Shocking Reversal: Inside the Overturning of Alex Murdaugh’s Double Murder Convictions

0:20 Hey, everyone, welcome back to Exposed. I'm Jim Chapman and we are jumping right into it today. I'm gonna start with this twenty seven episodes over thirty five hours of content, and I had hoped that I was done ever saying the name Elick Murdoch again. But if you listen to episode twenty seven of the Massive Murdoch series I did way back in April twenty twenty five, I told you what just happened likely would happen, and that is on May thirteenth, the South Carolina Supreme Court overturned Elick Murdoch's convictions in the killing of both his wife Maggie and his son Paul. So what happened, What does it mean for the future of these two killings? And does this mean that Elic Murdoch is getting out of prison? Well, we're going to discuss all of that today and I'm going to catch you up, so a little refresher for you on where I left off. Way back in April of twenty twenty five, Becky Hill had pleaded guilty to four charges, all related to tampering in the Murdoch trial.

1:33 She was the clerk of court in Collington County where this high profile trial took place, and I knew then that that was going to be an issue, and it was at that point that Murdoch's lawyers, of course, they challenged this all the way to the Supreme Court. So when these cases are decided, the Supreme Court does issue a brief, and that brief breaks down essentially why they rendered the verdict they did. Now I have that brief in front of me. I'm going to cover that today and I'm going to give you the details you can't get from a five minute blurb on Fox News, right, So let's get into it, and it starts off. For six weeks in early twenty twenty three, the eyes of the nation focused on Collington County, where the state prosecuted notorious former attorney Richard Alexander Murdoch from the murders of his wife Maggie and his son Paul. Both the state and Murdoch's defense skillfully presented their cases to the jury as the trial court presided over this complicated and high profile matter. However, their efforts were in vain because Collington County Clerk of Court Rebecca Hill placed her fingers on the scales of justice thereby denying Murdoch his right to affair trial by an impartial jury. Our system provides, indeed demands, that every person is entitled to a fair trial, which includes an impartial jury, untainted by external forces bent on influencing the jury toward a bias verdict. Although we are

3:06 aware of the time, money and effort expended in this lengthy trial, we have no choice but to reverse the denial of Murdoch's motion for a new trial, Duniahil's improper external influences on the jury, and remain for a new trial. Because we order a new trial on these basis, it is not necessary that we review every evidentiary issue Murdoch raises on his appeal. However, we address the admissibility of Murdoch's financial crimes to offer guidance on this thorny issue to the trial court on remand then it goes into the facts and procedural background. Murdoch was convicted on March second of twenty twenty three of the murders of his wife, Margaret Murdoch and his son Paul Murdoch, as well as two counts of possession of a weapon during the commission of a crime. The trial court Judge Newman sends him to life in prison. His direct appeal on these convictions was pending at the Court of Appeals. Murdock filed a motion to hold an appeal in abeyance to allow him to file in motion for a new trial. The Court of Appeals granted this motion on October twenty seventh, twenty twenty three. Murdock moved for a new trial, asserting he'ld tampered with the jurney by advising it not to believe Murdoch's testimony and other defense evidence. She also pressured it to reach a quick guilty verdict, and she also misrepresented information to the trial court in an attempt to have the court remove a jur she believed to favor the defense,

4:37 and that was the egg jur that I told you about. He attached affidavits from several jurors to to support that motion, and Chief Justice Betty appointed former Chief Justice Toll to preside over this motion, as the trial court judge have accused himself. The post trial court conducted a hearing of this motion on January twenty sixth, twenty ninth of twenty twenty four. During the hearing, the post trial court asked each juror if the guilty verdict was an accurate statement about their verdict at the time, and also asked whether their verdict was based entirely on testimony evidence in the law presented in the case. Also, it was asked whether they heard He'll make any comment about the case before the verdict, and lastly, whether their verdict was influenced in any way by communications with Hill. Jur X, who testified on the first day of the hearing, and knowledge, He'll say before Murdoch's testimony, quote looks like the defendant is going to testify. This is an epic day in that it was rare for a defendant to testify. Jur X said that these statements did not impact the verdict. Jersey, who submitted one of the affidavits Murdoch attached to his motion for a new trial, was the first jur to testify on the second hearing day. When asked whether she heard He'll make any comments about the case, Jersey responded to that He'll said quote, watch his actions and watch him closely.

