|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
by JENN WOOD
***
Attorneys for accused killer Alex Murdaugh are urging a federal judge to reject disgraced South Carolina clerk of court Rebecca “Becky” Hill‘s attempt to dismiss his civil rights lawsuit – arguing Hill is trying to avoid liability for jury tampering that the Palmetto State’s high court has already determined violated his constitutional rights.
In a lengthy response filed Thursday (July 2, 2026), Murdaugh’s legal team characterized Hill’s motion as an effort to sidestep the core issue in the case – her tampering with the jury that found him guilty of killing his wife and younger son.
“Ms. Hill now asks this court to hold that she may do so without consequence,” they wrote. “She cannot.”
The filing (.pdf) marked Murdaugh’s response to Hill’s recently filed motion to dismiss his federal lawsuit – which would shut the case down before discovery even began.
Rather than addressing whether Hill violated Murdaugh’s constitutional rights, Murdaugh’s attorneys argued Hill focused almost entirely on damages and immunity defenses.
“Ms. Hill’s motion is a makeweight damages motion masquerading as a motion to dismiss,” the filing stated.
***
RELYING ON THE SUPREME COURT’S FINDINGS
Murdaugh’s attorneys repeatedly returned to the S.C. supreme court’s May decision overturning his murder convictions – arguing the constitutional violation underlying the federal lawsuit has already been established.
The response opened by reminding the federal court that the state’s highest court unanimously concluded Hill “secretly tampered” with the jury and “stole from Mr. Murdaugh his constitutional right to a fair trial by an impartial jury.”
The filing again invoked some of the state court’s strongest language, noting the justices found Hill had “placed her fingers on the scales of justice” for personal gain.
Murdaugh’s attorneys argued Hill should not be permitted to effectively relitigate issues they say the South Carolina supreme court has already resolved. In the filing, they noted the state’s highest court “squarely held that Ms. Hill’s conduct violated Mr. Murdaugh’s right to a fair trial by an impartial jury,” and contended the federal court should not revisit that determination based on the same factual record.
Instead, the defense urged U.S. district judge Richard Gergel to decline Hill’s invitation to reconsider whether her alleged conduct amounted to a constitutional violation, arguing the court “should abstain from hearing an argument that the factual allegations in the complaint… do not give rise to any constitutional violation, less than two months after the South Carolina Supreme Court unanimously held they were grave constitutional violations requiring the reversal of two murder convictions.”
***
IMMUNITY DOESN’T APPLY, DEFENSE ARGUES
A significant portion of Murdaugh’s response was devoted to rebutting Hill’s claim that she is immune from liability under the Eleventh Amendment, as well as the doctrines of quasi-judicial and qualified immunity.
Regarding quasi-judicial immunity, Murdaugh’s attorneys maintained Hill’s alleged actions bore no resemblance to the legitimate duties of a clerk of court. Instead, they argued that “editorializing to jurors about the defendant’s guilt, holding secret conversations with the foreperson, fabricating a Facebook post, interrogating and lying to a juror, and engineering that juror’s removal are not discretionary judgments forming part of a clerk of court’s caretaking functions; they are the antithesis of any legitimate clerk’s role.”
The filing likewise dismissed Hill’s qualified immunity defense, arguing no reasonable public official could believe such conduct was lawful. According to the response, “deliberate jury tampering by the officer charged with protecting the jury, undertaken for personal financial gain, is the paradigm of an obvious constitutional violation.”
Murdaugh’s attorneys also argued Hill’s own alleged actions demonstrate she understood the conduct was improper. They contend she “knew her conduct was unlawful,” pointing to allegations that she concealed her interactions from the trial judge, instructed jurors not to discuss them, lied to a juror, fabricated evidence and later committed perjury during the evidentiary hearing into her conduct.
***
RELATED | Becky Hill Seeks to Shut Down Murdaugh Lawsuit
***
THE $600,000 QUESTION
The response also pushed back against Hill’s argument that Murdaugh cannot recover the roughly $600,000 he says he spent defending himself during the now-vacated murder trial.
According to the filing, Hill’s motion improperly focuses on one category of damages while overlooking the fact that a constitutional violation can support recovery even if the court ultimately rejects Murdaugh’s claim for compensation tied to his criminal defense costs. The response argues he would still be entitled to pursue nominal damages and disputes Hill’s characterization that his damages theory is “novel,” citing multiple federal cases recognizing attorney’s fees incurred in underlying criminal proceedings as recoverable damages in certain civil rights cases.
Murdaugh’s attorneys also rejected Hill’s contention that she cannot be held responsible for his defense costs because she did not initiate the murder prosecution. Instead, they argued the injury stems from the fact that the money he spent defending himself was effectively wasted because the trial itself was tainted. As the filing put it, “Mr. Murdaugh does not allege that Ms. Hill caused his prosecution… his pleaded injury is that the $600,000 he withdrew from his sole remaining asset to defend a constitutionally fair trial was rendered worthless because Ms. Hill corrupted the first attempt at a trial, forcing its vacatur.”
***
WHAT HAPPENS NEXT
Judge Richard Gergel will now decide whether Hill’s motion to dismiss should be granted or whether Murdaugh’s lawsuit will proceed into discovery.
If the motion is denied, the case would move into evidence gathering and depositions, where both sides could seek testimony and documents concerning Hill’s conduct during the 2023 double murder trial and the damages Murdaugh claims resulted from the supreme court’s decision to vacate his convictions.
The federal lawsuit seeks compensatory damages, punitive damages and attorney’s fees stemming from what Murdaugh contends was the deprivation of his constitutional right to a fair trial.
