|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
by WILL FOLKS
***
As we await word on convicted killer Alex Murdaugh‘s high-profile appeal of the guilty verdicts entered against him for the June 2021 murders of his wife and younger son, unverified claims regarding the timing of the impending ruling from the South Carolina supreme court have begun circulating.
Podcaster Mandy Matney, formerly of FITSNews, informed her listeners Thursday morning (April 30, 2026) that a “reliable source” told her the court’s five justices had already reached a unanimous decision in the case.
“A reliable source has confirmed to us that the South Carolina supreme court voted unanimously in favor of Alex Murdaugh getting a new trial, and that their opinion should be official any day now,” Matney claimed.
“We certainly don’t want to believe that it’s true,” Matney said by way of prefacing her announcement, adding that she was merely trying to “warn” her audience to be prepared.
***
By way of clarifying, the supreme court cannot order a new trial for Murdaugh. What its five justices can do – and what many expect they will do – is reverse a controversial January 2024 decision by former S.C. chief justice Jean Toal which denied Murdaugh’s request for new proceedings.
Such a reversal would remand the entire matter back to the circuit court level.
In other words, the case would start from scratch…
Were that to happen, it would be entirely up to S.C. attorney general Alan Wilson – whose grand jury division oversaw the initial Murdaugh prosecution – to determine whether the notorious defendant would be tried a second time.
(Click to view)
***
Justices heard oral arguments in Murdaugh’s appeal on the morning of February 11, 2026. During that hearing, lead prosecutor Creighton Waters was subjected to a withering barrage of questions related to documented jury tampering – and alleged jury rigging – at Murdaugh’s internationally watched double homicide trial in early 2023.
As we noted at the time, the eleventh hour dismissal of juror Myra Crosby was decisive in securing the unanimous guilty verdicts against Murdaugh – leading to growing speculation about the circumstances which led to her ouster (and who may have had a hand in engineering those circumstances).
Given the nature (and tenor) of the justices’ questioning back in February, it is widely believed Murdaugh’s convictions – and the two life sentences he subsequently received – will be vacated. Even if the state doesn’t grant his motion, he would appear to have a slam dunk case before the U.S. fourth circuit court of appeals.
Speculation regarding the supreme court’s decision shifted into overdrive this week when its advance sheet — a preview of coming decisions typically published every Wednesday at 10:00 a.m. ET — was not released as expected.
The court has offered no explanation for the delay, although it is not immediately believed to have any connection to the pending Murdaugh decision.
***
HOW WE GOT HERE…
***
Murdaugh, a once-prominent attorney from Hampton County, was convicted in March 2023 of murdering his wife, 52-year-old Maggie Murdaugh, and younger son, 22-year-old Paul Murdaugh, at the family’s Colleton County hunting property on the evening of June 7, 2021.
The case drew national attention not only for the sheer savagery of the killings, but for the unraveling of Murdaugh’s broader financial crimes — a web of fraud, theft and deception that prosecutors insist supplied the motive for the murders. Murdaugh’s proximity to various alleged criminal enterprises and institutional corruption also elevated the significance of the case.
In the aftermath of his murder convictions, Murdaugh pleaded guilty to numerous financial crimes at the state and federal level – and was sentenced to decades in prison on those charges. Those lengthy sentences could be revisited, however, if he is ultimately cleared in connection with the murders of his family members.
At the center of Murdaugh’s appeal of his murder convictions are allegations that former Colleton County clerk of court Rebecca “Becky” Hill improperly influenced jurors during the trial. Murdaugh’s attorneys have argued Hill’s conduct — including alleged comments to jurors about his testimony — compromised his right to a fair and impartial trial as guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Prosecutors have pushed back, maintaining that even if Hill acted inappropriately, there is no evidence her conduct affected the jury’s verdict.
***
RELATED | MURDAUGH APPEAL: NUMEROUS FAULT LINES PROBED
***
A reversal by the high court would reset one of the most complex and resource-intensive cases in South Carolina history – although the underlying facts, attendant uncertainties and lingering controversies of the case would remain very much intact.
Is that really the direction in which the justices are leaning?
Matney’s credibility issues (.pdf) notwithstanding, we wouldn’t be indulging in such “unverified” speculation if our sources weren’t telling us pretty much the same thing.
