‘Infected With Unfairness’: Alex Murdaugh’s Appeal Puts South Carolina Justice On Trial

Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...

Attorneys for convicted killer Alex Murdaugh filed his formal appeal on Tuesday (December 10, 2024), asking the South Carolina supreme court to overturn his two murder convictions following a trial they insist was “infected with unfairness.”

“Any person accused of a crime — even Alex Murdaugh — has a constitutional right to a fair trial,” his lawyers wrote. “When a fair trial is denied, he is entitled to a new, fair trial — he is not required to earn it by proving he would have been acquitted had he been given a fair trial the first time.”

In addition to highly-publicized allegations of jury tampering, the 132-page brief filed by attorneys Dick Harpootlian, Jim Griffin, Phillip Barber and Maggie Fox also addressed what they insist are “numerous evidentiary errors” – including the controversial decision of former S.C. circuit court judge Clifton Newman to allow the jury to hear evidence relating to the financial crimes committed by Murdaugh.

“Evidence of financial crimes should have been excluded,” the attorneys argued.

Murdaugh, the once untouchable scion of one of South Carolina’s most prominent legal and political dynasties, became one of America’s most notorious killers when he was found guilty last March of murdering his wife, 52-year-old Maggie Murdaugh, and younger son, 22-year-old Paul Murdaugh, on June 7, 2021 at Moselle, the family’s hunting property. 

Was his trial on the level, though? Increasingly it looks as though the answer to that question is “no” – although there appears to be limited institutional appetite in South Carolina to address the many issues associated with the compromised verdicts entered against him.

***

According to Murdaugh’s brief (.pdf), numerous errors make these verdicts subject to reversal – but when taken together, they create a “due process violation because they rendered Murdaugh’s criminal trial fundamentally unfair.”

Addressing the jury tampering allegations, the brief asserted Murdaugh “was denied his constitutional right to a fair trial by an impartial jury free from outside influences” and that evidence of prejudice created by the meddling of former Colleton County clerk of court Becky Hill, among others, was “proven” at a January 2024 evidentiary hearing.

Regarding the admittance of evidence related to Murdaugh’s financial crimes, the defense argued the court allowed prosecutors to admit “improper character evidence and other irrelevant and unfairly prejudicial evidence.”

“The state’s theory that Murdaugh murdered his wife and son in cold blood to distract his law firm from investigating alleged financial improprieties is illogical, implausible, and unsupported by the evidence,” the attorneys wrote, arguing “any probative value of the evidence concerning the alleged prior bad acts was substantially outweighed by the unfair prejudice that resulted.”

***

RELATED | MURDAUGH SAGA’S ‘LOOSE ENDS’

***

Murdaugh’s attorneys further argued judge Newman committed “reversible error” when he allowed prosecutors to “introduce evidence of an unscientific experiment performed by an unqualified Charleston County Deputy in its rebuttal case.”

That’s a reference to the testimony of Paul McManigal, who sought to prove that Murdaugh threw his late wife’s cell phone from the window of a moving vehicle shortly after committing the murders. According to the defense, it was “highly prejudicial” of Newman to allow McManigal to testify because he wasn’t an expert and his “experiment” with the phone was admittedly unreliable.

Specifically, the defense argued its repeated objections regarding McManigal’s expert qualification with regard to the phone were “ignored” – and that the detective himself admitted on the stand his investigatory method of “sitting alone in an office throwing a phone on the floor without recording any data about it” was not sound.

Why does this matter?

“Without his inadmissible testimony, the state would have been forced to admit that someone other than Murdaugh was present at the scene of the murders when they occurred, had taken Maggie Murdaugh’s phone from her dead body, and had left the Moselle dog kennels with it and threw it onto the side of the main road leaving Moselle while Murdaugh was still at home,” the attorneys argued. “The state could not have convicted Murdaugh with that admission and therefore could not have convicted Murdaugh without sergeant McManigal’s inadmissible testimony.”

FITSNews will be publishing a more in-depth look at the arguments presented by Murdaugh’s defense as well as the case law used to support those arguments in the coming days…

***

THE BRIEF…

(S.C. Supreme Court)

***

ABOUT THE AUTHOR …

As a private investigator turned journalist, Jenn Wood brings a unique skill set to FITSNews as its research director. Known for her meticulous sourcing and victim-centered approach, she helps shape the newsroom’s most complex investigative stories while producing the FITSFiles and Cheer Incorporated podcasts. Jenn lives in South Carolina with her family, where her work continues to spotlight truth, accountability, and justice.

***

WANNA SOUND OFF?

Got something you’d like to say in response to one of our articles? Or an issue you’d like to address proactively? We have an open microphone policy! Submit your letter to the editor (or guest column) via email HERE. Got a tip for a story? CLICK HERE. Got a technical question or a glitch to report? CLICK HERE.