In Alex Murdaugh’s appeal, justices grill attorneys on ‘rogue’ court clerk and financial crimes

By Eric Levenson, Dianne Gallagher, Jason Morris, CNN

Columbia, South Carolina (CNN) — At Alex Murdaugh’s appeal of his double-murder conviction Wednesday, South Carolina Supreme Court justices asked tough questions about improper comments from a county clerk and the fairness of including so much testimony about Murdaugh’s financial crimes.

Overall, the five-member panel of justices appeared skeptical of the prosecution’s arguments on those points. Chief Justice John W. Kittredge in particular criticized the “rogue” clerk and suggested the prosecution’s focus on financial crimes was overdone.

“The granular detail and the expansiveness of which everything under the sun was allowed is arguably problematic,” he said.

The oral arguments Wednesday were 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 accused of the murders of his wife, Maggie, and 22-year-old son, Paul, at the family’s hunting property in June 2021. 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 still maintains.

The jury found Murdaugh, 57, guilty of the murders, and he received two life sentences. He separately pleaded guilty to dozens of financial crimes and is serving concurrent state and federal sentences of 27 and 40 years.

He was not present at the hearing Wednesday.

Murdaugh’s attorneys have appealed his murder conviction and argued he deserves a new trial based on the court clerk’s improper comments to the jury, prejudicial evidence and failures at trial and in the investigation.

The state has argued Murdaugh was convicted because the evidence against him was overwhelming and he was “obviously guilty.” They acknowledged the clerk’s comments were inappropriate but downplayed their importance to the verdict.

The justices are now tasked with deciding whether to uphold the murder conviction, remand the case for further proceedings, or overturn it and order a new trial. There is no deadline for their written ruling.

Here’s a closer look at two of the most prominent issues from the hearing.

Did court clerk influence jury?

The first part of the hearing concerned former Colleton Court county clerk Becky Hill, who clerked during Murdaugh’s trial and later wrote a tell-all book about it.

Murdaugh’s attorneys 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 she made these comments in affidavits and in testimony, 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.

At the hearing Wednesday, Murdaugh’s attorneys argued her comments infringed on his right to a fair trial and an impartial jury.

“I’ve never seen a factual pattern like this where the clerk of court sets out to influence the verdict, to get a guilty verdict, for financial gain,” attorney Dick Harpootlian said.

Prosecutor Creighton Waters acknowledged Hill’s comments were improper but said they were of a “relatively non-egregious nature.” Despite her comments, the six-week trial featured over 90 witnesses and repeated directions from the judge to the jurors to only consider the evidence presented.

Justice Kittredge expressed his frustration with the broader circumstances here.

“In the courtroom, we have an excellent attorney general with a very professional and competent team of prosecutors, including you, Mr. Waters,” he said. “On the defense side, we have extremely competent top-drawer, representation. We’ve got a superb trial court judge.

“And out in the hallway, we have a rogue clerk of court.”

Were Murdaugh’s financial crimes relevant to the killings?

Second, the justices asked questions about the prosecution’s focus on Murdaugh’s financial crimes in what was ostensibly a murder trial.

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

However, Murdaugh’s attorneys have 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 completely excluded from the trial.

“This was piling on,” attorney Jim Griffin said Wednesday.

However, prosecutors said the jury had to understand those financial crimes to properly understand Murdaugh’s mindset and motive.

“You can’t truly understand the boiling point if you don’t understand the slow burn leading up to that,” Waters argued.

Justice George C. James said he was “struggling with the logical connection” between the financial crimes and the murders, and Justice Letitia H. Verdin asked about the limits of what evidence can be admitted under a theory of motive.

“Could a prosecutor want evidence in and work backwards from there?” she asked.

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

CNN’s Dianne Gallagher and Jason Morris reported from Columbia, South Carolina, while Eric Levenson reported and wrote this story in New York. CNN’s Andy Buck contributed to this report.