6:04 Jersey added that He'll said it more, but she couldn't remember anything else. Jersey explained He'll's statements influenced her finding Mardock guilty because quote, to me, it felt like she made it seem like he was already guilty at the state's requests. The post trial court questioned Jersey about her affidavit, addressing each paragraph in turn. Jersey's affidavit gave a more detailed recitation of Hill's comments, and it goes on to say after reviewing the affidavit, the post trial court questioned Jersey, quote, I asked you previously, was your verdict on March second, twenty twenty three, influenced in any way by communications for Becky Hill, Clerk of court. You answered the question yes, in light of what you said in the affidavit, which is quote, I had questions about his guilt, but vote voted guilty because I felt pressure by other Jersey. Is that answer that I just read you more accurate than the statement you felt in Jersey? He answered affirmatively. The post trial court then asked if she stood by the affidavit, and she said yes. Jersey subsequently submitted an affidavit to clarify her testimony, in which she explained she felt influenced to find Murdock guilty by Heel's remarks before she entered the court room, and once deliberations began, she felt additional pressure from other jurors to reach a guilty verdict. Although the post trial court did not admit this affidavit, it accepted it as a proffer. Thus the affidavit is part of the record before this court. Jurorp testified that on the day Murdoch was supposed to take the stand, Hill

7:36 made a comment to quote watch his body language. He denied Hill's comments influenced him in any way. The remaining jurors testified they did not hear He'll make any comments about the case and they were not influenced by any comments He'll made. Following the jarar's testimony, the state called Hill as a witness, although He'll denied making most of the comments the jurors related. She did admit that on the day Murdoch testified, and within the earshot of some jurors, she spoke to the bailiff about Murdoch's decision to testify. She also stated that she gave the jurors quote a little talk instructing them to pay attention and that it was a big day. She denied attempting to influence the jury in discussing her book Behind the Doors of Justice, He'll claimed literary license to explain some of the more dramatic passages. She denied wanting a guilty verdict because it would sell more books, claiming the outcome of the trial did not matter to her, but she acknowledged that she felt like Murdoch was guilty. The post trial court also questioned Hill about the favor she granted the media. He'll denied allowing the press to view the exhibits, including the sealed exhibits. However, she did plead guilty to perjury stemming from this denial. Although the post trial court limited discussion on jurors seven eighty five, whom the trial court dismissed the day deliberations began, that's the egg juror are allegedly discussing the case with the third party. It allowed Murdoch to question Hill about bringing to the trial court's attention

9:07 social media posts that He'll mistakenly believe were from the egg juror's ex husband. He'll claim the juror was very talkative while He'll walked her through the trial courts chambers and volunteer that there were restraining orders on her ex husband when they divorced. In response to the post trial courts questioning, He'll continue to deny initiating or engaging that jur in discussion. And it goes through y'all several I would say, probably fifteen pages of other examples. I'm not going to go through all that. And the reason that I'm not going to do that is, Look, this lady's already been found guilty. There's no doubt in anybody's mind that she influenced this jury. But I'm also going to get into the part that isn't being covered very heavily anywhere else, and that is the financial crimes and how they played a part in Murdoch's guilty sentencing in this case being overturned, and we'll get into that. It says, because we order a new trial based on hills and proper influence on the jury. On appeal from the order denying Murdoch's motion for a new trial, it is not necessary we address the evidentiary issues Murdov raised on appeal from his convictions and sentences. We elect, however, to offer the trial court on remand the following guidance regarding amissibility of evidence of Murdoch's financial crimes and if you'll remember, he was stealing from every client he had, and we

