Battle Lines Drawn: Final Filings In Alex Murdaugh’s Appeal

Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...

by JENN WOOD

***

In one of the most consequential legal battles in South Carolina history, three filings now stand between convicted killer Alex Murdaugh and the possibility of a new trial.

The final documents — submitted late last week — marked the culmination of months of legal sparring before the state’s highest court. The South Carolina attorney general’s office filed its final brief (.pdf) on November 5, 2025, followed the next day by two documents from Murdaugh’s legal team, led by attorneys Dick Harpootlian, Jim Griffin, Phillip Barber and Maggie Fox.

Murdaugh’s attorneys submitted both their final brief (.pdf) and final reply brief (.pdf). Together, these three filings represent the last written word before the justices decide whether Murdaugh’s double-murder convictions will stand – or whether he will receive a new trial.

The pleadings present two diametrically opposed versions of justice: one in which Murdaugh is, in the state’s words, “obviously guilty,” and another in which his conviction “resulted from a perfect storm of investigative incompetence, prosecutorial misconduct, and court official corruption,” per his counsel.

Which version of justice will the high court accept? That remains to be seen… but the deadline for these final briefs represents one more critical step on the road to finding out.

***

CASE RECAP: FROM TRIAL TO THE SUPREME COURT

Nearly three years after a Colleton County jury controversially found him guilty of murdering his wife and son, Alex Murdaugh is once again at the center of South Carolina’s legal spotlight — this time standing before the state’s highest court.

The once-powerful Lowcountry attorney — whose fall from grace exposed decades of theft, corruption, and cover-ups within his family’s century-old legal dynasty — is serving two life sentences for the June 2021 killings of his wife, Maggie Murdaugh, and younger son, Paul Murdaugh. His 2023 double homicide trial was broadcast to millions, but the fight over what really happened at the family’s Moselle estate is far from over.

With the truth about what happened still very much up in the air…

Since the verdicts (which were marred by allegations of tampering and outright jury rigging), the case has shifted to the South Carolina Supreme Court, where Murdaugh’s attorneys allege he was denied a fair trial. In addition to the jury chicanery, they have cited improperly admitted financial evidence and alleged investigative failures. The state counters the guilty verdicts was driven by “overwhelming evidence” — not courtroom misconduct.

The three filings submitted last week close the written record in one of the most watched appeals in South Carolina history, setting the stage for a decision that could either cement or unravel the state’s most sensational conviction.

***

RELATED | MURDAUGH APPEAL: PROSECUTORS SAY EVIDENCE ‘OVERWHELMING’

***

THE DEFENSE BRIEF: ‘A TAINTED TRIAL AND A BROKEN SYSTEM’

In his final brief, Murdaugh argued his conviction was fatally compromised by “jury tampering, improperly admitted evidence, and an investigation riddled with error.”

His lawyers told the justices that Colleton County’s then-clerk of court, Rebecca “Becky” Hill had “inserted herself into the jury’s deliberations, urging jurors to watch Murdaugh’s demeanor and to reach a quick verdict.”

They insisted those actions “crossed the line from commentary to constitutionally impermissible advocacy inside the jury room.”

Murdaugh’s team also accused prosecutors of turning financial crimes into character evidence, writing that the trial court “allowed a week of unrelated financial misconduct testimony that became a trial within a trial, distracting jurors from the absence of direct proof that Alex committed these murders.”

“The suggestion that someone would commit double murder to delay a routine legal proceeding defies logic and human experience,” the brief stated, calling the state’s “gathering storm” motive theory “storytelling masquerading as motive.”

They concluded “the case was fundamentally compromised from the beginning” — citing failures by the S.C. State Law Enforcement Division (SLED) to test or preserve critical forensic evidence, including “DNA from an unknown male under Maggie’s fingertips” which, they wrote, “was never submitted to CODIS for comparison.”

***

RELATED | ALEX MURDAUGH’S APPEAL: THE KEY ARGUMENTS

***

THE STATE’S RESPONSE: ‘OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE’

In a 182-page final brief filed November 5, 2025, attorney general Alan Wilson’s office urged the Supreme Court to affirm the convictions — calling Murdaugh’s appeal “an attempt to re-litigate issues long settled by the record and his own admissions.”

“The verdict was solely the product of the jury’s honest deliberations,” prosecutors wrote, “and reflected the overwhelming evidence of (Murdaugh)’s guilt.”

They argued the alleged misconduct by Becky Hill amounted to “foolish and fleeting comments” – which according to prosecutors “did not influence the verdict” and were “heard by only three jurors.”

