|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
by JENN WOOD
***
Nearly three years after a Colleton County jury convicted disbarred attorney Alex Murdaugh of murdering his wife and son, South Carolina’s highest court heard oral arguments in an appeal that could determine whether those verdicts stand — or whether the case returns to circuit court for a new trial.
During a high-intensity hearing on Wednesday (February 11, 2026), the S.C. Supreme Court subjected both prosecutors and defense attorneys to a rigorous examination of the appellate record in Murdaugh’s case — focusing most of their attention on alleged jury tampering by former Colleton County clerk of court Becky Hill.
Justices also addressed the legal limits on juror testimony related to those tampering allegations – and the proper constitutional standard for evaluating outside influences on a jury.
Murdaugh was convicted by a jury of his peers on March 2, 2023 of murdering his wife and son. The following day, he was sentenced to consecutive life terms on those verdicts.
While the justices explored admissibility issues and evidentiary challenges regarding those verdicts, the dominant theme of the hearing was unmistakable: improper jury contact and its legal consequences.
“How do we handle Mrs. Hill?” chief justice John Kittredge said at one point during the exchanges, referring to the disgraced former official.
How the court ultimately answers that question could decide this appeal…
***
INSIDE THE COURTROOM…
From the outset, the justices signaled they intended to control the pace of the hearing — and press both sides hard.
“Just want to notify council that on the primary argument as you begin your 20-minute allotment, five minutes will be given without court interruption, so you’ll have five minutes before we jump in with questions,” chief justice Kittredge said.
In other words, judicial restraint wasn’t going to be the order of the day…
Although the court announced strict time limits for each side’s presentation, intense questioning from the justices routinely pushed debate well beyond those limits — including extended back-and-forth exchanges as they drilled down on multiple key components of the appeal.
Among them? The jury-tampering record, findings of credibility from retired chief justice Jean Toal (who denied Murdaugh a new trial in January 2024) and legal friction between a court rule aimed at protecting the integrity of jury deliberations and the current law of the land related to jury tampering (Remmer v. United States).
The temperature in the courtroom rose quickly as justices zeroed in on one issue again and again: how a court can evaluate improper juror contact without violating the rule that bars them from probing jurors’ mental processes.
Also, unexpectedly, one niche piece of the record kept resurfacing — the affidavit submitted by the “egg juror,” whose controversial eleventh hour dismissal from the panel was decisive in securing the guilty verdicts against Murdaugh.
***
? Our owner and founding editor @TheWillFolks responding in real-time yesterday to the dramatic #Murdaugh appeal developments at the S.C. Supreme Court… pic.twitter.com/LpjgfQ2bL1
— FITSNews (@fitsnews) February 12, 2026
***
WHERE THE HEARING TURNED…
If the questioning of the defense was probing, the court’s exchanges with lead prosecutor Creighton Waters were, at several points, openly forceful — signaling how seriously the justices are weighing both the jury tampering allegations and their institutional implications.
Chief justice Kittredge framed the stakes in unusually candid terms — contrasting the professionalism of the trial participants with the misconduct allegations involving former clerk of court Becky Hill.
“The circumstances of this issue are not lost on us,” Kittredge told Waters. “In the courtroom, we have an excellent attorney general with a very professional and competent team of prosecutors, including you, Mr. Waters. 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.”
He then underscored that even under prosecutors’ narrower version of events, impropriety is not disputed.
“Even if we accept the truncated version of what you characterize as innocuous statements, even you acknowledge it was improper — perhaps not improper to the point of reversal — but you acknowledge it was improper,” Kittredge said.
“Absolutely,” Waters replied.
From there, the justices repeatedly pressed the State on whether its theory that the remarks were harmless fits the governing legal standards — particularly the burden framework and the limits on juror testimony.
***
During today's Murdaugh murder S.C. Supreme Court appeal hearing Chief Justice John Kittredge issued a scathing assessment of former Colleton County Clerk of Court Becky Hill's conduct.@FITSNews pic.twitter.com/OQ6zeBGcXC
— Dylan Nolan (@dnolan2000) February 11, 2026
***
A central fault line revolved around which side inherits the burden of proving prejudice once improper juror contact is shown. The defense pointed to the aforementioned Remmer v. United States – which triggers a presumption of prejudice that must be rebutted by the state.
Toal’s order placed the burden on Murdaugh, although associate justice Letitia Verdin questioned whether the case she relied upon – South Carolina v. Green – truly supported such a shift.
Justice Garrison Hill focused on a related tension under the aforementioned Rule 606(b), which bars courts from probing how outside influences affected jurors’ thinking. If jurors cannot be asked whether comments influenced their verdict, he pressed, how can the state rely on jurors’ assurances to defeat a presumption of prejudice?
Kittredge then elevated the discussion further — suggesting some forms of jury interference by court officials may be so extreme that a “harmless error analysis” may not apply at all.
“In some circumstances,” he observed, “the conduct can be so reprehensible and egregious it becomes a de facto structural error,” he said.
Waters repeatedly returned to the state’s position that Hill’s comments were limited, not overtly directive, and cured by the trial court’s instructions — but the justices continued to test whether that characterization can carry the constitutional weight required to uphold the verdict.
Meanwhile, Murdaugh attorney Dick Harpootlian claimed the state’s theory was “totally unsupported by the record.”
By the close of the state’s presentation, one point was clear: the jury contact issue was not peripheral. It was the axis of the argument — and the state’s legal framework for defending the verdict was facing withering pressure from the bench.
***
RELATED | FIVE QUESTIONS THE COURT COULD ASK
***
THE LEGAL FAULT LINE
As the argument unfolded, it became clear the court was not simply parsing who said what to which juror — it was wrestling with a deeper collision between two legal guardrails that do not sit comfortably together.
On one side is Rule 606(b) of the South Carolina Rules of Evidence, which sharply limits post-verdict juror testimony. The rule permits inquiry into whether outside influence occurred — but forbids questioning jurors about how that influence affected their thinking or their verdict. On the other side is the federal constitutional framework articulated in Remmer v. United States — which holds that once improper outside contact with a juror is shown, prejudice is presumed and the burden shifts to the State to prove harmlessness.
Several justices repeatedly returned to the practical tension between those two rules.
If courts are barred from asking jurors whether improper comments influenced their verdict — how, exactly, can the state carry its burden to prove the contact was harmless?
