and they were strong and clear that this verdict was fair, Your honor, we would submit the demotion for new trolby tonight.

1:29:19 I want to first start with State b. Green, because I understand that that's the guidance. That's what we're following here and reading, you know, excerpts from State v. Green. First, it is absolutely clear in State v. Green that we find ourselves and the issue is whether there's a defendant's right to a fair and impartial jury under the Sixth Amendment has been violated. Reading from the opinion that says in the Sixth Amendments contexts, the Supreme Court of the United States has held that quote, any private communication, contact, or tampering whether jury during a trial about the matter pending before the jury is deemed presumptively prejudicial. Now, Green goes on to say that we are not going to categorically apply the presumption whenever there is a contact with the jury. But the question is is it prejudicial? Not whether the verdict would have been different, It is is it prejudicial?

1:30:28 And I'll keep reading. The court says, we're not persuaded that the remor presumption of prejudice. We're talking about prejudice, not is the verdict different, it was their prejudice. Was this tainted process? Was it prejudice to the defendant? Was the process prejudicial to the defendant because of extraneous communications, Not whether the verdict would have been different, but whether it's prejudice involved in the process of the trial. The court goes on to say, our unwillingness to categorically apply the remor presumption of prejudice stems from our view that not every inappropriate comment by bailiff to a juror rises to the level of constitutional error. Goes on to say, the attempted bribery of the jury, and remember, conduct which goes to the heart of the marriage of the case, is a far cry from the circumstances presented in this case. The bailiff's actions here, though improper, did not touch the merits, but only dealt with the procedural question of how the judge might handle a jury impasse that apparently never materialize. The Court says, while we decline to adopt the presumption of prejudice in every instance of inappropriate bailiff communication to a jury, the occasion of this case presents an opportunity for our clerks of court and circuit judges to ensure that all bailiffs are properly trained. Now, the only thing that Green did was reject the presumption of prejudice in every case, And your honor, I'm not gonna I just want to preserve for the record that our position is that the comments that you heard in

1:31:59 this case go to the meriage, go. To the heart of the defense. And if you find that those comments were made, and I'm going to establish for the record we clearly made, we clearly have proven that that, then we do get in the rumor of presumption that we do get the rumor presumption if we have proven these comments were made. But I'm going to argue that. We prove prejudice also in this case. So to start with, let's go to the evidence that was presented since Friday, and and you know, we have we have twelve deliberating jurors in this case. What you've heard, three of the twelve have testified under oath that they heard miss Hill make comments about the case. Whether it's you know, howgh they categorize it as merits or not. But your acts on Friday, durr X on Friday acknowledge that miss Hill made a comment about Alex was going to testify, that it was going to be epic or some words like that, and that defendants don't normally testify. That's what juror X said on Friday Today, So that's one who says miss Hill made a comment about Alex testimony, how it's going to be a big deal and defendants don't normally testify.

1:33:25 Jersey today says that first she says miss Hill said to watch his actions, to watch him closely, and then she said there are other things that he said, I don't remember, and then we were allowed to show her. Your honor asked her questions about her AFFI David, and she says, confirm what was in her Affidavid, that Rebecca. Hill told the jury not to be fooled. By evidence presented by mister Murdoch's attorneys, which I understood to mean that mister Murdock would be would lie when he testified. She also acknowledged this is a truthful statement, that she instructed the jury to quote watch him closely close quote immediately before he testified, including look at his actions and look at his movements, which I understand to mean he was guilty. And she also said and confirmed that that Miss Hills said when they began deliberations that this quote, this shouldn't take us long close quote, and that if we deliberated past eleven PM, that we'd be taken to a hotel. Those statements go to the marriage.

1:34:32 Those statements will go to the heart of the defense. Those statements go to what mister Murdoch his credibility. So there's two deliberating jurors down. The third deliberating juror who testified today is Durrope, and he says, you were asked, Durrope, did Miss Hill make any comments about the case, and he says, yes, she said the day that Alex was taking the stand, she came Durope as a he. But he is saying that she miss Hill said the day Alex was taking the stand that she Miss Hill made the comment about watch his body language.