10:38 went over all that. I want rehash it, but I'll tell you what they said about it. At the time of the trial, Murdoch had been accused of and indicted for numerous financial crimes. During his testimony before the jury, mrdoc admitted he had committed the financial crimes, although he had not at the time been convicted of anything. After trial, he plugged guilty to the financial crimes in both state and federal court. He was sentenced to concurrent twenty seven years in state prison in forty years in federal prison, So that means those sentences are going to be served at the same time. So he essentially got forty years because the federal charge is a longer amount of time than the state charge. And it's interesting when your charge federal in a federal court with a crime, you don't get any option for parole. You got to serve eighty five percent of that sentence. And the reason it's not one hundred percent is you get some good time mixed in there, assuming he was good and he didn't get in any fights anything like that. He's going to serve at least eighty five percent, but more on that in a little while. The state sought to admit evidence of these financial crimes during Murdall's murder trial for the purpose of showing his motive for committing the murders. The state filed a pre trial motion in which it argued that evidence demonstrated quote murderaw accrued substantial debt over the period of years, and to cover these debts, began engaging in illicit financial crimes involving the theft and misappropriation of money

12:09 from his clients and his own firm. The state emphasized that several series of events unfolding in the weeks and days leading up to the murders threatened to expose Murdall's financial crimes. The state wrote in his motion, quote all of these factors start to converge on June seventh, twenty twenty one, the date of the murders. The state explained its motive theory, quote, the murders served as Murdall's mean to shift the focus away from himself and by himself some more time to try and prevent his financial crime from being uncovered. The state also stressed Murdoch's attempts to cover his financial misdeeds after the murders. To support its theory of motive, Murdall filed a memo arguing that financial crime evidence should be excluded and it listed some rules there of why and it said the trial court conducted a lengthy pre trial hearing but declined to rule on the admissibility of the financial crime evidence at the time.

13:04 During various breaks in the course of the trial, the state presented testimony of eight witnesses regarding Murdoch's financial crimes outside the presence of the jury. After hearing this testimony and the arguments on both sides, the trial court found quote all evidence of financial crime that may likely have led to a motive or lent itself to a motive for the crime committed was admissible. The trial court stated the jury was entitled to consider whether the apparent desperation of mister Murdoch because of his dire financial situation, threats of being exposed for committing the crimes for which he was later charged, that resulted in the commission of the alleged crimes. The trial court also found this evidence of other crime is admissible as it does not suggest to the jury that the defendant has a tendency to commit murder.

13:54 I specifically find that these crimes will not lure the jury into declaring guilt on a different ground than specific charges. The trial court found the evidence had sufficient pervative value and was not substantially outweighed by any danger of unfair prejudice. The trial court issued a written order setting forth its ruling. The state presented testimony to the jury from eight witnesses who testified earlier, along with two additional witnesses. Through these witnesses, the State proved Murdoch committed wide ranging financial crimes over numerous years in several general categories, including the following. One Murdoch stole money from his clients by building personal expenses to them under the guise of these expenses being costs associated with their cases. Two Murdoch stole money from his law firm by instructing law firm employees to make checks payable to quote palametto State Bank, whose then CEO, Russell Lafitte, enabled Murdoch to convert the fund's first personal use. Three Murdoch stole money from his clients and his law firm by instructing law firm employees to make checks payable to forge a fake account Murdock created to imitate the legitimate Forge Consulting LLC firm that Murdoch then deposited and used for personal expenses, and for Murdoch stole money from Tony Satterfield by filing an insurance claim in relation to his mother, Glorious Satterfield's death and collecting the insurance proceeds for personal use instead of providing the proceeds to Tony and Gloria's

15:26 other son. The state also presented evidence to the jury that Murdoch's years of stealing money in these ways was about to be exposed. For example, law firm employees testified they asked Murdock on at least two occasions in the weeks leading up to the murders about discrepancies in his financial disbursement documents in individual cases. Genie Secondger, the firm's chief financial officer, testified she confronted Murdoch on the morning of the murders, stating quote, I have a reason to believe that you received moneies directly to you, and you need it proved to me that you did not. Other evidence include second Jeer was referring to seven hundred and ninety two thousand dollars in missing attorney's fees the firm was supposed to have received from Murdoch's co counsel, Chris Wilson.

