|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
by JENN WOOD
***
Dick Harpootlian seems relaxed ahead of one of the most public hearings of his storied legal career. But stacked neatly on his desk are printed copies of the state of South Carolina’s filings in Alex Murdaugh‘s appeal — hundreds of pages of court documents he plans to reread in the coming days as he prepares for oral arguments before the Palmetto State supreme court.
The veteran trial lawyer, whose résumé includes decades of high-profile criminal cases and political battles, is now weeks away from arguing one of the most closely watched appeals in South Carolina history.
On Wednesday, February 11, 2026, the S.C. supreme court’s five justices will hear arguments as to whether Murdaugh’s murder convictions were secured through “overwhelming evidence” (as prosecutors insist) or were the products of a trial so thoroughly compromised by jury interference and official misconduct they cannot possibly be permitted to stand.
In an exclusive interview with FITSNews, Harpootlian previewed the strategy he plans to bring into the courtroom, signaling the defense will press the justices to focus less on forensic disputes and more on what he calls the “core constitutional failure” of the case: whether Alex Murdaugh ever received a fair trial at all.
***
The appeal itself merges two tracks: a direct challenge to rulings made during the 2023 murder trial and a separate appeal of retired chief justice Jean Toal’s January 2024 order – which denied Murdaugh a new trial following an evidentiary hearing on jury tampering by disgraced former Colleton County clerk of court Rebecca “Becky” Hill.
But while Harpootlian made clear where his focus will lie, he acknowledged the direction of the hearing is entirely up to the justices.
“The court will decide what they want to focus on,” Harpootlian said. “We have to be prepared to answer whatever they ask.”
Prosecutors have argued that even if Hill made inappropriate comments, there is no evidence her remarks changed the outcome of the trial. Harpootlian said that framing misunderstands the constitutional right at issue.
“The question isn’t whether the verdict was correct,” Harpootlian said. “The question is whether the trial was fair.”
***
RELATED | SUPREME COURT MUST CONSIDER BECKY HILL PLEA
***
WHY HILL’S GUILTY PLEA CHANGED THE POSTURE
On January 12, 2026, the justices unanimously granted the defense’s motion to supplement the appellate record with Hill’s indictment, sentencing sheet, and guilty-plea transcript — materials that did not exist when Toal ruled on the jury-tampering motion. This decision (.pdf) was granted before a ten-day window in which the state’s response to the motion was due.
The importance of that decision lies not in what Hill was — or was not — charged with, but in how her credibility must now be assessed.
Hill pleaded guilty to perjury stemming from sworn testimony she gave during the Murdaugh proceedings — specifically denying she allowed members of the media to view sealed trial exhibits. Harpootlian said that admission is directly relevant to how courts should evaluate her testimony more broadly.
***
EVIDENCE VERSUS ERROR
The state’s response briefs have repeatedly emphasized what prosecutors describe as “overwhelming evidence” of Murdaugh’s guilt — including a video that shredded his alibi, his admitted lies to investigators, and a tightly compressed forensic timeline.
Harpootlian said that argument, however, cannot resolve a claim of constitutional error.
“There is no ‘overwhelming evidence’ exception to the Sixth Amendment,” he said.
Even in cases where evidence of guilt is strong, Harpootlian argued, courts are still required to address structural defects that undermine the integrity of the process itself.
He also disputed the characterization of the state’s case as airtight, pointing to the absence of physical evidence directly tying Murdaugh to the shootings.
Indeed, much of the prosecution’s narrative hinged on the admission of extensive financial crimes evidence — a ruling many legal observers view as problematic under Rules 403 and 404 of the South Carolina Rules of Evidence. Rule 404 generally bars the use of prior bad acts to prove a defendant’s character or propensity to commit a crime, while Rule 403 requires courts to exclude otherwise relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the risk of unfair prejudice, confusion, or misleading the jury.
Critics of the ruling argue the volume and scope of financial-misconduct testimony transformed motive evidence into a parallel prosecution — one that risked inviting jurors to convict based on who Murdaugh was, rather than what the state could prove he did on the night of the murders.
***
RELATED | S.C. SUPREME COURT SCHEDULES ORAL ARGUMENTS
***
LOOKING AHEAD TO FEBRUARY 11
Oral arguments in The State v. Richard Alexander Murdaugh are scheduled for Wednesday, February 11, 2026, at 9:30 a.m. EST in Columbia. The hearing will mark the first time attorneys for both sides appear before the justices in person since the appeal was filed.
If the court affirms the convictions, Harpootlian said the defense is prepared to evaluate further appeals in federal court. If it orders a new trial, the case would return to the circuit court for proceedings that could again reshape South Carolina’s legal landscape.
For now, Harpootlian said his focus is on a single message he plans to deliver to the court.
“This isn’t about whether people like Alex Murdaugh,” he said. “It’s about whether the system worked the way it’s supposed to.”
***
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.
5 comments
If Harpootlian is serious about winning an appeal, and a not guilty verdict in a new trial, he needs to add Todd Rutherford to the defense team.
Who is paying for this defense? Is Alex has any money it should be going to his victims.
1) You’re the zillionth person to ask this question.
2) If the SCAG’a office, the federal government, and attorneys for the victims aren’t publicly concerned, then why are you?
Harpootlian was so irritated he could barely be bothered to show up for Murdaugh’s trial and his co-counsel was completely lost throughout. But those are the attorneys Murdaugh chose. Becky Hill should be in jail and Alex Murdaugh needs to remain there,
““This isn’t about whether people like Alex Murdaugh,” he said. “It’s about whether the system worked the way it’s supposed to”
In other words, “…yeah, of course Elick is guilty, but this is the only chance he’s got to get into the federal prison system…”