1:35:13 That's all I recall. So three of the twelve deliberating jurors heard Miss Hill speak about Alec Murdoch's testimony. Three of the twelve. And then and then we get the alternate juror came in and basically corroborated what those three of the twelve heard. And she had additional things that she had heard, but she corroborated what those three of the twelve heard. And then you've got Miss Hill who gets on the stand and. Denies it all. And Your Honor, I couldn't agree with you more that you're able to judge the credibility of witnesses, and and on this record, there's no way to find miss Hill all credible. There's no way to credit her statements that she did not make these statements about his testimony. I mean, she crossed herself up as your Honor is questioning her about the transcript involving the egg lady and how the egg lady learned that there's some Facebook posts that was Lesterli attributed to her husband. There's no way the egg Lady would have known that unless Miss Hill told her, and that pretty much came out there. So you know, and I know this is not a jury argument, but if someone misrepresents the fact to you once, I mean, I don't think you should go back and credit anything beyond that. What we hear from miss Micklevin is that

1:36:45 she heard these almost identical statements from Miss Hill. That Miss Hill told that three of the twelve deliberating jurors heard and the fourth alternate her that missus Micklevin heard her make very similar about the defense's case about mister Murlock's testimony. So you got to put missus Mickaelviane's testimony in our category. And Miss Hill gets up there and says, never drove a juror home. Miss Mickleban's got no dog in this fight. And she says, she goes to court one day she hears that Miss Hill took a juror home the night before and went and talked to her and said you can't do that. Miss Hill said, I didn't talk to her about the case. Well, she gets on the stand under oath here.

1:37:31 And tells you, I never took it care of home. I mean, it's totally inconsistent, and and for her to say I never made these statements, you know she tried. I mean she kind of gave herself a little wiggle room at the end. We will when they were lining up, I may have said he's going to testify today or something. But these jurors heard this information. And the question under Green and Remor it was it prejudicudicial? Now what we got from Jersey today? The question was did these comments influence your verdict? And Jurisy Z says yes. Then you ask how and Z says, to me, it felt like she made it seem like he was already guilty. Then you said, did it affect your finding of guilt in this case?

1:38:28 And the answer was yes. And so. That's prejudice you're on. That is prejudice from one of the twelve deliberating jurors. What's your verdict influence by. What miss Hill said? And good grief, how could it not be? How could it not be? And to ask all these other jurors who heard the same thing was an influence? It is really an impossible task because you don't know what's influenced seeing a jury, And frankly, that's why the ramor of presumption is there. But but let's but but let's try to sort this out. And and you're a A.

1:39:10 I think it was it was a. State Kelly case where the where the deputies went out and they were investigating the juris beliefs on the death penalty, and and there was really no testimony about did that affect your verdict? But it was so it was just so wrong. The conduct was so wrongful that the Supreme Court says that's prejudicial and we're granting new trou I mean, this is prejudice. And this has been proven. I mean, miss Hill is not credible. Miss Hill is not credible. And he's talking about her book talking about taking literary license to lie. Literary literary license to lie is what she that's what she thinks a literary license is, so her her testimony should not be credited. We have proven, we have met our burden improving that there was an extraneous contact with these jurors. Three of the twelve deliberating gurors have testified to that. One of the twelve says it influenced my verdict. How is that not prejudice? And that's all we have to prove. We believe for the record.

1:40:22 There is a presumption of prejudice that they have to overcome. But we have proven prejudice and you're on a respectfully request that a new trial should be granted based on the record developed today. Thank you, So, after you heard all of that, ask yourself this does this warrant a new trial? I'll give you my thoughts after you listen to the Chief Justice supply the verdict in this hearing, and here's that. In a matter of State of South Carolina against Richard and Alexander Murdoch two two two gs. Fifteen zero zero, five nine two five nine three, five, nine, four and five ninety five. The following constitutes my ruling on this matter from the bench. This order will be supplemented, as I will explain after proposed formal orders are received from each side in this matter. This case is unique in my twenty years of experience as a lawyer and my thirty five years of experience as an active Justice of the Supreme Court and a senior active trial and appellate judge.

