On Wednesday, South Carolina’s highest court issued a rare unanimous decision overturning the double murder convictions of disgraced former attorney Alex Murdaugh, paving the way for a new trial and possibly a chance at freedom.
The grounds for this stunning reversal: egregious jury interference by the very official entrusted with overseeing the integrity of the proceedings. Colleton County Clerk of Court Rebecca Hill “placed her fingers on the scales of justice,” the court lambasted in its published opinion.
While it is rare that conduct this explicit is unearthed, the culture that necessitated it is disturbingly common.
Accused of killing his wife and 22-year-old son allegedly to conceal a decade of financial fraud and rampant drug addiction, Murdaugh was convicted and sentenced to life without the possibility of parole in 2023. Yet in sworn affidavits submitted during his appeals process, several jurors reported that Hill instructed them to pay close attention to Murdaugh’s body language, declared the day he took the stand an “epic” and “important” occasion, and — most damningly — urged them not to be “fooled” or “convinced” by the defense. She also sought to have a juror she perceived as sympathetic to the defense removed from the panel entirely.
While Hill denied most of these claims, a post-trial court found the jurors credible. Their affidavits were corroborated by Hill’s own colleagues, who testified that her closed-door conversations about Murdaugh’s guilt bore striking resemblance to the language reported. Colleagues also testified that Hill had boasted about a book deal on the Murdaugh murders that would pay for her lake house.
While it is rare that conduct this explicit is unearthed, the culture that necessitated it is disturbingly common. When I began working as a public defender, I was stunned by the idle chatter floating amid the sobs of mothers watching their sons being taken away in chains. Superseding indictments with heftier charges were water cooler gossip for prosecutors and clerks. Sheriff’s officers chirped about reality TV as they slapped handcuffs on yet another young Black man in an orange jumpsuit. Judges hosted pizza parties to celebrate clearing their “backlog” with back-channeled plea deals. This was — and is — “the system,” and it presumes guilt at every level.
Over a third of federal and state judges are former prosecutors, in contrast to fewer than 10% who have served as public defenders. Many court staffers have law enforcement or probation officer backgrounds. “What did your guy do?” is a refrain I have been asked in open court more times than I can count.
Most people’s understanding of a criminal trial is shaped by television, and in many ways a trial does resemble a Hollywood production. The judge directs from the bench. The attorneys perform for their audience. But the camera never lingers on the supporting cast: the clerks, secretaries, stenographers, bailiffs and interns pulling the strings and bending the ears of judges and juries alike, sometimes with words but often with symbols. The thin blue line sticker on a water bottle. The stifled laugh over a mentally ill defendant’s outburst. The smug smirk and slow eyebrow raise during a defense cross-examination. The odds are stacked against defendants not only because of the people in power, but because of the people empowering the powerful.
Even so, Hill’s behavior was a particularly stunning show of brazenness. At least one juror admitted that Hill’s comments had directly compromised her ability to evaluate his testimony with the impartiality the Constitution demands, and that she had harbored doubts about his guilt before ultimately voting guilty under pressure from fellow jurors. Hill was subsequently charged with obstruction of justice and perjury. She pleaded guilty and was sentenced to probation.
No high court overturns a double homicide conviction lightly. But Hill’s comments left no room for equivocation or a polite judicial glossing of the trial record. This situation slices at the core of two of the most fundamental tenets of criminal justice. First, a court official usurped the jury’s role as sole arbiters of what evidence deserves weight, including testimony and body language. Second, that official cast doubt and heightened scrutiny on Murdaugh’s decision to testify, an incontrovertible constitutional right.
“What did your guy do?” is a refrain I have been asked in open court more times than I can count.
Coming from a seasoned clerk with authoritative fluency in criminal proceedings, Hill’s words carried institutional weight, and her characterization of the defense was rife with bias. Correctly, the court condemned Hill as an uninvited “character witness” for the prosecution, undermining Murdaugh’s credibility before the jury even heard a word of his testimony.
Setting aside Hill’s bone-chilling disregard for the principles she was designated to protect, her comments are most disturbing for what they represent overall: the pervasive voices from the corners of our criminal system, offstage yet profound in their impact. Voices that presume guilt, not innocence.
Becky Hill simply had the hubris to say aloud what is already being whispered in courthouses across the country: The presumption of innocence is a concept incanted for the jury but rarely inhabited by the system itself. State prosecutors confirmed as much in their response to Murdaugh’s appeal, suggesting that Hill’s misconduct didn’t matter because Murdaugh was “obviously guilty.” Fortunately, the South Carolina Supreme Court held otherwise, holding this dangerous mindset to account not only on behalf of Murdaugh, but for all criminal defendants.
While this ruling may deter other court insiders tempted to abuse their proximity to the justice system, it also carries a sharp irony. In thrusting the Murdaugh case back into the headlines just as the Netflix series and true crime podcasts have begun to fade, Hill has made finding an impartial jury for the retrial an even more formidable task — and she has deputized the media anew in furtherance of an “obviously guilty” verdict.
Madeleine Lippey
Madeleine Lippey is a former public defender, trial attorney and writer based in New York City. She is a graduate of Stanford and Georgetown Law and an advocate for reproductive, economic, racial and criminal justice. Opinions set forth in her articles are made in her individual capacity, not as an employee of any public defender office or agency.