The South Carolina Supreme Court unanimously vacated Alex Murdaugh's double murder convictions on May 13, 2026, and ordered a new trial in the killings of his wife, Maggie Murdaugh, and son Paul Murdaugh [1]. The 5-0 decision erased the two consecutive life sentences Murdaugh received following his March 2023 conviction in Colleton County [1][2]. Prosecutors announced they intend to retry the case [1].
The court grounded its ruling in misconduct by Colleton County Clerk of Court Rebecca Hill, who the justices found improperly influenced jurors during the trial [2]. Hill had direct contact with jurors throughout the proceedings and, according to the court's findings, made statements that prejudiced the panel against Murdaugh [1][2]. South Carolina law prohibits court officers from communicating with seated jurors on matters bearing on the case; the court concluded Hill's conduct crossed that line and denied Murdaugh a fair trial [1]. The ruling represents the court's application of the longstanding principle that external influences on a jury, regardless of a defendant's apparent guilt, require vacatur of the resulting verdict [2].
Murdaugh, a former South Carolina attorney from a prominent legal family, was convicted on evidence including cell phone location data and a disputed video placing him at the scene of the June 2021 shootings [1]. The trial drew national attention in part because Murdaugh had already faced separate state and federal charges related to financial fraud involving millions of dollars stolen from clients and his former law firm [2]. Those separate legal proceedings remain distinct from the murder case now headed back to the trial court level [2].
With the convictions vacated, the case returns to Colleton County for retrial [1]. Prosecutors have confirmed their intention to proceed, meaning Murdaugh faces the full evidentiary presentation a second time [1][2]. Hill, whose conduct formed the sole basis for the Supreme Court's ruling, could face separate professional or criminal consequences, though no such proceedings had been announced as of the ruling date [2]. Defense counsel and the prosecution will likely contest the scope of permissible evidence, jury selection procedures, and any motions to change venue, given the extraordinary pretrial publicity the case has sustained since 2021 [1].