|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
by JENN WOOD
***
Just one month after accused killer Alex Murdaugh sued former Colleton County, South Carolina clerk of court Rebecca “Becky” Hill in federal court for tampering with the jury that convicted him, the disgraced former public official has asked a judge to toss his case against her.
In a pair of filings submitted Thursday (June 18, 2026) in U.S. district court in Charleston, Hill formally denied most of Murdaugh’s allegations – and moved to dismiss the lawsuit before discovery could commence.
The filings (.pdf) marked Hill’s first substantive response to the federal civil rights lawsuit filed by Murdaugh following the South Carolina supreme court’s unanimous decision overturning the guilty verdicts from his internationally watched double homicide trial three years ago.
The court vacated Murdaugh’s convictions for the June 7, 2021 murders of his wife, 52-year-old Maggie Murdaugh, and younger son, 22-year-old Paul Murdaugh – concluding Hill improperly influenced jurors during six-week trial in Walterboro, S.C.
***
Murdaugh’s lawsuit seeks compensatory and punitive damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the federal civil rights statute that allows individuals to sue government officials accused of violating constitutional rights while acting under color of state law.
As FITSNews previously reported, the complaint leaned heavily on the supreme court’s blistering conclusion that Hill “placed her fingers on the scales of justice” and “became a character witness on behalf of the State” by making improper comments to jurors during the trial.
Now Hill’s attorneys are fighting back.
***
RELATED | BACK TO COURT
***
NO DISPUTE ABOUT THE REVERSAL…
In her answer to Murdaugh’s complaint, Hill acknowledged several undisputed facts – including that he was convicted in March 2023, that the South Carolina supreme court reversed those convictions in May 2026 and that she was later charged with misconduct in office, perjury and obstruction of justice.
However, Hill denied the core allegation that she violated Murdaugh’s constitutional rights – and disputed many of the lawsuit’s characterizations of witness testimony, trial transcripts and court proceedings.
Notably, Hill’s filing emphasized that her criminal charges were unrelated to allegations of jury tampering. Her attorneys also pointed to statements made during her criminal case indicating prosecutors found insufficient evidence to bring jury tampering charges.
Per the filing, Hill was charged with offenses “based upon actions that do not relate to any allegations of jury tampering.” The answer further noted that the special prosecutor assigned to her criminal case stated “there was no probable cause for any charges to be brought against the Defendant for jury tampering.”
That issue has become increasingly prominent following the supreme court’s reversal…
***
RELATED | ALEX MURDAUGH SUES BECKY HILL IN FEDERAL COURT
***
ATTACKING THE DAMAGES CLAIM
The centerpiece of Hill’s motion to dismiss focused on the unusual damages theory advanced by Murdaugh’s legal team.
As detailed in the original complaint, Murdaugh claimed Hill’s misconduct caused him to lose approximately $600,000 he spent defending himself during the murder trial. According to the lawsuit, those funds came from a court-authorized withdrawal from his 401(k) retirement account — described by his attorneys as his “sole remaining asset.”
Hill’s attorneys argued that theory fails as a matter of law. According to their reply, Murdaugh would have incurred those legal expenses regardless of anything Hill allegedly said or did during the trial.
“Such cannot be the case here,” the motion states, “where the entirety of the economic damages claimed by the plaintiff would have been spent on his criminal defense regardless of any actions taken by this defendant.”
The filing repeatedly characterizes Murdaugh’s lawsuit as a “novel theory” of liability that has never been recognized by the U.S. fourth circuit court of appeals.
According to Hill’s attorneys, the lawsuit improperly attempts to recover the entire cost of defending a murder prosecution even though the prosecution itself was not caused by Hill’s alleged misconduct.
Instead, they argued, Murdaugh’s trial resulted from the attorney general’s decision to prosecute and a grand jury’s decision to indict — independent actions that break any causal link between Hill’s conduct and the legal fees he incurred.
***
IMMUNITY DEFENSES TAKE CENTER STAGE
Even if the court concluded Murdaugh stated a valid claim, Hill argued she should remain shielded from liability.
The motion asserted three separate immunity defenses:
- Eleventh Amendment immunity;
- Quasi-judicial immunity; and
- Qualified immunity.
Those arguments could ultimately prove more consequential than the damages dispute itself. If the court agreed Hill was entitled to any of those protections, the lawsuit could be dismissed before discovery begins.
That possibility carries significant implications beyond the immediate litigation. During a recent press conference announcing the lawsuit, Murdaugh attorneys Dick Harpootlian and Jim Griffin argued the case could provide an opportunity to use subpoenas, depositions and discovery tools to explore the jury tampering (and rigging) allegations – including potential co-conspirators.
“We’re going to be able to understand the entire scope of her conduct,” Griffin said at the time, repeatedly questioning whether Hill “acted alone.”
Hill’s motion seeks to prevent the case from ever reaching that stage…
***
WHAT HAPPENS NEXT?
The legal battle represents yet another chapter in the continuing fallout from the jury tampering scandal that upended one of South Carolina’s most closely watched criminal cases.
Last month’s supreme court opinion fundamentally altered the legal landscape surrounding Hill by formally concluding she improperly influenced jurors and violated Murdaugh’s constitutional right to a fair trial. But Hill’s attorneys argued that finding alone does not entitle Murdaugh to recover the money he spent defending himself against murder charges.
Now the federal court must decide whether the lawsuit can proceed — or whether Hill’s legal defenses are enough to end the case before it moves into discovery.
The answer could determine whether one of the most explosive post-Murdaugh legal battles is just getting started — or comes to an abrupt halt.
***
THE FILING…
***
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.
***
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.