Justice Hill put the dilemma directly to the defense — and by implication, to the prosecution’s theory of rebuttal.
Rule 606(b), he noted, prevents courts from considering the internal effect of outside influence on jurors’ deliberations, but if that inquiry is off limits, what evidence is left for the state to use to rebut a presumption of prejudice?
***
#Murdaugh lead attorney @HarpootlianSC is in the building… pic.twitter.com/Fy3PQ5c9vD
— FITSNews (@fitsnews) February 11, 2026
***
Harpootlian’s answer tracked the defense’s briefing: the proper test is objective, not subjective — whether the communication would influence a hypothetical reasonable juror — not whether seated jurors later say it did or did not influence them.
That distinction — objective effect versus subjective juror recollection — surfaced repeatedly throughout the hearing, and appeared to hold particular interest for multiple members of the court.
The justices also pressed on whether Toal’s post-trial process crossed the Rule 606(b) line by asking jurors questions that effectively probed deliberative impact — even if framed as credibility or influence inquiries.
The defense argued that once improper contact by a court official is established, the law presumes prejudice precisely because jurors cannot reliably reconstruct — or articulate — how influence affected them months later.
As Harpootlian framed it during argument, asking jurors to unpack the psychological impact of improper contact is both legally barred and practically unsound.
Prosecutors, by contrast, have argued that Toal’s questioning stayed within permissible bounds and that her findings — including that Hill’s comments were “limited in subject and not overt as to opinion” — are entitled to deference on appeal.
But the justices did not appear content to accept that framing at face value. Their questions repeatedly tested where the legal boundary actually sits — and whether the line was crossed in this case.
***
***
WHEN DOES MISCONDUCT BECOME STRUCTURAL ERROR?
Layered on top of the Rule 606(b) and Remmer debate was another issue that surfaced more than once — whether certain categories of jury interference by court officials are so corrosive as to render the debate moot.
Structural error — a narrow category in constitutional law — refers to defects that affect the framework of the trial itself and are not subject to “harmless error” balancing.
As mentioned previously, chief justice Kittredge raised that possibility explicitly with his comments about Hill’s conduct.
The defense stopped short of insisting the court must classify Hill’s alleged conduct as structural error, instead arguing that even under standard Remmer burden-shifting analysis, the defense prevails. Still, the structural-error discussion underscored how seriously the justices were treating the implications of a court official communicating with jurors about the defendant during trial.
The practical stakes of this classification are enormous. If treated as structural, prejudice need not be proven — reversal of the verdicts would necessarily follow from the nature of the violation itself. If treated as trial error, the court must apply the burden-shifting and harmlessness analysis.
By the end of the argument, it was clear the justices were not merely choosing between two factual narratives — they were deciding which doctrinal lane governs what happens when a courthouse authority figures insert themselves into the jury’s orbit.
***
RELATED | SUPREME COURT MUST CONSIDER BECHY HILL PERJURY PLEA
***
THE ‘EGG JUROR’ SURPRISE — AND WHY IT MATTERED
One of the hearing’s most pointed exchanges came when justice George C. James Jr. quickly pivoted from the State’s repeated claim that “11 jurors said the verdict was theirs” to the juror the defense has long described as the clearest example of alleged clerk contact — the so-called “egg juror,” who was removed the morning deliberations began, just minutes before the panel started discussing the case.
“Can we consider the egg jurors affidavit?” James asked.
The question was more than procedural. It went to the heart of a concern several justices appeared to be testing in real time — whether the post-trial jury-tampering inquiry selectively credited some impeachment evidence while sidelining other material that cut directly to Hill’s credibility.
James noted that during the January 2024 evidentiary hearing, the egg juror was physically present and available to testify — but was not called — even though another non-deliberating juror was permitted to testify for impeachment purposes.
“You mentioned during the hearing she’s across the street,” James told Harpootlian. “Judge Toal said, no, she’s not going to testify. She let the alternate juror testify for impeachment of Ms. Hill … what was the rationale for her not allowing the egg juror to testify?”
Harpootlian answered plainly: “I don’t know.”
***
RELATED | THE EGG JUROR CONSPIRACY
***
James pressed the inconsistency, If the alternate juror — who also did not deliberate — was allowed to testify to impeach Hill, why wasn’t the egg juror?
“If the egg juror’s testimony was just as theoretically impeaching … why wasn’t the egg juror allowed to testify?” he asked.
Harpootlian told the court he was “not sure (Toal) stated a coherent reason,” adding that while the egg juror’s affidavit was included in the record, Toal did not cite it in her written order denying a new trial — just as, he argued, she failed to cite other juror impeachment statements about Hill’s comments.
James then framed the issue in appellate terms — whether Toal’s specific factual findings should be read as an implicit rejection of the omitted impeachment evidence, as prosecutors argued in their briefing.
“The state argues in its brief that judge Toal … was an implicit rejection of the other statements,” James said. “What’s your response to that?”
Harpootlian called that interpretation “wholly unsupported by the record,” arguing that when credibility is central to the inquiry, impeachment affidavits from multiple jurors — including the egg juror — should not be brushed aside by implication.
The exchange signaled that at least some members of the court are scrutinizing not only what evidence was presented at the tampering hearing — but what evidence was excluded, and why — and whether those exclusion decisions are relevant to the appellate analysis now before them.
***
“THE GATE HERE WAS JUST LEFT OPEN”
While jury tampering dominated the emotional and constitutional center of the hearing, the justices also devoted sustained — and at times pointed — attention to the second major pillar of the appeal: whether the trial court allowed the State’s financial-crimes evidence to expand beyond permissible bounds under Rules 404(b) and 403, which govern the admissibility of evidence and testimony.
Defense attorneys have long argued that what began as motive evidence evolved into something far broader — effectively turning the murder trial into a parallel prosecution of years of alleged theft, fraud, and financial misconduct. According to the defense, that shift risked inviting jurors to convict based on character and moral judgment rather than proof tied directly to the killings.
Members of the court pressed prosecutors not just on admissibility theory — motive and narrative context — but on volume, granularity, and limiting principles.
Chief justice Kittredge framed the concern in unusually blunt terms, contrasting South Carolina’s evidentiary rule with its federal counterpart and questioning whether the trial court meaningfully enforced its gatekeeping role.