1:41:36 Usually matters involving possible in proper contact with or conduct of a juror arise during or shortly after the trial the judge then puts the effected juror or jurors under oath, conducts an examination and rules on the requests for a new trial or a trial. In this case, I was appointed almost nine months after the trial to replace the trial judge who was recused. It is now almost ten months after the verdict was rendered and sentence imposed in this matter. It is now on appeal to the Court of Appeals. Several months after the appeal was found, defendant moved that his appeal be suspended and this matter be remanded to the trial court to consider his motion for a new trial on a charge that the Clerk of Court for Collington County tampered with the jury by expressing her opinion to the jurors about what their verdict should be and about the credibility of the defendant, who had elected to take the stand and testify on his own behalf.

1:42:58 Since this matter had has been remanded to me, I have set the matter matter for a pre trial and a final hearing. Conducted a telephoning status conference with the attorneys for the parties on December the twenty first, twenty twenty three. I have received briefs from the parties. I conducted a pre trial proceeding on January the sixteenth, twenty twenty fourth, in which I invited briefs and arguments by the parties and by the attorneys for certain of the jurors and for the Clerk of Court, Rebecca Hill. On Friday, January the twenty sixth, twenty twenty fourth, I conducted a hearing on this matter in which I took testimony from one of the jurors. The conduct of the examination conducted solely by me. I received further argument from the attorneys for the state and for the defendant. Today, January the twenty ninth, tenty four I have taken sworn testimony from the remaining eleven jurors who rendered a verdict in this case.

1:44:09 This examination was conducted solely by me. I have found no case that provides otherwise. In the many cases I have read on the subject of a motion for a new trial on the basis of after discovered evidence of jury tampering or misconduct, I have also received sworn testimony from the Clerk of Court, Rebecca Hill. Direct examination was conducted by a Deputy Attorney General, Creighton Waters. Cross examination was conducted by defendant attorney Richard Harputlin. I have also propounded questions myself to the Clerk of court. I also received testimony from the Clerk of Court for Barnwell County, Ronda Michaelvin, who attended most of the trial and assisted the clerk for Cayton County. Have also received testimony from the remaining alternate juror, who was when the matter was deliberated dismissed from further service. The following is my ruling on the defendant's motion the standard of proof. The state contends that, in order to prevail, the defendant must show one that the Clerk of Court made an improper comment or propounded an improper question to the member of the jury to a member of the jury who rendered the verdict.

1:45:38 To defendant must further show that missus Hill's improper comment or question actually influenced the juror's verdict. Citing State v. Green, State v. Alidret and other opinions of our Supreme Court and other authorities, contends that he must show only that an improper question or comment was propounded to any juror by a clerk of court Hill. If so proved, The defendant contends that the motion for the new trial must be granted. Defendant relies on the United States be remor in many other cases. My ruling is this on the law, the defendant has the burden of proving both the fact of the improper comment or questioned by the Clerk of Court Rebecca Hill to juror a juror or jurors, and to prejudice suffered by the defendants, specifically that the hill improper comments to the jur or jurors influence the juror to vote to convict defendant murderch the facts, did Clerk of Court Hill make comments to any juror which expressed her opinion of what the verdict would be. Miss Hill

1:47:08 denies a, and so the question becomes was her denial credible? I find that the Clerk of court is not completely credible. As a witness. Miss Hill was attracted by the siren call of celebrity. She wanted to write a book about the trial, and expressed that as early as November twenty twenty two, long before the trial began. She denies that this is so, but I find that she stated to the Clerk of Court Ronda McKelvin and others her desire for a guilty verdict because it would sell books. She made comments about Murdoch's demeanor as he testified, and she made some of the comments before he testified to at least one and maybe more jurorids did Clerk of Court Hill's comments have any impact on the verdict of the jury?