Prosecutors leaned heavily on retired chief justice Jean Toal’s order (.pdf) denying Murdaugh’s motion for a new trial, which concluded the verdict was “based on the evidence presented at trial.”

That evidence, they wrote, included the famous dog kennel video which placed Alex Murdaugh “at the scene minutes before the murders, his own admissions of lying to law enforcement, and forensic timelines showing both victims’ cell phones locked within thirty seconds of each other.”

***

On the central issue of motive, the state repeated its “gathering storm” narrative — reasserting that by June 7, 2021, the day of the murders, Murdaugh was facing exposure for “millions of dollars he had stolen from his clients and his law firm.”

“The murders,” the brief asserted, “immediately put a stop to the gathering storm at Appellant’s doorstep.”

Prosecutors defended the admission of financial crimes evidence, concluding the testimony was “properly admitted under multiple, independent legal theories” and that “the trial court acted well within its discretion in ensuring the jury heard the complete narrative of events.”

They also argued Murdaugh “waived his objection” by failing to challenge every legal ground trial judge Clifton Newman used to admit that evidence — adding that even if the justices disagreed, any error was “harmless given the avalanche of proof.”

Ultimately, Wilson’s team urged the court to leave the verdict intact: “The jury convicted (Murdaugh) because he was obviously guilty.”

***

RELATED | FORMER CLERK ARRESTED

***

THE DEFENSE’S FINAL REPLY: ‘OVERWHELMING MISCONDUCT, NOT OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE’

In their Final Reply Brief filed November 6, 2025, Murdaugh’s attorneys fired back, accusing the state of “misstating facts, misrepresenting evidence, and defending a verdict built on a structurally defective trial.”

They opened with a direct strike at the state’s filing itself:

“In this case, the State’s brief cites 176 cases and is 163 pages long with 12-point type, or about 60,000 words—approaching the length of a Ph.D. dissertation,” the defense lawyers wrote. “Despite all that makeweight, on the most important issue in this appeal—Clerk of Court Becky Hill’s jury tampering—the State’s brief fails at its very first sentence: ‘Becky Hill’s improper comments did not affect the outcome of this case.’ … That is a speculative answer to the wrong question. The constitutional right at issue is not any right to a correct outcome. The issue is whether Murdaugh received a fair trial.”

“The State’s case was not overwhelming,” they added. “It was built on investigative failures, fabricated evidence, and jury tampering.”

The reply revived claims that SLED’s forensics were “fundamentally compromised” — alleging investigators “did not attempt to lift fingerprints from the feed room doors, doorknobs, or entrance area where Paul was murdered,” and that agents “flew to Oklahoma to pressure their ‘blood spatter expert’ into changing his initial report that found no blood spatter evidence.”

“When SLED’s own lab report definitively determined there was no human blood on Alex’s shirt,” the brief added, “the State abandoned this fabricated evidence rather than acknowledge their misconduct.”

Turning again to Hill’s conduct, the defense insisted, “when a state official communicates with jurors about a criminal case during trial, the law presumes the tampering was prejudicial.”

They accused Toal of applying “the wrong legal standard” by requiring Murdaugh to prove the verdict was changed by the misconduct instead of shifting the burden to the state.

“There is no ‘overwhelming evidence’ exception to the right to a fair trial,” the reply brief declared. “At a minimum, this would require the man have a right to a trial without an elected official advocating the guilt of the accused in the jury room during trial for her own personal profit.”

***

RELATED | MURDAUGH’S DEFENSE FIRES BACK

***

WHAT COMES NEXT

With all three filings now before the justices, the South Carolina Supreme Court will determine how to proceed — either by scheduling oral arguments or deciding the case based solely on the written record. No hearing date has been set, but court observers expect the justices to review the briefs and transcripts before issuing an order outlining the next phase of the appeal.

If the verdict stands, Murdaugh’s only remaining avenues would be a post-conviction relief (PCR) petition in state court or a federal habeas corpus challenge — both narrow and historically difficult paths. But if the justices find that Hill’s alleged jury interference, the financial-evidence rulings, or the investigation itself compromised the integrity of the trial, the ripple effects could extend far beyond the Murdaugh case.

The state insists the evidence was “overwhelming.”

The defense says the misconduct was “overwhelming.”

Now, the outcome rests with South Carolina’s highest court — although if Murdaugh is denied a new trial at the state level it’s expected his odds of receiving one from the U.S. fourth circuit court of appeals (which already overturned one Murdaugh-related verdict for less) are much higher.

***

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.