“Yes, the judge is a gatekeeper,” Kittredge said from the bench. “Unlike the federal counterpart of 404(b), our case law has said that our version of 404(b) is a rule of exclusion, not inclusion. And the gate here was just left wide open.”
“Everything under the sun was allowed in,” Kittredge added.
***
***
He noted he struggled to identify meaningful examples where financial crime evidence had been excluded — and questioned whether the breadth of what was admitted crossed from probative context into unfair character portrayal.
“I couldn’t find any example of financial crime evidence that was excluded,” he said, describing the scope and detail as “arguably problematic” and extending to facts that appeared only loosely tied to motive.
Illustrating the concern, Kittredge pointed to testimony of Tony Satterfield and questioned the relevance of his disabled brother to the murder motive theory advanced by prosecutors.
“How does that relate to motive?” he asked. “Evidence that appears to be that not only is he a thief with a motive for murder — he’s a despicable low life character. I mean the very evil that 404(b) is designed to prevent — and then ultimately, 403 as the final safeguard, right?”
That line of questioning signaled the court was not merely reviewing admissibility in isolation, but assessing its cumulative effect — whether the sheer breadth of prior bad acts evidence risked overwhelming the murder proof itself.
Prosecutors maintained that the financial evidence was not propensity proof but contextual motive — part of what prosecutors have repeatedly called the “complete story” of the pressures closing in on Murdaugh before the killings. Prosecutors also emphasized that trial-level evidentiary rulings are reviewed under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard and that multiple independent admissibility grounds supported the rulings below.
Under intense questioning from associate justice John Few, Waters at one point attempted to link the prevalence of financial motives for murder to movies like Fargo.
“I haven’t seen Fargo,” justice Few responded bluntly. “Get to the point.”
Defense attorney Phillip Barber also scored points in challenging the prosecution’s theory that a “gathering storm” tied to Murdaugh’s financial misdeeds was
“Putting himself at the center of a high-profile murder investigation is probably not the best way to distract attention from financial crimes,” he said.
The tone of this portion of the argument was more surgical than the jury tampering exchanges — tightly focused on doctrinal guardrails, standards of review, and prejudice balancing — but it was no less consequential. The bench appeared to be testing not just whether the rule was cited, but whether it was actually enforced.
Taken together, the questioning made clear that while jury integrity is the gravitational center of the appeal, the evidentiary framework of the trial itself remains very much under scrutiny.
***
RELATED | HOW MURDAUGH’S APPEAL WILL ACTUALLY BE DECIDED
***
REMEDY ON THE TABLE: WHAT IF ERROR IS FOUND?
From there, the argument naturally pivoted to consequence — a topic the justices raised with both sides: if error is found, what follows?
The court explored the range of remedies available depending on how any violation is classified — harmless error, reversible error, or structural defect. Questions in this segment focused on fit and proportionality: does the alleged mistake require a full new trial, a limited remand, or no relief at all?
Here again, questioning returned to classification. If clerk contact triggers a Remmer presumption and the State cannot rebut it, the remedy points toward a new trial. If Rule 403/404 balancing is deemed merely debatable — not abusive — the convictions stand. If misconduct rises to structural magnitude, remedy becomes automatic.
By the close of the session, one reality was unmistakable: the justices were not treating remedy as an afterthought. They were actively mapping outcome paths in real time — tying legal standards to procedural consequences.
That forward-looking focus — combined with the unusually aggressive questioning of the State — is a major reason courtroom observers described the argument as far more intense than expected.
***
WHAT THE DEFENSE SAID AFTERWARD: “THIS IS ABOUT A FAIR TRIAL”
In a post-argument press conference, Harpootlian and Barber – along with defense attorneys Jim Griffin and Maggie Fox said the intensity inside the courtroom confirmed what they had hoped to see — a bench deeply engaged with the constitutional framework, not just the factual record.
Harpootlian described the justices as fully immersed in the briefing and record, saying they asked “very intelligent questions” and appeared to be “wrestling with the issues we asked them to wrestle with.” He emphasized that the defense’s strategy was to keep the court anchored to constitutional standards — particularly the jury-tampering presumption and limits on juror inquiry — rather than the emotional gravity of the underlying crimes.
Consistent with the defense’s written briefing, Harpootlian framed the appeal as process-driven, not personality-driven — arguing that the controlling question is not whether the verdict appears correct in hindsight, but whether the procedure that produced it satisfied Sixth Amendment guarantees.
Griffin likewise pointed to the depth of questioning on Rule 606(b), the Remmer presumption, and the scope of permissible juror examination — signaling that, in the defense’s view, the court understands the appeal as a structural fairness case, not merely an evidentiary dispute.
Both lawyers declined to predict an outcome but said the court’s focus suggested the jury-contact issue remains central.
***
WHAT HAPPENS NOW — AND WHAT TO WATCH FOR
With oral arguments complete, the case now moves into private deliberations. No ruling will come from the bench. Instead, the justices will confer, vote, and assign an opinion author. Drafting, circulation, concurrences, and dissents can take weeks or months — especially in a case combining constitutional standards, evidentiary doctrine, and a massive trial record.
The possible outcomes remain as follows:
- Affirm — If the court finds no reversible or structural error, the convictions will stand
- Reverse and remand for new trial — If jury-contact standards or evidentiary rulings are deemed prejudicial, Alex Murdaugh’s convictions will be vacated and a new trial will be ordered.
- Limited remand — if the court finds the wrong legal standard was applied, it can send the case back to the trial court for further proceedings.
Key signals to watch when the opinion arrives will include how the court classifies the improper juror contact, how it reconciles Rule 606(b) with prejudice analysis, and how it frames the burden structure under federal and state precedent.
***
THE BOTTOM LINE
This was not a routine appellate argument.
What many expected to be a tightly timed, technical hearing instead became an extended, high-pressure examination — with the justices pressing hardest on jury integrity, juror-contact standards, impeachment gaps, and the legal mechanics of prejudice.
The tone surprised veteran court watchers. The questioning went long. And the sharpest exchanges were directed not at rhetorical framing — but at doctrinal fault lines.
The ultimate decision will arrive quietly, in writing. But after this argument, one thing is clear: the court is treating the stakes — and the standards — with full constitutional weight.
FITSNews will continue to follow the case and provide detailed analysis the moment the court issues its ruling.
***
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.
21 comments
An attorney generals office grandstanding to help a gubernatorial candidate coupled with a feeble minded judge who doesn’t know basic rules and we wind up here.