1:48:15 I find that the answer to this question is no. Each member of this jury took their involuntary assignment very seriously. They obeyed the instructions of the court. They obeyed their oath. These good and decent citizens of Carleton County stood to their duty and rendered their verdict without fear or favor. It was a difficult task. Eleven of the jurors very unconditionally said they either heard no comment, or if they heard a comment, it had no effect. One juror was ambivalent in her testimony. She was then examined on her previous affidavit in which she said the effect, if any, that she had was pressure she felt from other jurors.

1:49:03 The cases are myriad that pressure from fellow jurors is a part of the normal give and take of jury deliberations. The court is not inquiring any way about what is said in those deliberations, but the juror was somewhat ambiliment said on her oath at the time of trial twice, and said on her oath before me in these proceedings that she stood to her oath. The clerk of court allowed public attention of the moment to overcome her duty. I have read the entire transcript of this lengthy trial, not an easy task. I have studied in detail all of the authorities cited. I have independently researched the case law, learned treatises and scholarly articles on the subject. Although there is certainly a split in the federal circuits and in the States on the standard of review, I simply do not believe that the authority of our Cy Carolina Supreme Court requires a new trial in a very lengthy trial such as this on the strength of some fleeting and foolish comments by a publicity influenced clerk of court. This is a matter within the discretion of the trial judge, and I am the trial judge at this moment. I

1:50:34 do not feel that I abuse my discretion when I find the defendant's motion for a new trial on the factual record before me must be denied, and it is so ordered upon receipt the Court of all proposed orders, I will finalize this record, submit a written order, and I will at that time transmit the written order to the Court of Appeals, the court which has remanded this matter to me. His hearing is adjourn. Okay, so I'll say this, and I mean this with all due respect. It's my opinion and believe, after hearing both sides here that Chief Justice told got it wrong.

1:51:30 I was actually shocked that Murdoch did not get a new trial. And it has nothing to do with his guilt or innocence zero. It has everything to do with the fact that even a blind man could see that this jury was influenced by Becky Hill, that she, in my opinion, was doing what the defense accused her of doing, which was to ensure that guilty plea to sell bucks. And when the juror expressed doubt regardingaradox guilt in that original trial, I think Becky Hill panicked and went so far as to have that yard dismissed to ensure a guilty plea. And that pisses me off, not because I think that Myrdau deserves to get a new trial, per se, but that's not what is relevant here. Our court system is what represents everything that is great about the United States.

1:52:33 It's the cornerstone of that that you cannot tamper with the fucking jury, not ever, no matter how clear someone's guilt may be. So with all due respect and I think the world of the Chief Justice, I really do. She got this one in my view, and later on you're gonna see that I am not the only one with that opinion. I'd be curious to know what yours is. Now, it's been a long one today, so we're about to wrap this one up. But I want to let you in on one more interesting thing that happened after this hearing.

1:53:24 On March twenty fifth of twenty twenty four, just a couple of months later, Becky Hill resigns as Clerk of Court of Collington County. Here's what that sounded like. Along with will Lewis our council for Miss Becky Hill, the Colleton County Clerk of Court. Today will be brief, but today's important. Obviously, over the last few months, Miss Hill has really wanted to address her constituents. Obviously with that were going on, she has certain rights and she's got to protect herself most of which came under the advice of counsel. And that I think has been lost on a lot of people with everything that's been going on, is that as Clerk of Court, you do have a constituency the residents here in Colleton County and today could have occurred be hid and behind a computer screen or hide and behind her lawyers, and Miss Hill was committed to that not happening, and I stand with her, and I also respect her very much for being here today.