One thing is abundantly clear: when the ruling does come down, it is expected to carry far-reaching implications — not only for Alex Murdaugh, but for how South Carolina courts address allegations of juror misconduct in high-profile cases moving forward.
Keep it tuned to FITSNews as we continue keeping a close eye on all of these developments…
***
UPDATE |
***
@lawyerlori #lawyerlori #truecrime #lawyer #southcarolina #alexmurdaugh ? original sound – LawyerLori
***
***
ABOUT THE AUTHOR…
Will Folks is the founding editor of the news outlet you are currently reading. Prior to founding FITSNews, he served as press secretary to the governor of South Carolina. He lives in the Midlands region of the state with his wife and eight children.
***
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.
9 comments
Your “sources” are toying with you, FITS, although I continue to say it is highly improper for South Carolina’s supreme court to have have among its staff persons who talk to the press on background.
But then again, most of what South Carolina’s supreme court itself is highly improper, including its playing with money.
A lot of money which no ones dares question or audit.
Where do the filing fees and fines go?
No one knows or dares to audit.
Yes, sadly, South Carolina’s Constitution names the state’s chief justice as the administrative head of the state’s courts and allows him/her to appoint a director of court administration to assist him/her in administrating the courts.
But what does that mean?
What could that mean in a republican (lower case r) form of government which the federal constitution guarantees each state?
It certainly cannot mean the mess in South Carolina.
Where does the money from filing fees and fine go? And who dares audit them?
The Chief Justice of the Unites States does appoint the Clerk of the U.S. Supreme Court and the director of the administrative of the U.S. courts. But neither serves at the pleasure of the Chief Justice of the United States.
In fact, no one other than his law clerks serves at the pleasure of the Chief Justice of the United States.
The Chief Justice of the United States cannot even fire his own secretary at will. That person is a civil servant with civil tenure.
Not so in South Carolina.
Judicial reform cannot start and end, as FITS proposes, with a magical governor appointing magical judges who will impose draconian sentences which will magically make crime disappear.
It should begin with limiting the administrative powers of South Carolina’s chief justice to the absolute minimum necessary and increasing transparency AND strengthening recusal laws with penalties of impeachment of jurists who sit on cases in which they have a conflict of interest.
Transparency, FITS, means naming your sources within South Carolina’s supreme court.
But of course, you will never do that, not out of journalistic integrity, but because you have little left to peddle.
And so will Lawyer Laurie who is all wet now that the work week is over and no Murdaugh opinion.
BTW, South Carolina’s advance sheets do not necessarily come out “every” Wednesday. On many Wednesdays they do not come out because there were insufficient published opinions to fill them.
And since I will be branded arrogant and insulted anyway, let me air a peeve of mine.
Alex Murdaugh did not have a “double” murder trial; he had a two-murder trial.
You cannot “double” murder anyone since the definition of murder is taking a human life. If you do that, you cannot go back and “double” up on your work because the life would have already gone out of them. You can double or triple shoot someone but you cannot double murder them.
When will you people learn to write good English?
When will you people learn that “literally” is not a superlative of “very.”
And will you people learn that a 360-dgree turn is not a turn at all but leaves in the exact direction you started.
A 360-degree turn is not a superlative of a 180-degree turn.
But why should I have hoped that people who do not know the basics of English would know the basics of geometry?
BTW, if you’re guilty, just confess it.
If you’re innocent, represent yourself.
In either case you will get better results for yourself than these lawyers who pretend to have inside tracks will get for you.
And another BTW, April Sampson’s daughter, previously arrested for attempted murder and discharging a firearm into a building, among ten felonies stemming from the same incident, got “sentenced” to one day time served for “disturbing the peace” and the rest of her youthful offender sentence suspended on one year’s probation.
The problem? Lela Gabrielle Sampson is already a defendant for marijuana possession. Does that not fail her probation before it starts?
Why are you, FITS, not on the case of the judge who issued that sentence? Or on the case of the solicitor who recommended it and dropped all other felonies?
I am not a fan of Byron Gipson; but I think the push to impeach him ignores what other solicitors are doing. All of them!
Your “sources” are toying with you, FITS, although I continue to say it is highly improper for South Carolina’s supreme court to have have among its staff persons who talk to the press on background.
But then again, most of what South Carolina’s supreme court itself is highly improper, including its playing with money.