Nine out of ten practicing litigation attorneys would tell you Judge Newman was one of the best judges at the circuit level in the entire state when this case was tried. He may have had a 2-3 year learning curve when he first got on the bench, but that was decades ago. His thoughtful, even-handed, deliberative approach coupled with a firm hand on the gavel to run the courtroom makes him one of the best.
Please, he’s only a smidge more intelligent the Justice Jackson, yes he’s a nice guy but an intellectual and legal midget. Litigation attorneys love him because they can manipulate his feeble mind. How about querying how many times he was overturned on appeal. News flash, it is a lot
AC Top fan, I was unclear on whether your “feeble minded judge” comment meant Jean Toal or Clifton Newman; but now that you include Justice Katanji Brown Jackson, the Harvard college and law school graduate and law clerk to Justice Breyer, your attack on Judge Clifton Newman’s intellect is “only a smidge” less racist than that video depicting the also-Harvard-Law graduates Obamas as apes.
Before you start attacking MY intelligence, I am an Honors medical school graduate, got my MPH at Chapel Hill on a Fulbright Scholarship, and speak four languages and am highly educated in the literature of three of them.
Oh, and in case you missed my having said it before: thank God and without a lawyer, and in the court of none other than Judge Clifton Newman, I achieved for myself what Alex Murdaugh’s entire defense team failed to do for him: prevent a jury from returning a wrongful conviction.
So, politely but without giving any one any unearned respect: what are YOUR qualifications to assess the intellects of Judge Clifton Newman, his MENSA-member daughter, and Associate U.S. Justice Jackson, or mine?
With the “rogue clerk of court” comment, SC Chief Justice Kittredge has crossed the figurative Rubicon, whether he intended to or not.
There can be no “yes, but” after that. No verbal indignation will suffice if not followed by sweeping action.
And Will Folks and Jen Wood must cross their own Rubicon, too.
Are they in it for the clicks anything Murdaugh generates or for the greater good?
I paste here my reply to an intelligent and civil commenter who asked if I am “a Murdaugh” on FITSTube’s “after-party” episode:
@MelVonMonkers, I am THE OPPOSITE of everything “a Murdaugh” is EXCEPT for one thing: I, too, am a victim of false criminal accusations EXCEPT AGAIN for one other thing: thank God, I defended myself WITHOUT A LAWYER in a five-day jury trial presided over by none other than Judge Clifton Newman and did for myself what Alex Murdaugh’s entire defense team failed to do for him: prevent a jury from returning a wrongful conviction.
Thirty months later, again thank God and WITHOUT A LAWYER, I got those false criminal charges against me dismissed WITH PREJUDICE.
“Happy ending” and “the system worked” you think? The truth is EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE.
I continue to be punished for both my innocence and for having proved it without a lawyer. And the second part is more important for “the system” than the first as a reason for CONTINUING to punish me.
How so? Because the system is now built, NOT to prevent wrongful accusations/wrongful convictions, but to provide maximum lawyer employment and consequently maximize judges’ side gigs as part-time law-school professors.
So, the system as currently built needs to violently crush anyone who stands in the way of unchecked prosecutorial powers and/or who advocates “scientification” of the system.
And that is why I am “highly invested” to prevent this from happening to others and to correct the situation for those to whom it already happened.
Thank God, I have more intellect and education than the Murdaughs have/had money; but what happens to those who have NEITHER my brains nor Murdaugh’s money? They rot in false incarceration unless and until some charity picks their case up as a show piece and moves on thereafter leaving many others in cells of steel and stone.
Justice cannot be a lottery for which only those with exceptional intelligence or exceptional wealth are even allowed to buy a ticket. And even then, winning is a matter of chance.
This reply may be almost as lengthy as my initial comment; but your high intelligence and focus on reading the initial comment deserve a full, and hopefully clear answer.
Thanks for reading both and responding civilly and God bless.
FITS, how can run the above comment selling Ukranian brides on-line and not run this comment of mine re-pasted hereunder?
With the “rogue clerk of court” comment, SC Chief Justice Kittredge has crossed the figurative Rubicon, whether he intended to or not.
There can be no “yes, but” after that. No verbal indignation will suffice if not followed by sweeping action.
And Will Folks and Jen Wood must cross their own Rubicon, too.
Are they in it for the clicks anything Murdaugh generates or for the greater good?
I paste here my reply to an intelligent and civil commenter who asked if I am “a Murdaugh” on FITSTube’s “after-party” episode:
@MelVonMonkers, I am THE OPPOSITE of everything “a Murdaugh” is EXCEPT for one thing: I, too, am a victim of false criminal accusations EXCEPT AGAIN for one other thing: thank God, I defended myself WITHOUT A LAWYER in a five-day jury trial presided over by none other than Judge Clifton Newman and did for myself what Alex Murdaugh’s entire defense team failed to do for him: prevent a jury from returning a wrongful conviction.
Thirty months later, again thank God and WITHOUT A LAWYER, I got those false criminal charges against me dismissed WITH PREJUDICE.
“Happy ending” and “the system worked” you think? The truth is EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE.
I continue to be punished for both my innocence and for having proved it without a lawyer. And the second part is more important for “the system” than the first as a reason for CONTINUING to punish me.
How so? Because the system is now built, NOT to prevent wrongful accusations/wrongful convictions, but to provide maximum lawyer employment and consequently maximize judges’ side gigs as part-time law-school professors.
So, the system as currently built needs to violently crush anyone who stands in the way of unchecked prosecutorial powers and/or who advocates “scientification” of the system.
And that is why I am “highly invested” to prevent this from happening to others and to correct the situation for those to whom it already happened.
Thank God, I have more intellect and education than the Murdaughs have/had money; but what happens to those who have NEITHER my brains nor Murdaugh’s money? They rot in false incarceration unless and until some charity picks their case up as a show piece and moves on thereafter leaving many others in cells of steel and stone.
Justice cannot be a lottery for which only those with exceptional intelligence or exceptional wealth are even allowed to buy a ticket. And even then, winning is a matter of chance.
This reply may be almost as lengthy as my initial comment; but your high intelligence and focus on reading the initial comment deserve a full, and hopefully clear answer.
Thanks for reading both and responding civilly and God bless
BTW, Jen Wood, this new photo of yours is muuuuuuuuuuuch nicer than the previous one.