1:54:38 So without further ado, I'll turn the floor over to Miss Becky Hille. Good morning everyone. It has been my honor and pleasure to serve as your Colleton County Clerk of Court. Over these past four years, the Clerk's Office has provided many services to the College, to the citizens of Colleton County, the College in County. Any Clerk's Office is proud of our services and the significant impacts we have made in the history of South Carolina. Here at the Colleton County Courthouse, you will find a full service passport office with certified agents ready to help you, as well as notary services and e filing that has streamlined our civil processes. Another significant impact in our Clerk's office was in twenty twenty three when we had to manage one of the biggest trials in South Carolina history. Our small town came together and made everyone proud managing a trial with such importance to the people of South Carolina as well as of the national and international media interest and public scrutiny, and has caused me to reflect upon decisions involving my stay in the office of the Clerk of Court, and so after much reflection, I have decided that it is best not to run again for reelection. I will now be able to focus on being a wife, a mother, and a grandmother to my two grand boys, and will be spending time with a people who mean the most to me.

1:56:09 With the upcoming election, I wanted to ensure that I provided ample time for other Republican candidates who may be interested in pursuing this position. I want to publicly thank all of the citizens of call Itton County who voted for me, who have supported me, and who have stood by me. I also want to take just a moment to extend heartfelt condolences to the family and friends of a very very kind professional educator here in Collington County who has departed this life and gone on to the other life that she has, and that is the family of Debbie Price. And so today I just want to take a few seconds of silence just to remember her and her family and friends. I also want to thank my amazing staff who work in the Clerk of Court's office for the wonderful job that they have done and that they will continue to do. We are fortunate to have strong leadership within our office, and I am proud to say that our Clerk's Office will seamlessly move forward.

1:57:24 I look forward to all of the future holds and will fondly remember the true amazing friendships that I have made while serving the incredible people of Colleton County. And so as we fix our eyes forward, I would like to announce also that my resignation as Clerk of Court will be effective immediately. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. I do have in my hand a signed copy of Miss Hill's official resignation that will be forwarded to the Governor's Office Governor hemm Master's office later today. I've served in the South Carolina State House for over a decade now. When we run as elected officials in this state, we run publicly our lives become public We serve publicly, and it's only fitting and I respect Miss Hill very much that the conclusion of her service also happens publicly. I'll be taking a couple of questions, but I do want to say one thing because I know that there are speculation and rumors. Having lived in small town South Carolina my entire life, I can see where people's minds may run after an announcement such as this.

1:58:47 So let me be extremely clear. Today is not in response whatsoever to anything going on with any investigation or anything of that nature. Okay, and I'm gonna say that one more time. Today is not in response to any new development of some investigation or anything like that. Today is about the people of Colleton County. Uh. There is still another week available for filing for the Clerk of Court's office, and. It is what it is. Uh. If Miss Hill had stayed in office, the people of Collinson County would be the ones who get distracted to a certain degree because there are a number of candidates running for Clerk of Court.

1:59:39 Uh. Those candidates have different things that they different platforms that they want to campaign on, and it would be inevitable that if Becky was still serving while those candidates were campaigning. Every time they mentioned something, every time there's an article, every time there's a forum and candidates are discussing of the future that they see to create for the courthouse. Behind us, UH, there will be a degree of a cloud over that because it'll be talking about the sitting clerk, et cetera. So this decision was made wholeheartedly by Miss Hill for the benefit UH and and to the benefit of the citizens of Collison County. We will not address any investigation stuff, whether it be seld or state ethics or anything like that. So please, I know it's tough.

2:00:29 I can see some of the faces out there, no questions about any of that. If you do ask, I'm gonna dodge it because we're not gonna comment on that. We're not gonna detract from the from the positive nature of today, the bittersweet positive nature of today. With that, so, if that said, I. Would like to acknowledge behind us faithful members of the Clerk of Court's Office. UH. These are dedicated employees to the people of College. And County. And we want to thank them for everything that they have been doing, everything that they will continue to do so that we can continue to make Calton County as great as it is.

2:01:13 So what's the truth to why she resigned? Because what you just heard was bullshit? Well I'm gonna tell you that next week. So check out the Patreon and consider becoming a celebrity supporter. These folks are why we exist, plain and simple, and there are all kinds of benefits you can't find anywhere else. Just visit us, patreon dot com, slash exposed podcast files and until next time for exposed scandalous files of the elite. I'm your host, Jim Chapman.

2:01:53 Much love,