16:14 The state also presented evidence from Mark Tinsley, the attorney representing the family of the young women who died in the boat wreck, had scheduled a motion hearing for three days after the murders, in which Tinsley sought to compel Murdoch to disclose his detailed financial records. Murdoch challenged the admissibility of evidence of his financial crimes, and it lists some rules some reasons for him doing that, et cetera. Goes on to say as to Murdoch's relevance objection, the state argues that because Murdoch was charged with murdering his wife and son quote seemingly inexplicable conduct when standing alone, it was important that it offer evidence to explain why he did it. The state also argues Murdoch himself place the issue of motive front and center through his own actions by suggesting to officers who arrived at Mozelle on June seventh that quote the killer's motive stemmed from the boat wreck. We agree with the state that evidence of Murdoch's financial crimes made the state's theory of motive more probable. Thus, we find the trial court acted within its discretion in finding the financial crime evidence was relevant and admissible. The more difficult question is whether the trial court should have excluded all or some of the financial crime evidence. We address this question as two distinct categories of issue. The first of these categories, whether the trial court should have excluded all of the financial crime evidence, is a point on which not all members of the court would have ruled the same way we have been in the trial court.

17:45 We agree, however, this decision was within the discretion of the trial court under facts and circumstances that existed in the Murdoch murder trial. As to the second category, we will address whether the trial court should have restricted to the extent the State was allowed to present this evidence. That is, whether the trial court should have excluded some of the evidence. We unanimously hold the trial court allowed the State to go too far, too long, and too deep into the aspects of Murdoch's financial crimes that were not probative to the state's theory of motive which gave rise to considerable danger of unfair prejudice and therefore should have been excluded. As to whether the trial court should have excluded all evidence of Murdoch's financial crimes, we have discussed the principles that applied when a trial court is asked to exclude evidence of other crimes in numerous cases, and they list some of those cases where all of this shit kind of came up. Goes on to say, as to Rule four of three, the trial court's balance and perbative rule of evidence against its potential for unfair prejudice, and concluded the probative value was not substantially outweighed by any unfair prejudice. The trial court specifically found commission of the financial crimes does not suggest to the jury the defendant has a tendency to commit murder. So basically what they're saying there is just because you're stealing a ship pile of money, and you're a piece of shit for stealing money from clients and your own law firm and

19:17 things like that doesn't necessarily make you a murderer. Now to me, it does kind of give you a motive when you have that much pressure on you but it doesn't necessarily make you a murderer, and that is what they're trying to say. There also goes on to say, we emphasize the trial court should have limited the state's presentation of this evidence. We illustrate this point with an example from the direct examination of Tony Satterfield. Quote the state, why were you the personal representative and not your brother, Saderfield, Because my brother is a vulnerable adult and has a disability court, can you repeat those words for me, Satterfield. That's my brother. He's a vulnerable adult and he's not able to function as a normal human being to deal with stuff like that. State he's a vulnerable adult. Sadderfield. Yes.

20:07 The Supreme Court said this particular testimony had zero probated value as to Murdall's motive for the murders, and obviously high potential for unfair prejudice as it portrays Murdoch as a man who prays on vulnerable victims. And I would agree with that as far as what they're saying there, because you can see in that little quote that they took out it was really hammered down. Hey, your brother wasn't the one representing you in this case? That Murdoch had accepted and was defending you on because he has some issues. Obviously, they were wanting the jurors kind to feel sorry and see how much of a piece of shit that Murdall was to prey on people with disabilities.

20:49 So I would agree with them there that that might be dangerous as far as unfair prejudice against the defense guys. I want to say much of the additional details the state presented as to Murdoch's financial crimes had little or no probative value for the purpose of establishing Murdoch's motive. The state's theory of motive centers on the point that his financial crimes were about to be exposed and he needed time. The fact that he committed some of these crimes against a vulnerable adult adds nothing to that theory. As I just told you, to the extent many similar details may have minimal prebative value. That value is substantially outweighed by the unfairly prejudicial sympathy the jury was likely to feel towards the victim. By our calculation, the state spent a total of twelve and a half hours of actual testimony before the jury over ten days of trial.

