The South Carolina Supreme Court unanimously vacated Alex Murdaugh's double-murder convictions on May 13, 2026, ordering a new trial after finding that Colleton County Clerk of Court Becky Hill improperly influenced the jury during his 2023 trial [1][2]. The 5-0 ruling wiped out two life sentences Murdaugh received for the June 2021 killings of his wife, Maggie, and son Paul, at the family's Islandton hunting estate [1].
The court's analysis centered on Hill's conduct before and during deliberations. According to the ruling, Hill told jurors they should distrust Murdaugh's testimony, conduct the court found was motivated at least in part by her interest in promoting a book she was writing about the case [2][3]. Under South Carolina law, once a defendant establishes that a court officer engaged in improper jury contact, a presumption of prejudice arises and the burden shifts to the state to rebut it. The court held that prosecutors failed to overcome that presumption [1][3]. Hill denied the allegations when they surfaced during post-trial proceedings, but the court found the record did not support her denials [2].
Murdaugh's lead defense attorneys, Dick Harpootlian and Jim Griffin, had pressed the misconduct claim through a lengthy post-conviction process, arguing that Hill's actions deprived their client of a fair trial [1][2]. South Carolina Attorney General Alan Wilson's office, which prosecuted the case, announced promptly after the ruling that it intends to retry Murdaugh [1][3]. He remains incarcerated on separate federal financial crimes convictions tied to a years-long scheme in which he stole roughly $9 million from clients and his former law firm [2].
The retrial presents logistical and evidentiary challenges for both sides. Prosecutors must reconstitute a case built substantially on circumstantial evidence and contested forensic testimony, including cell phone location data and gunshot residue analysis [1]. The defense, for its part, will face the same core facts before a new jury, but without the cloud of Hill's alleged interference. Venue, scheduling, and the question of which evidence survives pretrial motions in a second proceeding remain unresolved [3]. No trial date has been set.