Read the full article on KETV 7
Disgraced former South Carolina attorney Alex Murdaugh’s dramatic downfall was sealed following a sensational six-week 2023 trial in which he was convicted of murdering his wife and son.But the long-running saga involving the scion of a prominent and powerful family of local lawyers and solicitors took an unexpected turn this week when the South Carolina Supreme Court on Wednesday overturned the murder convictions.Saying the trial was marred by the “improper” influence of the county clerk, Becky Hill, the court ordered a new trial for Murdaugh in the killing of his wife, Maggie, and 22-year-old son, Paul, in June 2021.While the U.S. Constitution’s double jeopardy clause generally forbids subsequent prosecutions after an acquittal, it does not apply if a defendant’s conviction is later overturned, according to legal experts.“It’s a do-over,” Jill Konviser, a former New York State Supreme Court justice, said via email.The 5-0 ruling also vacated the two life sentences Murdaugh had received for the murder convictions. Still, he has separately pleaded guilty to dozens of financial crimes and will remain behind bars on concurrent state and federal sentences of 27 and 40 years.Attorney General Alan Wilson said his office plans to retry Murdaugh on the murder charges “as soon as possible.”Wilson told reporters his “hope is to get this case retried by the end of the year,” but noted the window is still open for his team to ask the South Carolina Supreme Court to reconsider its decision or to appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States.Double jeopardy clause is not violatedThe double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment prevents trying a defendant again for a crime after a verdict of not guilty.“The Double Jeopardy Clause is not violated by a second trial in these circumstances, where the new trial is necessitated by errors in the first trial that are the grounds for a defendant’s successful appeal,” Jessica Roth, a former prosecutor and professor at the Cardozo School of Law in New York, said in an email.“The Double Jeopardy Clause would bar a second prosecution by South Carolina for the same offense had Murdaugh been acquitted at the first trial, or had the appellate court found there was insufficient evidence to support a guilty verdict,” Roth added, “but that is not what occurred in this case.”In the Murdaugh case, the experts said, double jeopardy is not at issue in a second trial due in large part to what the South Carolina Supreme Court called “shocking jury interference” by the court clerk who oversaw jurors.“Double jeopardy doesn’t apply because it’s the same case,” Konviser said. “It’s a continuing matter, it’s still pending, it’s not final.”Konviser said the decision this week “effectively wiped the slate clean” by remanding the case for a new trial.“The answer is that double jeopardy applies one way and one way only, and that is that if the prosecution tries you and they don’t succeed, it’s over. They can’t come back at you,” CNN legal analyst Joey Jackson said.“If a defendant loses and petitions for a new trial, that’s another story … If I get convicted, and I file an appeal and that murder conviction is overturned, it’s not double jeopardy because it actually enures to my benefit to have another trial,” Jackson said.The court’s ruling said Hill “placed her fingers on the scales of justice, thereby denying Murdaugh his right to a fair trial by an impartial jury.”“Although we are aware of the time, money, and effort expended for this lengthy trial, we have no choice but to reverse the denial of Murdaugh’s motion for a new trial due to Hill’s improper external influences on the jury and remand for a new trial,” the justices wrote.Murdaugh’s attorneys appealed the murder convictions, saying the trial was tainted by the county clerk’s improper comments to jurors, prejudicial evidence and failures at trial. Hill later pleaded guilty to criminal charges connected to the case.Prosecutors argued the convictions should stand. Murdaugh’s convictions were based on overwhelming evidence and he was “obviously guilty,” they said. Prosecutors acknowledged the clerk’s comments were inappropriate but said they were minor in the grand scheme of the trial.Clerk made allegedly inappropriate commentsMurdaugh’s attorneys, Dick Harpootlian and Jim Griffin, praised the ruling in a statement.“The Supreme Court’s decision today affirms that the rule of law remains strong in South Carolina,” they said. “We look forward to a new trial conducted consistent with the Constitution and the guidance this Court has provided.”Murdaugh was a partner at a powerful law firm with his name on it. But his eventual unraveling included accusations of misappropriated funds, his resignation, a bizarre alleged suicide-for-hire and insurance scam plot, a stint in rehab for drug addiction, dozens of financial crimes, his disbarment and, ultimately, the murder charges.Murdaugh’s appeal focused on allegedly inappropriate comments to jurors from Hill, who worked during Murdaugh’s trial and later wrote a tell-all book about it.Hill has denied making most of these comments. She admitted she told the jurors Murdaugh’s testimony was a “big day” but likened her comments to a “pep talk” that did not indicate favor for one side or the other.Hill was charged last May with perjury, obstruction of justice and misconduct. The charges alleged she made sealed evidence available to the media, lied under oath about doing so, and used her court position to promote her book about the trial. She pleaded guilty to the charges in December 2025 and was sentenced to three years of probation.
