Court overturns Alex Murdaugh’s murder convictions and orders new trial

By Eric Levenson, Dianne Gallagher, CNN

(CNN) — The South Carolina Supreme Court on Wednesday overturned Alex Murdaugh’s murder convictions and ordered a new trial in the killing of his wife and son in June 2021, saying the trial was marred by the “improper” influence of the county clerk, Becky Hill.

In a 5-0 ruling, the court 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.

With its ruling, the court also vacated the two life sentences Murdaugh had received for the murder charges. Still, he 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.

“While we respectfully disagree with the Court’s decision, my Office will aggressively seek to retry Alex Murdaugh for the murders of Maggie and Paul as soon as possible,” he said.

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.”

The ruling is the latest twist in the sprawling Murdaugh saga that has riveted the public and spawned true crime documentaries, podcasts and books.

Murdaugh, a prominent attorney from a South Carolina Lowcountry legal dynasty, was convicted by a jury of the murders of his wife, Maggie, and 22-year-old son, Paul, in March 2023.

The six-week trial featured extensive testimony about Murdaugh stealing millions of dollars from vulnerable clients and his own law firm. He took the stand in his own defense and denied he killed his wife and son – a position he maintains – even as he admitted to massive financial theft and admitted he had lied to investigators about his whereabouts just prior to the killings.

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.

In contrast, prosecutors argued the convictions should stand. Murdaugh was convicted because the evidence against him was overwhelming 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.

At a February hearing on the appeal, the five-member panel of justices appeared skeptical of the prosecution’s arguments.

The murder trial was the capstone to a remarkable fall from grace for the personal injury lawyer, whose father, grandfather and great-grandfather served as the local prosecutor consecutively from 1920 to 2006.

Murdaugh was a partner at a powerful law firm with his name on it. But that prominence belied underlying issues, and the killings of his wife and son were followed by 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.

Former clerk influenced jury, court finds

Murdaugh’s appeal focused on alleged comments to jurors from Hill, who worked during Murdaugh’s trial and later wrote a tell-all book about it.

Murdaugh’s attorneys had argued Hill improperly influenced jurors during the trial by making comments, such as “watch his body language,” implying Murdaugh’s guilt. A few jurors affirmed in affidavits and in testimony she made these comments, but the majority said they did not hear them.

In January 2024, after a one-day evidentiary hearing, retired South Carolina Chief Justice Jean Toal determined those comments did not influence the jury’s verdict and denied Murdaugh’s request for a new trial. Still, Toal found Hill made improper comments to the jury, was not credible and was “attracted by the siren call of celebrity.”

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.

Murdaugh’s attorneys argued her comments violated his right to a fair trial and an impartial jury, while prosecutors downplayed their importance.

“We agree with Murdaugh,” the court wrote in its ruling Wednesday. “Prejudice is presumed from Hill’s comments, and while this presumption is rebuttable, the State failed to overcome this presumption.”

Appeals court offers ‘guidance’ on financial evidence

Murdaugh’s appeal also challenged whether the prosecution’s extensive focus on his financial crimes was appropriate in a murder trial.

At the trial, a series of witnesses testified about Murdaugh’s history of financial crimes as prosecutors sought to show he killed his wife and son to fend off a “gathering storm” that he believed would soon expose him as a fraud. This evidence was key to their theory of his motive, prosecutors said.

However, Murdaugh’s attorneys argued this motive did not make logical sense. They said the prosecution improperly used the financial crimes evidence to malign Murdaugh’s character and argued it should have been limited or excluded from the trial.

The appeals court said it ordered a new trial based on Hill’s influence on the jury, and so did not officially rule on the evidentiary issues. Still, the justices offered “guidance” for a potential retrial, saying the trial court “allowed the state to go far too long and far too deep into aspects of Murdaugh’s financial crimes.”

As an example, the appeals court noted the testimony of Michael “Tony” Satterfield, a victim of Murdaugh’s financial schemes, who said his brother “is a vulnerable adult and he has a disability.” The court wrote that testimony had “zero probative value” and had “obviously high potential for unfair prejudice.”

This story has been updated with additional information.

The-CNN-Wire
™ & © 2026 Cable News Network, Inc., a Warner Bros. Discovery Company. All rights reserved.