A lot of money which no ones dares question or audit.
Where do the filing fees and fines go?
No one knows or dares to audit.
Yes, sadly, South Carolina’s Constitution names the state’s chief justice as the administrative head of the state’s courts and allows him/her to appoint a director of court administration to assist him/her in administrating the courts.
But what does that mean?
What could that mean in a republican (lower case r) form of government which the federal constitution guarantees each state?
It certainly cannot mean the mess in South Carolina.
Where does the money from filing fees and fine go? And who dares audit them?
The Chief Justice of the Unites States does appoint the Clerk of the U.S. Supreme Court and the director of the administrative of the U.S. courts. But neither serves at the pleasure of the Chief Justice of the United States.
In fact, no one other than his law clerks serves at the pleasure of the Chief Justice of the United States.
The Chief Justice of the United States cannot even fire his own secretary at will. That person is a civil servant with civil tenure.
Not so in South Carolina.
Judicial reform cannot start and end, as FITS proposes, with a magical governor appointing magical judges who will impose draconian sentences which will magically make crime disappear.
It should begin with limiting the administrative powers of South Carolina’s chief justice to the absolute minimum necessary and increasing transparency AND strengthening recusal laws with penalties of impeachment of jurists who sit on cases in which they have a conflict of interest.
Transparency, FITS, means naming your sources within South Carolina’s supreme court.
But of course, you will never do that, not out of journalistic integrity, but because you have little left to peddle.
And so will Lawyer Laurie who is all wet now that the work week is over and no Murdaugh opinion.
BTW, South Carolina’s advance sheets do not necessarily come out “every” Wednesday. On many Wednesdays they do not come out because there were insufficient published opinions to fill them.
And since I will be branded arrogant and insulted anyway, let me air a peeve of mine.
Alex Murdaugh did not have a “double” murder trial; he had a two-murder trial.
You cannot “double” murder anyone since the definition of murder is taking a human life. If you do that, you cannot go back and “double” up on your work because the life would have already gone out of them. You can double or triple shoot someone but you cannot double murder them.
When will you people learn to write good English?
When will you people learn that “literally” is not a superlative of “very.”
And will you people learn that a 360-dgree turn is not a turn at all but leaves in the exact direction you started.
A 360-degree turn is not a superlative of a 180-degree turn.
But why should I have hoped that people who do not know the basics of English would know the basics of geometry?
BTW, if you’re guilty, just confess it.
If you’re innocent, represent yourself.
In either case you will get better results for yourself than these lawyers who pretend to have inside tracks will get for you.
And another BTW, April Sampson’s daughter, previously arrested for attempted murder and discharging a firearm into a building, among ten felonies stemming from the same incident, got “sentenced” to one day time served for “disturbing the peace” and the rest of her youthful offender sentence suspended on one year’s probation.
The problem? Lela Gabrielle Sampson is already a defendant for marijuana possession. Does that not fail her probation before it starts?
Why are you, FITS, not on the case of the judge who issued that sentence? Or on the case of the solicitor who recommended it and dropped all other felonies?
I am not a fan of Byron Gipson; but I think the push to impeach him ignores what other solicitors are doing. All of them!
I put this polite reply on your Mandy Matney contempt story:
Nothing against YOU, Tamara Rhoads, Top Fan; but Malicious Mandy Matney (“MMM”) should not be mentioned in the same breath as the long-suffering but thank-God-ultimately-exonerated Karen Read of Massachussetts.
This, with full attribution, is from the Boston Globe of two days ago:
By Abby Patkin
April 29, 2026
1 minute to read
Share
A judge has allowed Karen Read to use materials from Michael Proctor’s cellphone in an upcoming lawsuit after her lawyers argued the ex-trooper’s “staggeringly anti-woman, racist, homophobic, [and] antisemitic” texts were key to Read’s new claims against Canton and Massachusetts State Police.
More on Karen Read:
Proctor’s phone data back in the spotlight as Karen Read teases lawsuit against State Police, Canton
Karen Read, Turtleboy facing defamation lawsuit from witnesses in her murder case
‘His killer, or killers, still walk free’: Karen Read files lawsuit alleging coverup in death of John O’Keefe
Read was already allowed to use the messages to defend herself against a wrongful death lawsuit brought by the family of her late boyfriend, Boston Police Officer John O’Keefe. Monday’s order from Norfolk Superior Court Judge Michael Doolin expands Read’s access to the materials while continuing to shield their content from public view under strict confidentiality protocols.