21:44 To introduce evidence related to Murdoch's financial crimes. We are convinced the state could have effectively presented evidence to support his motive theory in a fraction of that time. So they're saying there that the state just over blew it to the point, I mean ten and a half hours just on as financial crimes rather twelve and a half hours just on as financial crimes. They're saying, hey, you could have talked about that for three hours and got your point across, and that's probably true. It goes on to say, by holding the trial court in this case active within its discretion and emitting some evidence of Murdoch's financial crimes, we certainly do not intend to require the evidence be admitted on retrial, as is often in this case, the facts and circumstances on retrial may be different from those presented in the initial trial. Thus the trial court on remand must do as the trial court did here, carefully and thoughtfully apply correct principles of law to the facts and circumstances before it. We do intend to require, however, that if the trial court decides to admit evidence of Murdoch's financial crimes on retrial, the state must complete its introduction of that evidence efficiently, without the lengthy presentation of inflammatory details with little or no probative value that was permitted in the first trial. And then it goes into the conclusion, and it goes on to say, as the Fourth Circuit declared, it serves to protect the right of a fair trial by an impartial jury for all defendants.

23:12 Here Hill, the Collington County Clerk of Court, egregiously attacked Murdoch's credibility in his defense, thus triggering a presumption of prejudice which the State was unable to Rebut as noted at the outset, he'll's shocking jury interference was accomplished outside the presence and knowledge of the outstanding trial judge and superbly competent and professional counsel for the state and the events. We are accordingly constrained to reverse the post trial court's denial of Murdoch's motion and remand for a new trial consistent with this opinion. And it is very important to note that every Supreme Court justice agreed on this one.

23:58 Very important to note so to sum that up the reasons that Elic Murdoch is getting a new trial, and this one is completely at this point thrown out as if it never occurred is because of Becky Hill primarily, and she's the main cause of this. But even taking her out, they're also saying there was too much prejudice placed on him with the financial crime aspect and how it contributed to the killings. All of them agreed, and I'll tell you what I agree with three quarters of it. I definitely agree. And I told you this a freaking year ago. This was not going to hold up. He was going to end up getting a new trial. And the way I knew that was because of Becky Hill.

24:47 I questioned the financial crimes and the amount of time they spent on it. But I don't know if he would have necessarily gotten a new trial just based off of that. But the Becky Hill thing alone is enough. She definitely tampered here. She's been found guilty of it. And look, it doesn't matter if you're guilty or innocence everyone in the entire United States. You know, it should be that way everywhere in the world, but it's not. But right here in this country, if you're charged with a crime, you have a right to a fair trial. And believe me, there's people out there that didn't do shit that are sitting in jail right now that didn't get fair trials. Now, all of that being said, I don't think that the Supreme Court in South Carolina thinks he's innocent. I think they know he's guilty, but they're saying, hey, it doesn't matter who you are, you got to follow the rules, and that includes the state as well. This comes out, it makes all the news, everybody everywhere freaking out over Murdoch's trial verdicts getting thrown out, at least in the murder cases of his wife and son. I'm telling you, I personally got and thank y'all so much for this because I love it when y'all do this.

