Geoff Bennett:
A murder conviction that gripped the nation and touched on power and privilege in the South is being tossed out.
Former South Carolina prosecutor Alex Murdaugh was found guilty of killing his wife and son on their estate. But, today, the state’s Supreme Court threw out his double murder conviction.
Our Lisa Desjardins has more.
Lisa Desjardins:
In a unanimous opinion, the justices overturned Murdaugh’s life sentence for the murders, pointing to shocking jury interference by a court clerk during the trial.
Murdaugh was convicted of killing his wife Maggie and son Paul on a summer night in 2021 at their secluded family compound. He took the stand insisting he was innocent, but had to acknowledge he lied about his initial claim that he was not at the murder scene, disproven by incredible cell phone video taken by his son shortly before his death.
No murder weapon was found, but the jury deliberated just three hours before convicting him. State Attorney General Alan Wilson says he will hold another trial. Meantime, the disbarred lawyer Murdaugh will remain in prison, where he is serving a separate decades-long sentence for stealing more than $12 million from his clients.
No one knows this case better and what it means than Valerie Bauerlein from The Wall Street Journal, the author of “The Devil at His Elbow: Alex Murdaugh and the Fall of a Southern Dynasty.”
Valerie, this is a dramatic decision, but is it surprising?
Valerie Bauerlein:
Well, Lisa, there have been so many surprising moments in this case.
But, yes, this is — and here there is another one. It is surprising, I think in a couple regards. It was a unanimous decision by a Supreme Court. That just sends a message that it was not even a close call, that they felt like the behavior of the clerk of court, I think they said it was breathtaking and disgraceful, and was enough, in spite of all of Alex’s many misdeeds.
And they called out the judge and the lawyers for their — for running a good proceeding. But they just felt like her errors were so egregious that they had no choice but to grant him a new trial.
So, yes, I was — it is surprising to be where we are.
Lisa Desjardins:
Let’s talk about that clerk, Becky Hill. You interviewed her at length before the book in the past. At one point, she was going to write a book.
But can you spell out exactly what she did here?
Valerie Bauerlein:
Well, I think it’s important to remember that Walterboro, South Carolina, where the trial was held, is a really small town, about 5,000 people.
And Becky knew many of the jurors. And she did write a book. She — it was later pulled from publication. She acknowledged plagiarizing some parts of it.
But it caused additional problems for her, because there were some members of the jury who took umbrage at some of the things they said, and I think partly is how we got here. There were jurors, they said, well, that’s not how it happened. And they wanted to set the record straight in some regards.
Lisa Desjardins:
In terms of the accusation that she tampered with the jury in favor of conviction, what exactly did she do?
Valerie Bauerlein:
Well, it’s — there was a real — there was a real question in the mind of these justices.
I went down in February for a long hearing, where they aired their concerns about the case. And their chief concern, were Becky’s errors harmless? Did she say a few things offhandedly to the jurors in passing, and they didn’t change their view, or were they so — is it so egregious for a member of the court to speak to jurors in a proceeding like that, is that just a structural error that can’t be denied?
But what they agreed in their filing that she did do, according to the jurors that were interviewed by the courts, she talked to them, a couple of them, around the time that Alex Murdaugh took the stand. He referenced it, this kind of bombshell two days on the stand where he told his version of events.
And said things — the jurors said that Ms. Hill said things like: “Don’t listen to what he said, watch his actions, or be careful as he testifies,” things like that.
But the judges — the justices just felt like there’s no remedy except for a new trial if someone, and they said, places their finger on the scales of justice. And they further said, justice is supposed to be blind and court officials are supposed to be mute.
Lisa Desjardins:
So we return to this ecosystem that really was that incredible trial. Is there going to be a new trial? The attorney general says yes, but his term is up in January. He’s running for governor. Do you think the next attorney general and the state will in fact have a new trial?
Valerie Bauerlein:
Yes.
And the attorney general, Alan Wilson, wasted no time in saying today that he would try him again. And credit where credit is due. There’s an outlet in North — in South Carolina called FITSNews.
And they surveyed a week or so ago all the candidates, the four candidates who are running for attorney general, and to a person they said they would retry him. The question is, where? Dick Harpootlian told me some weeks ago that if they — the head defense lawyer — if they got a new trial, they would request a change of venue.
So we’re not exactly sure in the state where that might happen and when. There’s a desire, I think on both sides, for a speedy trial, but what does that mean here kind of halfway through 2026? It would be difficult to find a term of court for a couple weeks or however long they might need this calendar year, even early into next year.
So it’s not clear when and where that trial might take place.
Lisa Desjardins:
Now, so much has changed, including that the location of the murders was sold and that scene itself was destroyed. Is this going to be much harder to prosecute now that so much time has gone by?
Valerie Bauerlein:
Well, I think a lot of things have changed.
Moselle, the property where Maggie Murdaugh and Paul Murdaugh were killed, has been sold and broken up kind of into pieces. There’s some question. Dick Harpootlian mentioned to me that there would be real questions about whether Alex Murdaugh might take the stand again.
And the justices, in their ruling, it’s about 20 pages, what they had to say. And they had said a couple of things about all that financial evidence that we heard of, the millions of dollars he stole from — he pleaded guilty to stealing from the least of these, his personal injury clients.
There was some warning from the justices about treading lightly there. There might be — just be careful how much of that comes in, in order not to prejudice a jury. So it’ll be a different proceeding. And I think — and we all sense it every day. I think technology has changed so much.
We may have access to some parts of the records that make a little different sense than they did at the time. So we will see. But, no, it’s a different landscape, for sure. And there wouldn’t be that same kind of bombshell evidence that you referenced, the video on Paul Murdaugh’s phone that was found fairly late in the game, proving that Alex was lying about where he was that night.
So it’ll be — I plan to be there every day, for sure.
Lisa Desjardins:
Valerie, let me ask you the big question. For those who may not have paid attention, why do you think this case has generated so much thought?
Valerie Bauerlein:
Well, it was — we have to remember, this — it was a six-week trial in 2023, by far the most streamed court proceeding in this country ever. There was something so kind of baroque about it.
But I really also think a couple things. It was — there’s this duality between the family that looks so perfect on paper, right, this beautiful, clothing, furs, property, smiling, family. And then what was going on underneath the surface, there were so many secrets.
And I also think we’re really drawn to the South, the rural South, the Deep South, where this happened. There’s something about the South that just evokes this picture in our minds. And I think the setting was a big part of this too, for sure.
Lisa Desjardins:
Valerie Bauerlein, author of “The Devil at His Elbow,” we will keep watching along with you.
Valerie Bauerlein:
Thanks so much for having me.
