The South Carolina Supreme Court unanimously reversed Alex Murdaugh's double murder convictions on May 13, 2026, vacating his two life sentences and ordering a new trial [1][2]. The 5-0 ruling centered on conduct by Colleton County Clerk of Court Becky Hill, whom the court found had improperly influenced jurors during deliberations [1][3]. The court held that prejudice was presumed from Hill's interference and that the state failed to rebut that presumption [2][3].
Hill's conduct, described in the ruling as placing "her fingers on the scales of justice," formed the sole basis for reversal [1]. The court did not address the sufficiency of the underlying trial evidence. Murdaugh was convicted in March 2023 of killing his wife, Maggie, and his son, Paul, at the family's Islandton hunting property in June 2021 [2]. The trial drew national attention, in part because Murdaugh, a member of a prominent South Carolina legal dynasty, was simultaneously under investigation for a separate array of financial crimes [3].
Murdaugh's defense attorneys, Dick Harpootlian and Jim Griffin, raised the jury-tampering claim through post-trial motions and later on direct appeal, arguing that Hill had urged jurors to return a guilty verdict and coached them on how to avoid being dismissed [1][2]. Hill, who later published a book about her experience presiding over the trial, denied the allegations. The court's presumed-prejudice standard relieved the defense of proving that Hill's conduct actually changed any juror's vote, a significant doctrinal holding for South Carolina criminal procedure [3].
South Carolina Attorney General Alan Wilson's office opposed the appeal, arguing the state had rebutted any presumption of prejudice through affidavits from jurors who said the outcome was unaffected [2][3]. The unanimous ruling rejected that argument. A retrial date has not been set. Murdaugh remains incarcerated on separate federal and state financial crimes convictions, which are unaffected by the murder ruling [1][2].
The path to retrial carries procedural complexity. Prosecutors must decide whether to re-prosecute a case in which the physical and forensic evidence remains contested and key witnesses have since given varying accounts [3]. The presumed-prejudice holding may also invite collateral challenges in other South Carolina cases where Hill or similarly situated court officers played a role during jury proceedings.