I hope it matches your energy on the other side of the Rubicon.
God speed and God bless going from there.
BTW 2.0, not that I expect you to answer: are you Stephanie Wood’s sister or sister-in-law or some kin of hers?
You look about the same age.
Having complimented your new photo, here is some constructive criticism of your two-day old after-party FITSTube episode:
Seton Tucker and Jen Wood, at minute 20:38 you say, “it is not on Creighton Waters; it is not on Judge Newman, unless they knew what [Becky Hill] was up to.”
But it IS on Creighton Waters and on Judge Newman EVEN IF they did not know what Becky Hill was up to.
How so? Easy: a criminal trial is NOT an even match between two equal teams, neither of whom has a duty to help THE OTHER TEAM; and the judge sits in the middle as a passive neutral referee.
The judge IS supposed to be neutral but NOT PASSIVE.
Both Creighton Waters and Judge Newman along with Becky Hill ARE “the state” writ large.
And each of them had a DUTY to help the Defense win if the defendant were actually innocent.
Also, each of them had a DUTY to know if ANY OTHER ARM OF THE STATE (in or outside the courtroom) were improperly harming the defendant before, during, or after the trial.
And I want each of you and Will Folks to do this mental exercise which reverses the burden of proof; but we are now post-conviction.
Step One: Try to come up with ONE fact from the record which makes it impossible for Alex Murdaugh to NOT BE the shooter. I am not saying “likely to be the shooter”; I am saying “impossible to NOT BE the shooter.” Meaning, FOR EXAMPLE, that his presence in the kennels might make it likely for him to be the shooter but DOES NOT MAKE IT IMPOSSIBLE for him to NOT BE the shooter. (Double negatives are intended.) It is quite possible for someone to be at the kennels but not shoot someone else there.
If you CAN come up with such fact, for example, a bus load of nuns drove to the kennels, circled around Alex, Paul, and Maggie, and saw Alex shoot them from every angle, then stop the mental exercise. Alex is actually guilty.
If you cannot come up with such fact, then go to Step Two.
Step Two: Examine every fact the Defense says makes it IMPOSSIBLE for Alex to be the shooter and try to discredit it. If there is any fact you cannot discredit, then Alex is actually innocent.
Once you decide that Alex is actually innocent of the shootings, you SHOULD NOT have any sympathy of Creighton Waters no matter how hard he worked, because the question is: “worked so hard at what?” At getting an innocent person convicted.
What now, FITS?
Why aren’t you letting through this reply of mine to AC Top fan? Afraid to antagonize your racist subscribers?
Well, here is my reply again. Run it or go coercive control yourself:
AC Top fan, I was unclear on whether your “feeble minded judge” comment meant Jean Toal or Clifton Newman; but now that you include Justice Katanji Brown Jackson, the Harvard college and law school graduate and law clerk to Justice Breyer, your attack on Judge Clifton Newman’s intellect is “only a smidge” less racist than that video depicting the also-Harvard-Law graduates Obamas as apes.
Before you start attacking MY intelligence, I am an Honors medical school graduate, got my MPH at Chapel Hill on a Fulbright Scholarship, and speak four languages and am highly educated in the literature of three of them.
Oh, and in case you missed my having said it before: thank God and without a lawyer, and in the court of none other than Judge Clifton Newman, I achieved for myself what Alex Murdaugh’s entire defense team failed to do for him: prevent a jury from returning a wrongful conviction.
So, politely but without giving any one any unearned respect: what are YOUR qualifications to assess the intellects of Judge Clifton Newman, his MENSA-member daughter, and Associate U.S. Justice Jackson, or mine?
Okay FITS, here again is my reply to AC Top fan. Run it or go coercive control yourself:
AC Top fan, I was unclear on whether your “feeble minded judge” comment meant Jean Toal or Clifton Newman; but now that you include Justice Katanji Brown Jackson, the Harvard college and law school graduate and law clerk to Justice Breyer, your attack on Judge Clifton Newman’s intellect is “only a smidge” less racist than that video depicting the also-Harvard-Law graduates Obamas as apes.
Before you start attacking MY intelligence, I am an Honors medical school graduate, got my MPH at Chapel Hill on a Fulbright Scholarship, and speak four languages and am highly educated in the literature of three of them.
Oh, and in case you missed my having said it before: thank God and without a lawyer, and in the court of none other than Judge Clifton Newman, I achieved for myself what Alex Murdaugh’s entire defense team failed to do for him: prevent a jury from returning a wrongful conviction.
So, politely but without giving any one any unearned respect: what are YOUR qualifications to assess the intellects of Judge Clifton Newman, his MENSA-member daughter, and Associate U.S. Justice Jackson, or mine?
All Will Folks’ previous lip-service to Judge Clifton Newman’s greatness and Will Folks does NOT run my reply to AC Top fan’s insult of Judge Newman’s intelligence!?!?!
Oh what a difference three hours at SC’s Supreme Court make! Yesterday’s “America’s judge” is today’s “feeble minded judge” and my defense of him against racist attacks get censored by FITNews of the supposed “open mic” policy.
Hypocrisy, hypocrisy, HYPOCRISY!
Still speaking of hypocrisy, I posted this comment on FITSTube’s fanfare and gloating about Senator Shane Massey’s attack on Former Speaker Lucas’ candidacy for SC’s Supreme Court:
Blake Hewitt had no judicial experience when he was elected to South Carolina’s Court of Appeals either. What is the difference?
Nor did Jean Toal when elected directly from the General Assembly to South Carolina’s Supreme Court.
No one called her election corruption.
And Blake Hewitt’s entire legal experience before being elected to the bench was entirely appellate. No trial experience at all. And he was elected over Allison Renee Lee who had decades of presiding over trials and a several-months stint as an acting full-time SC Court of Appeals Judge. Why did Senator Massey NOT vote for Judge Lee then or even make such speech against Blake Hewitt’s lack of judicial experience?
I think I know the answer; but to ignore it is to ignore the hypocrisy of attacking a very decent and very capable man because he made “the mistake” of giving a decade of his life to service in South Carolina’s Legislature.
Again FITS, be principled!
At minute 58:49 of your Week-in-Review today, if the Legislature has no legal authority to impeach Byron Gipson but enacts a law specifically empowering the Legislature to impeach Byron Gipson, such law would be BLATANTLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL under the ex post facto clause of the FEDERAL constitution.