26:02 But I got probably thirty messages through Facebook in a matter of an hour saying, hey, did you see this? I sure did, and I definitely planned on doing some episodes on it, or at least this one episode. But there you have it. So for the record, I totally agree with this one. Now doesn't mean obviously I think Murdoch is innocent. I believe in the rule of law and I believe in this country, and you can't get a fair trial when the damn clerk court tampers with the jury life Becky Hill did so. A few questions you may have at the end of this one as I wrap it up. First, does this mean Elik Murdoch is getting out of jail? And the answer to that is no. Even without this case, y'all, he was convicted in federal court, as I told jur earlier, for his financial crimes, and he was sentenced to forty years in prison federally twenty seven years in state prison, but the running concurrent, so forty years. Essentially there is no parole, as I said, and at a minimum, he's gonna have to serve eighty five percent of that. So if you're curious, let's say he got all the good time that you could get in federal prison, he's going to serve till at least a release date of twenty sixty four. It's a long time. He's currently fifty seven years old, so the youngest he will be released from prison just for

27:34 the financial crimes, he'll be ninety five years old. And the chances of him living to ninety five are zero, especially locked up in prison like that. It happens, but it's it's extremely rare. Make him one percent of the entire world. Now, another question I had is are they going to retry him? And they say that will. Now, this case, y'all, was all circumstantial, this case with Maggie and Paul, And what I mean by that is they don't have a video of him doing it. They do have a video of him talking when he said he wasn't at the kennels. Remember that if you don't go back and listen, but remember Paul Murdoch was making a TikTok and you could hear ELC. Murdoch in the background and he said he wasn't at those kennels, and he tried to explain the way later on when he took the stand. But they do have that, But of course they have no murder video or anything of that nature.

28:30 And outside of the financial crimes, which I don't know if they're going to introduce in a new trial, the Supreme Court seems to recommend they do not do that. Outside of the financial crimes, they're going to struggle to find a real motive on this one. That being said, they're saying, hell, yeah, we're going to retry it. But keep in mind, y'all, you have to get twelve people to agree that he killed his wife and son, twelve people. That's no easy task, even when you have a lot of physical evidence. They have no physical evidence zero. Not saying he won't be found guilty, I don't know. I'm just saying they are going to have a hell of a road stacked up against them in that second trial.

29:14 But again, he's in jail till he's ninety five anyway, But we'll see if they actually have a trial there. You may be curious of how much the state of South Carolina actually spent on this first trial. I know I was, well, get this. It was six weeks long, it included seventy five witnesses, and it cost five hundred thousand dollars to prosecute this case. I actually thought it would be more. But that's plenty of money, right, especially keep in mind when the whole case got thrown out, So that's five hundred thousand dollars was pissed away because of the clerk court. Now, Alec Murdoch spent seven hundred thousand dollars on his defense team. You may say, well, where'd you get that money from? Well, he had a four to one k that his attorneys got the court to agree, Hey, we're gonna take this four one K and that's gonna be Yeall's legal fees, and so seven hundred thousand dollars was spent there. You may be asking, can Murdock sue Becky Hill Civilly for tampering in that case?

30:20 And the answer to that is yes, absolutely, he can do that. Not only can he do that, he will do that. You can bet on that his defense team's gonna want to get paid to retry this case as well if it goes to retrial, which I think it will, and that's gonna be a way of them getting money. Right, They're gonna sue Becky Hill for tampering in his case, and I'm sure she had some sort of retirement or something, so look for that. Incidentally, Becky Hill is not in jail. She was found guilty of all these things, but she never got sentenced to actual jail time in jail. So that's just incidentally something on the side there for you. Now, I'm sure there's going to be more to come on this case, and of course I'll keep you informed, and if it becomes necessary to do a full episode on it, I will do that at that point. But for now, there you have it, Murdoch. Yes, that whole case has been thrown out, so at this point he is not guilty of killing his wife and son, at least in the eyes of the court. However, he is still in jail, and he will always be in jail, at least until the age of ninety five, which is life sent into my eyes anyway, which is what he was serving for these charges. But if he did indeed kill him, he needs to have that put on his name, if you will, and so we'll see what occurs there. Thank you so

31:53 much for listening. Can't tell you how much I appreciate each and every one of you. Incidentally, for or top tier Patreon members, you should beginning. I've mailed them all out this past week. So this week that you're listening to this episode or the early party next week, everybody should have their quarterly gift. Let me know what you think about it. I put a little fought into that one, and I hope you like it. Until next time for exposed scandalous files of the Elite, I'm your host, Jim Chapman. Much love,