Read was acquitted of murder and manslaughter charges last year after prosecutors alleged she drunkenly backed her SUV into O’Keefe following a night of bar-hopping in January 2022. Proctor, who led the murder investigation, shot to national infamy after a federal probe into the state’s handling of the case revealed he sent lewd texts about Read to friends, family, and coworkers.
State Police fired Proctor in 2025, citing his conduct during the case.
Norfolk County prosecutors previously confirmed Proctor’s personal phone contained “images of intimate body parts” and other sensitive information, but a hearing last week shed further light on the ex-trooper’s purportedly vulgar messages.
According to attorney Rosemary Scapicchio, who is representing two other murder defendants Proctor investigated, the texts also show a bias against “Black and brown individuals.”
“He’ll say things like, ‘It’s kill an n-word in Canton day,’” Scapicchio alleged.
Aaron Rosenberg, one of Read’s civil attorneys, said Proctor’s messages are “highly relevant” to Read’s forthcoming claims of negligent hiring, supervision, and training by state and local police. Read intends to file that lawsuit “in a matter of weeks,” he said.
In addition to her forthcoming suit, Read is suing Proctor and several other investigators and witnesses she claims conspired to frame her for murder. Some of those witnesses have also filed a defamation lawsuit against Read and Turtleboy blogger Aidan Kearney.
Profile image for Abby Patkin
Abby Patkin
Staff Writer
Abby Patkin is a general assignment news reporter whose work touches on public transit, crime, health, and everything in between.
More stark differences between MMM and Karen Read: All MMM’s book makes of her (faux) Catholicism is a claim that it gave her guilt after her many one-night stands. True Catholicism makes not have have one-night stands ab initio, or any extra-marital or even pre-marital sex for that matter.
By contrast, Karen Read’s devout Marian Catholic father, who unfailingly stood by his daughter, said in a radio interview shortly after Karen’s acquittal, “we always believed Jesus Christ and his mother” would see [us] through this.
In May, the Month of Mary for Catholics and Maronites, I needed to give a shout-out to the Blessed Virgin Mother of Christ.
Heard that children? “Virgin” is not an joke. It is a guide to pride in purity against this age of promiscuity of bodies and souls.
Subzero aka Just Some Guest…let it go Elsa. I know you consider yourself as a crusader, but you present yourself as just another run of the mill nut case. You’re too arrogant and misguided to know when to shut the hell up.
Who is Elsa?
Again, who is Elsa?
Google it, dumbass.
I am too smart to google a common first name that may, without a last name or context, return a multitude of responses plus A.I. hallucinations; and that would tell me NOTHING about what you meant.
Contrast your, putting it charitably, evasiveness with my courage in politely asking you what you meant by “Elsa.”
Relevant to this story/non-story is my comment, which I paste here God willing and FITS permitting:
Maggie was NOT getting a divorce. Nancy Grace should be disbarred if she still has a law license in Georgia. There are no “divorce lawyers” in Alex Murdaugh’s case except in Nancy Grace’s lie-peddling mouth.
Eric Bland violated legal ethics by participating in criminal proceedings to obtain unfair advantage in his civil cases and by PUBLICLY and BRAZENLY soliciting the six jurors he represented. In legal terms it is called barratry and champerty.
Eric Bland is a perpetrator of insurance fraud. The stairs at Moselle were NOT “steep” and Gloria Satterfield died IN HOSPITAL three weeks later of TERMINAL diabetes causing (in lay terms) a coronary heart attack,
Journalists died in Vietnam and in other war zones to collect TRUTHS and report them back; and the word “marathon” originates in the legend of the news-bearer who died because he ran so long and fast to bring news back. Nancy Grace sullies the name of journalism and the memory of all the martyrs of real journalism.
Someone should have the courage to expose the lies told against Alex Murdaugh.
And if Nancy Grace had any courage, she should have invited Myra Catherine Crosby aka “the egg juror.”
Also leaks about court opinions are a disgrace whether about the Dobbs decision from the U.S. Supreme Court of the Murdaugh decision from South Carolina’s supreme court.