Also, I have been disillusioned with David Pasco’s demagoguery. He is going around promising the death penalty for child abusers AFTER the U.S. Supreme Court ALREADY ruled the death penalty for NON-HOMICIDAL rape UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
And Will Folks, check your facts: Kittredge was preceded by THREE, not only two, prior lawyer legislators chief justices: Toal, Pleicones, and Beatty. Of these ONLY BEATTY had gone through all stages: trial judge, Court of Appeals judge, then Supreme Court Justice.
Pleicones went from trial judge to the Supreme Court, by-passing the Court of Appeals.
And Jean Toal went DIRECTLY from sitting lawyer legislator to the Supreme Court.
Also, as to the alleged killer of Logan Ferderico, wasn’t the mess-up in LEXINGTON, not Richland, County?
Here is a related REAL quiet part out loud about judicial elections, to be heard, God willing and FITS permitting, clearly: South Carolina’s Supreme Court Justices THEMSELVES and basically ALL lower SC state court judges, past, present, and future, WANT THE SYSTEM THIS WAY.
They have said it many times to visiting students on case-of-the-month Wednesdays. (This is a program allowing state mostly-high-school classes to attend oral arguments of a case basically once a month and thereafter question the Justices on any polite topic EXCEPT the case that was argued.)
And the Justices make NO SECRET of why they want it this was and consider it superior to all others, although they sugar-coat it as all lawyers sugar-coat anything in their interest.
Plainly put: IT IS THE LAZIEST AND CHEAPEST SYSTEM FOR JUDICIAL CANDIDATES, although in fact other systems open other doors for corruption.
Compared to elections at large, the judicial candidate need not spend any money campaigning and needs to convince only 86 legislators instead of millions of registered voters.
And, to its credit when compared to voting-at-large states, huge campaign donations have given at least the perception, if not reality, of influence buying. A famous case from West Virginia reached the U.S. Supreme Court.
But also think about the other alternatives: gubernatorial appointments with the advice and consent of the senate. Guess what? South Carolina has EXACTLY that for magistrates. How well does that work out?
Besides, South Carolina’s governors being term limited, there is no way for the public to hold a governor accountable for bad judicial choices in his/her second term.
It is further easier to bribe one governor than 86 legislators. So, that alternative is open to corruption and lack of accountability, too.
Finally, South Carolina’s judges like their system this way because it is more likely than any other to produce a diverse bench.
Perhaps the latter is the real reason FITS and his so-called freedom-caucus patrons attack the system or pretend to attack it because their base does not want a diverse bench.
But if the Justices themselves laud their state system as superior to all others, they should not attack it as corrupt when it prefers a candidate with diverse EXPERIENCES to a stale throne-sitter.
So my comment leaves no loose threads: a more feasible and effective answer is tighter recusal laws and a requirement of annual financial disclosures as the federal system requires of its judges.
And again, the judiciary should be stripped of its control of court administration and lawyer discipline. THAT is where the separation of powers REALLY breaks down with the Judiciary arrogating to itself BOTH legislative and executive powers.
Because judicial elections are related to this, here is another REAL quiet part out loud to be heard, God willing and FITS permitting, clearly: South Carolina’s Supreme Court Justices THEMSELVES and basically ALL lower SC state court judges, past, present, and future, WANT THE SYSTEM THIS WAY.
They have said it many times to visiting students on case-of-the-month Wednesdays. (This is a program allowing state mostly-high-school classes to attend oral arguments of a case basically once a month and thereafter question the Justices on any polite topic EXCEPT the case that was argued.)
And the Justices make NO SECRET of why they want it this was and consider it superior to all others, although they sugar-coat it as all lawyers sugar-coat anything in their interest.
Plainly put: IT IS THE LAZIEST AND CHEAPEST SYSTEM FOR JUDICIAL CANDIDATES, although in fact other systems open other doors for corruption.
Compared to elections at large, the judicial candidate need not spend any money campaigning and needs to convince only 86 legislators instead of millions of registered voters.
And, to its credit when compared to voting-at-large states, huge campaign donations have given at least the perception, if not reality, of influence buying. A famous case from West Virginia reached the U.S. Supreme Court.
But also think about the other alternatives: gubernatorial appointments with the advice and consent of the senate. Guess what? South Carolina has EXACTLY that for magistrates. How well does that work out?
Besides, South Carolina’s governors being term limited, there is no way for the public to hold a governor accountable for bad judicial choices in his/her second term.
It is further easier to bribe one governor than 86 legislators. So, that alternative is open to corruption and lack of accountability, too.
Finally, South Carolina’s judges like their system this way because it is more likely than any other to produce a diverse bench.
Perhaps the latter is the real reason FITS and his so-called freedom-caucus patrons attack the system or pretend to attack it because their base does not want a diverse bench.
But if the Justices themselves laud their state system as superior to all others, they should not attack it as corrupt when it prefers a candidate with diverse EXPERIENCES to a stale throne-sitter.
So my comment leaves no loose threads: a more feasible and effective answer is tighter recusal laws and a requirement of annual financial disclosures as the federal system requires of its judges.
And again, the judiciary should be stripped of its control of court administration and lawyer discipline. THAT is where the separation of powers REALLY breaks down with the Judiciary arrogating to itself BOTH legislative and executive powers.
Several corrections to questions in the oral arguments; and an important lecture on some principles of science.
First, the scientific method is what brought humanity of the dark ages and witchcraft into the light of modern tech.
You do not need to be a scientist to understand, and use in your everyday thinking and decision-making, the scientific method.
To capsulize it, the scientific method relies on OBSERVATIONS, experimentation, and CALCULATIONS.
It is THE OPPOSITE of speculation.
Yet, speculation, and speculation alone, is what made the first responders on the scene suspect Richard Alexander Murdaugh (“RAM”) and the media-consuming public followed these speculations, most recently rehashed by Ever-Bluffing Eric Bland (“EBEB”), who profited abundantly from both the deaths of Paul and Maggie and from the murders being pinned on RAM.
The speculations go essentially, “RAM must be the shooter because I WOULD HAVE BEHAVED DIFFERENTLY if my wife and son had been shot by someone else.”
That is THE OPPOSITE of scientific thinking.
Of course, it is unethical to take a group of male lawyers in their fifties, shoot their wives and sons in their absence, then observe and quantify their reactions.