Disgraced former South Carolina attorney Alex Murdaugh’s dramatic downfall was sealed following a sensational six-week 2023 trial in which he was convicted of murdering his wife and son.
But the long-running saga involving the scion of a prominent and powerful family of local lawyers and solicitors took an unexpected turn this week when the South Carolina Supreme Court on Wednesday overturned the murder convictions.
Advertisement
Saying the trial was marred by the “improper” influence of the county clerk, Becky Hill, the court ordered a new trial for Murdaugh in the killing of his wife, Maggie, and 22-year-old son, Paul, in June 2021.
While the U.S. Constitution’s double jeopardy clause generally forbids subsequent prosecutions after an acquittal, it does not apply if a defendant’s conviction is later overturned, according to legal experts.
“It’s a do-over,” Jill Konviser, a former New York State Supreme Court justice, said via email.
The 5-0 ruling also vacated the two life sentences Murdaugh had received for the murder convictions. Still, he has separately pleaded guilty to dozens of financial crimes and will remain behind bars on concurrent state and federal sentences of 27 and 40 years.
Attorney General Alan Wilson said his office plans to retry Murdaugh on the murder charges “as soon as possible.”
Wilson told reporters his “hope is to get this case retried by the end of the year,” but noted the window is still open for his team to ask the South Carolina Supreme Court to reconsider its decision or to appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States.
Double jeopardy clause is not violated
The double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment prevents trying a defendant again for a crime after a verdict of not guilty.
“The Double Jeopardy Clause is not violated by a second trial in these circumstances, where the new trial is necessitated by errors in the first trial that are the grounds for a defendant’s successful appeal,” Jessica Roth, a former prosecutor and professor at the Cardozo School of Law in New York, said in an email.
“The Double Jeopardy Clause would bar a second prosecution by South Carolina for the same offense had Murdaugh been acquitted at the first trial, or had the appellate court found there was insufficient evidence to support a guilty verdict,” Roth added, “but that is not what occurred in this case.”
In the Murdaugh case, the experts said, double jeopardy is not at issue in a second trial due in large part to what the South Carolina Supreme Court called “shocking jury interference” by the court clerk who oversaw jurors.
“Double jeopardy doesn’t apply because it’s the same case,” Konviser said. “It’s a continuing matter, it’s still pending, it’s not final.”
Konviser said the decision this week “effectively wiped the slate clean” by remanding the case for a new trial.
“The answer is that double jeopardy applies one way and one way only, and that is that if the prosecution tries you and they don’t succeed, it’s over. They can’t come back at you,” CNN legal analyst Joey Jackson said.
“If a defendant loses and petitions for a new trial, that’s another story … If I get convicted, and I file an appeal and that murder conviction is overturned, it’s not double jeopardy because it actually enures to my benefit to have another trial,” Jackson said.
The court’s ruling said Hill “placed her fingers on the scales of justice, thereby denying Murdaugh his right to a fair trial by an impartial jury.”
“Although we are aware of the time, money, and effort expended for this lengthy trial, we have no choice but to reverse the denial of Murdaugh’s motion for a new trial due to Hill’s improper external influences on the jury and remand for a new trial,” the justices wrote.
Murdaugh’s attorneys appealed the murder convictions, saying the trial was tainted by the county clerk’s improper comments to jurors, prejudicial evidence and failures at trial. Hill later pleaded guilty to criminal charges connected to the case.
Prosecutors argued the convictions should stand. Murdaugh’s convictions were based on overwhelming evidence and he was “obviously guilty,” they said. Prosecutors acknowledged the clerk’s comments were inappropriate but said they were minor in the grand scheme of the trial.
Clerk made allegedly inappropriate comments
Murdaugh’s attorneys, Dick Harpootlian and Jim Griffin, praised the ruling in a statement.
“The Supreme Court’s decision today affirms that the rule of law remains strong in South Carolina,” they said. “We look forward to a new trial conducted consistent with the Constitution and the guidance this Court has provided.”
Murdaugh was a partner at a powerful law firm with his name on it. But his eventual unraveling included accusations of misappropriated funds, his resignation, a bizarre alleged suicide-for-hire and insurance scam plot, a stint in rehab for drug addiction, dozens of financial crimes, his disbarment and, ultimately, the murder charges.
Murdaugh’s appeal focused on allegedly inappropriate comments to jurors from Hill, who worked during Murdaugh’s trial and later wrote a tell-all book about it.
Hill has denied making most of these comments. She admitted she told the jurors Murdaugh’s testimony was a “big day” but likened her comments to a “pep talk” that did not indicate favor for one side or the other.
Hill was charged last May with perjury, obstruction of justice and misconduct. The charges alleged she made sealed evidence available to the media, lied under oath about doing so, and used her court position to promote her book about the trial. She pleaded guilty to the charges in December 2025 and was sentenced to three years of probation.
