State attorney general’s office files response to Alex Murdaugh’s SC Supreme Court appeal

FILE – Alex Murdaugh, convicted of killing his wife, Maggie, and younger son, Paul, in June 2021, sits during a hearing on a motion for a retrial, Tuesday, Jan. 16, 2024, at the Richland County Judicial Center in Columbia, S.C. Federal prosecutors said Murdaugh didn’t tell the truth about where $6 million he stole went and whether a so far unnamed attorney helped him and want to revoke a plea deal on federal financial crime charges, according to court documents. (Tracy Glantz/The State via AP, Pool, File)

(WCIV) — In December 2024, convicted killer Alex Murdaugh filed an appeal with the South Carolina Supreme Court based on allegations of jury tampering in his widely-publicized March 2023 trial, in which he was found guilty for the murders of his wife and son.

The drawn-out saga saw another twist in April when Attorney General Alan Wilson’s office filed for an extension to respond to Murdaugh’s appeal, citing the lengthy 6,000-page trial transcript and extensive details of the case needing to be reviewed prior to filing.

Murdaugh’s legal team opposed the extension despite getting extensions of their own from the court of appeals. The AG’s office’s request was ultimately granted and it and filed its response just before the deadline of midnight on Aug. 8.

In their Dec. 2024 appeal, Murdaugh’s team argued that Colleton County Clerk of Court Becky Hill influenced jurors to find the disgraced lawyer guilty to drive sales of her planned book about the trial. They also said the court erred in allowing the jury to hear arguments related to Murdaugh’s financial crimes.

The attorney general’s office argues in their recently-filed, 182-page response obtained by News 4 that Murdaugh was convicted because he was “obviously guilty,” not because of jury tampering on Hill’s part. It concluded in its argument that Hill’s “foolish and fleeting” comments to jurors don’t constitute a structural error and that any presumption of prejudice is rebuttable, saying that Murdaugh’s team failed to provide “any real support for this novel claim.”

Wilson’s office also argued that Murdaugh waived his objection to the financial crimes evidence by failing to appeal the trial judge’s ruling admitting said evidence.