But Science has a work-around to observe what cannot be done by controlled experiments. That work-around is THE NATURAL EXPERIMENT.
For example, it would be unethical to take a large group of heart patients, leave half of them asleep as normal, but brutally awake the other half from sleep to see if lack of sleep would increase the heart-attack deaths among them.
The natural experiment there is the change of the clock twice a year for daylight saving time.
And INDEED, it is observed that the NATURAL increase of decrease of one hour of sleeping time associated with the change of the clock is correlated with increase or decrease of heart attacks and heart-attack deaths.
Do we have a NATURAL EXPERIMENT on how a spouse reacts IMMEDIATELY when the other spouse is fatally shot by someone else?
YES we do.
That natural experiment is the then-first-lady’s IMMEDIATE reaction when President Kennedy was shot.
And that reaction is documented in the Zapruder film.
Jackie Kennedy may have LATER hugged her hugged her husband’s lifeless body and not wanted to let go of it for burial. But Jackie Kennedy’s IMMEDIATE reaction was to jump AWAY from that body and help a secret service man to the presidential limousine for protection.
Please review the Zapruder film and stills from it for yourselves.
Self-protection is INSTINCTUAL and CONSISTENT with RAM’s running back to the house while on the 911 call to get a gun.
Law enforcement officers and investigators should be better trained to NOT use their own speculations about what they “would have” done if innocent INSTEAD OF the observations derived from natural experiments.
I have other mini-lectures about touch DNA and firearm markings which I shall, God willing and FITS permitting, post later.
(Corrected for typos.)
Several corrections to questions in the oral arguments; and an important lecture on some principles of science.
First, the scientific method is what brought humanity out of the dark ages and witchcraft into the light of modern tech.
You do not need to be a scientist to understand, and use in your everyday thinking and decision-making, the scientific method.
To capsulize it, the scientific method relies on OBSERVATIONS, controlled quantified replicable experimentation, and CALCULATIONS.
That is THE OPPOSITE of speculation.
Yet, speculation, and speculation alone, is what made the first responders on the scene suspect Richard Alexander Murdaugh (“RAM”); and the media-consuming public followed these speculations, most recently rehashed by Ever-Bluffing Eric Bland (“EBEB”), who profited abundantly from both the deaths of Paul and Maggie and from the murders being pinned on RAM.
The speculations go essentially, “RAM must be the shooter because I WOULD HAVE BEHAVED DIFFERENTLY if my wife and son had been shot by someone else.”
That is THE OPPOSITE of scientific thinking.
Of course, it is unethical to take a group of male lawyers in their fifties, shoot their wives and sons in their absence, then observe and quantify their reactions upon discovering the bodies.
But Science has a work-around to observe what cannot be done by controlled experiments. That work-around is THE NATURAL EXPERIMENT.
For example, it would be unethical to take a large group of heart patients, leave half of them asleep as normal, but brutally awake the other half from sleep to see if lack of sleep would increase the heart-attack deaths among them.
The natural experiment there is the change of the clock twice a year for daylight saving time.
And INDEED, it is observed that the NATURAL increase or decrease of one hour of sleeping time due changing the clock is correlated with increase or decrease of heart attacks and heart-attack deaths.
Do we have a NATURAL EXPERIMENT on how a spouse reacts IMMEDIATELY when the other spouse is fatally shot by someone else?
YES we do.
That natural experiment is the then-first-lady’s IMMEDIATE reaction when President Kennedy was shot.
And that reaction is documented in the Zapruder film.
Jackie Kennedy may have LATER hugged her husband’s lifeless body and not wanted to let go of it for burial. But Jackie Kennedy’s IMMEDIATE reaction was to jump AWAY from that body and help a secret service man to the presidential limousine for protection.
Please review the Zapruder film and stills from it for yourselves.
Self-protection is INSTINCTUAL and CONSISTENT with RAM’s running back to the house while on the 911 call to get a gun.
Law enforcement officers and investigators should be better trained to NOT use their own speculations about what they “would have” done if innocent INSTEAD OF the observations derived from natural experiments.
I have other mini-lectures about touch DNA and firearm markings which I shall, God willing and FITS permitting, post later.
Mini-lecture 2: Actually, two snow flakes COULD be alike. Two unrelated people COULD have the same finger prints. And two bullets fired from different firearms COULD have the same markings.
Touch DNA shall, God willing and FITS permitting, be explained in the third mini-lecture.
Just as a single lottery ticket OR fifty different lottery tickets sold in fifty states COULD hit the jackpot in the same draw.
How so?
Actually, the mathematical principle is rather simple: combinations and permutations. One looks at the probability of a limited number of subjects being selected AT RANDOM from a larger set of subjects IN ANY ORDER. The other looks at the probability of the same number of subjects being selected AT RANDOM from the same larger set of subjects IN A PARTICULAR ORDER.
Some lotteries have the winning numbers in ascending order only (for example 1, 2, 3); others have them in any order (for example 1, 2, 3, OR 1, 3, 2, OR 2, 1, 3, OR 2, 3, 1, OR 3, 2, 1, OR 3, 1, 2).
The probability of selecting 1, 2, and 3, AT RANDOM from a set of 1 – 9 IN ANY ORDER in three draws in which the already drawn number is figuratively put back in the hat is 1/9 x 1/9 x 1/9 = 1/729.
But if the already-drawn number is NOT put back in the hat, the probability is 1/9 x 1/8 x 1/7 = 1/504, which is a greater probability.
If the larger set were only 1 – 6, the probabilities are 1/6 x 1/6 x 1/6 = 1/216 and 1/6 x 1/5 x 1/4 = 1/120, respectively, which are still greater probabilities.
But if the larger set were only 1 – 3, the probabilities are 1/3 x 1/3 x 1/3 = 1/27 and 1/3 x 1/2 x 1/1 = 1/6, respectively, which are still much grater probabilities.
The certainty is 1/1 and that is of drawing 1, 2 AND 3 IN ANY ORDER out of a hat with only 1 – 3 when the already drawn number is NOT put back in the hat.
The purpose of that exercise was to demonstrate that the smaller the bigger set, the higher the probability.
I do not know about snow flakes because, as soon as you capture one to examine it, it melts. Thus no scientific validation of “no two snow flakes are alike” is possible. So, stop saying it!
What about fingerprints?
There are only ridges and grooves (and some scars) which form loops and whorls in THE LIMITED AREA of the size of a human finger tip multiplied by the number of fingers a normal uninjured human has. That denominator is large BUT MUCH SMALLER the billions of human beings on earth. So, the probability of two unrelated human beings out of the billions on earth having the identical prints of one, for example right index, finger is NOT ZERO. In fact it is substantial.
So, the idea that fingerprints are unique is NOT scientifically valid.
First, there is no biologically-plausible need or evolutionary reason for it to be so.
Next, to actually positively validate it, ALL human beings on earth would have to be accurately ten-finger-finger-printed with PRECISELY the same technique. All that is required for it to be disproven is to find two unrelated human beings with the same prints of one finger, which believe it or not, has already happened at least twice in documented court cases.
That is the same for tool markings on spent bullets. There is a finite number of markings on the very small area of a bullet; so, it is QUITE POSSIBLE for two bullets fired from different weapons to have the same markings.
In the Murdaugh case oral arguments, Justice Few WRONGLY stated that the theories of uniqueness of finger prints and of tool marks are valid but they are not applied rigorously enough in the field.
Really, except for DNA, almost nothing forensic was applied rigorously enough, if at all, in the Murdaugh investigation. But the underlying theories of uniqueness of fingerprints and of tool marks are mathematically invalid.
Ready for mini-lecture 3?
I shall, God willing and FITS permitting, give mini-lecture 3 after I know how mean FITS can get.
Two days ago, FITS fantasized about John Canon Few withdrawing his re-election bid so that the process could restart with a new slate of candidates one of whom might defeat Jay Lucas.
What on earth could Jay Lucas have done to FITS except having served in South Carolina’s ELECTED General Assembly decently and ably for over a decade?
If you have given up on Few being re-elected and you want an SC Supreme Court Justice with prior judicial experience and NO General Assembly “taint,” why not tout the candidacy of Ralph King Anderson, III instead?
Anderson certainly has PLENTY of prior judicial AND managerial experience as Chief Judge of the Administrative Law Court, is not “tainted” by prior service in the General Assembly, is a brilliant legal mind and devout Christian, having written a book on The Lord’s Prayer, is a previous prosecutor in the Attorney General’s office, and would be the first disabled jurist to serve on SC’s supreme court.
I will not re-iterate my showing that Few is NOT the martyr for the Constitution you paint him to be. In fact, he is on the transcribed record as admitting he and his colleagues “many times” “do not understand constitutional issues.”
If and when Few does understand some constitutional issues, such as the judiciary cannot issue a judicial order “on its own volition” without a case or controversy being properly before the respective tribunal, Few is willing to overlook that fundamental principle to yield to a personal obsession to hold an innocent in contempt of court for not worshiping Few & Co.
I will not re-iterate what I previously documented; I only emphasize now that FITS’ branding Retired SC Justices Toal and Beatty as “liberal” is totally off-base.
Toal is pro-death penalty; and the greatest concordance between her and any of the Justices with whom she ever served is between her and Kittredge.
That means that on the majority of split decisions of SC’s supreme court during Toal’s service, whether as Chief or Associate, she and Kittredge were on the same side, whether majority or dissent.
That was in a published painstaking law review article.
And when Toal’s re-election was challenged in 1996, it was mainly the Greenville far right who rescued Toal to reward her anti-abortion position.
If you don’t like Toal, you wouldn’t like Hewitt, who clerked for her.
And Beatty was no liberal, just an excellent, common-sense, hard-working, non-self-promoting jurist.
To blame Donald Beatty for South Carolina’s supposed poverty and high crime rate makes no more sense than blaming him for Hurricane Hugo.
FITS, have some shame and decency!
As if they have not already done so plenty, they will retaliate against me for this; and surely many of my supposed FaceBook friends with ongoing interests before current South Carolina’s Associate Justice John Cannon Few will unfriend me. But courage is not the absence of fear; it is the overcoming of fear to do what is right to be done at the right moment. And in my judgment, courage is to say the following:
John Cannon Few’s last-minute withdrawal is an act of cowardice, selfishness, arrogance, and for a former Duke mascot, total lack of sportsmanship. Yes, it is customary for the lowest-vote-pledge-getting candidate to withdraw; BUT that is for open seats when the screening had already been done for an open seat and the withdrawal of the unfavored candidate does NOT halt the election. The rules are different when the incumbent is a candidate and withdraws at the last minute. The other candidates have to be re-screened and the election rescheduled, perhaps to a date AFTER Few’s current term expires. Thus, he plans to continue on the bench UNELECTED beyond his elected term. Few should have stood up like a man in the election and let the world see how few, if any, votes he had earned. Instead, like an unruly child, he took the football and went home. Or, like the Biblical Samson, Few brought the temple down on himself and his competitors. Ironically, Few boasts an article of his titled “The Courage of a Lawyer.” What Few did is the OPPOSITE of courage. Few talks the talk but does NOT walk the walk. That alone suffices to explain why few, if any, electors in South Carolina’s General Assembly liked Few for a second term on SC’s supreme court. A man’s character matters when he wants to continue as a judge. And character is revealed, not by a man’s word, but by a man’s instinctual acts in a crunch. Instead of graciously acknowledging the competitor who bested Few in vote pledges, Few threw a temper tantrum and delayed the likely-successful candidate’s election, perhaps indefinitely.
Mini-lecture 3 is deferred because I have to return to this thread to comment on the ramp-to-nowhere, now and apparently hurriedly placed there before the 11 February 2026 Murdaugh oral arguments, at the front of South Carolina’s supreme court building.
In prior comments on this media outlet, I noted how Kittredge had forced his new clerk, Pat Howard, to send me a letter LYING about an ADA-compliant ramp being built in 2023 at the front of the building when there was, and there still is, a perfectly good ramp in the back of the building only the Court does not want the great unwashed public to use it.
2023 no new ramp.
2024 no new ramp.
2025 no new ramp.
2026 a new ram to nowhere pops up for the photo ops.
It has too steep a slope and no adjacent handicapped public parking spot.
For a wheel-chair bound litigant/visitor to SC’s supreme court building to use that new-found ramp, (s)he had to be dropped on it from a helicopter.
And then the wheel-chair would tumble back from the steep slope.
Quite possibly that unnecessary and non-functional ramp cost tax-payers more than the legislature pay raise SC’s supreme court struck down and is now playing victimhood and martyrdom for having done so.