***
THE RESPONSE
***
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.
4 comments
Because the money Alex’s defense team is trying to recover from Becky Hill might be used for the new DNA test, I paste my rebuttal to how another outlet is trying to detract from the DNA’s importance:
“This guest is the most honest, objective, knowledgeable, AND neutral, one you’ve ever had on the Murdaugh matter, Anne Emmerson. Yet, you were pushing her to leave a wrong impression about that imaginary Piggly Wiggly bagger when there is no evidence that Maggie Murdaugh did any grocery shopping that day, or ever in her recent empty-nester life.
I want to emphasize that DNA of every one we encounter in our lives does NOT stick to us forever; and definitely NOT under our finger nails. It gets washed away in the shower, specially when lathering shampoo into the hair and scalp.
So, whatever DNA was under Maggie’s finger nails AT AUTOPSY was MOST LIKELY acquired after her last hand-wash, probably before or after dinner or after her last use of the bathroom; that is it was MOST LIKELY acquired at the kennels in her last hour of life.”
From Murdaugh to Moore, in today’s Week-in-Review, at minute 18:06, to help y’all out: Histology broadly means the study of tissues; but in autopsy context, it specifically usually means study of tissue samples under the microscope after the gross (not a pejorative sense here) dissection and examination has been done.
Histology takes some time after the gross examination because tissue samples have to be taken, fixed (again, not a pejorative sense here) embedded in paraffin wax, stained at the threshold with hematoxylin and eosin (red and blue for the cytoplasm and nucleus) then other special stains (silver, etc.) if indicated, then mounted on glass slides with a very thin cover, then studies under the light microscope and sometimes under the electron microscope if indicated.
The other component to anatomical autopsy is toxicology run on the decedent’s blood.
In addition to the anatomical autopsy, a psychiatric autopsy should be done on cases like Elena Moore’s.
And you may thank me by never calling an investigation into the end of human life “fun” again. Agreed?
Open questions to Retired/Active SC Circuit Judge Edgar Dickson, to Judge McCaslin, and to other judges who, I hope, will read this or be told about it by their law clerks.
I pray one of those judges will have the courage and the skill to tell current SC Chief Justice Kittredge that the overriding purpose of SC’s entire judicial branch should not be the discrediting of Dr. Marie Faltas to the point of all agents of that branch losing their self-respect and leading the whole SC population into magical thinking and exposing SC’s people and judges to the ridicule of the nation, if not the world.
To Judge Dickson, who volunteered in the one hearing I had by WebEx with him that he is a fan of Egypt-born soccer-striker Mo Salah, I hope you are enjoying the World Cup games (I only check the results of matches) and specially will enjoy the coming dual-to-soccer-death between Mo Salah and Leo Messi.
Pleasantries aside, in Judge McCaslin’s televised court room, or one next-door to it, in the then-relatively new but poorly-engineered Lexington County Courthouse Building, I sat leaning with a crutch and saw a lawyer for an inmate/PCR applicant tell Judge Dickson that said lawyer had consulted a medical doctor that lawyer did not name but will not call that medical doctor to testify and will not use her opinion because it is “too favorable” to that lawyer’s client, the inmate seeking PCR.
For the non-lawyer readers, PCR is in SC law parlance post-conviction relief which is allowed within a year after a person convicted of any crime in SC had exhausted his/her direct state appeals. PCR usually, but NOT necessarily, alleges the criminal trial/plea and/or appellate counsel(s) was/were ineffective to a point that prejudiced the person convicted of an SC crime.
If, but only if and after (with very limited exceptions), state PCR fails, the convicted person may, again within a year, seek habeas from the federal courts.
The preceding two paragraphs were ONLY to explain the context of my presence in Judge Dickson’s court in March/April 2013, and are NOT to be taken as legal advice, because I am NOT a lawyer, only better than most.
And of course, as usual, I have transcripts and official records to document what I write.
In further context explanation, the inmate/PCR applicant was one Michael Elder/Elders, who had been convicted and sentenced to 30 years for CSC with this then-pre-teen daughter. Michael had been convicted on the testimony of a SANE (Sex Abuse Nurse Examiner) nurse that the redness she saw in that that girl’s mons pubis and/or labia minora must have been due to sexually-abusive rubbing because, according to that SANE nurse, “estrogen is not present before puberty.”
Michael’s lawyer had also been separately forced on me after then-SC-Chief-Justice Toal & Co. had by judicial fiat denied me the right to self-representation to punish my success, thank God and WITHOUT A LAWYER, in thwarting Hatchet-for-Hire Heather’s (“Weiss”) scheme to FALSELY convict me of harassment and get me incarcerated for 36 years, yes, thirty-six; but I still had smaller matters arising from draconian Eighth-Amendment-violating bonds imposed on me between the FALSE harassment accusations and my COMPLETE exoneration therefrom.
That lawyer with Michael Elder/Elders as a self-paid client on one side, and me as an appointed client on the other, knew he would not get more money from either Michael or me even if he won our respective case. He also knew that winning Michael’s and/or my cases would arouse Hatchet-for-Hire Heather’s notorious wrath on that lawyer and deny him plea agreements for future clients, which is basically (despite the rare publicized trials exceptions) all criminal defense lawyers do: plea bargain.
So that lawyer decided that, in one fell swoop, he can bait me into contempt of court and lose Michael’s case by asking me, as a medical expert, to review Michael’s case. I did and was horrified by that SANE nurse’s ignorance of basic endocrinology and by her failure to put a ruler next to what she claimed to be the lesion in the that girl’s mons pubis in the photos used as prosecution exhibits.
I told that lawyer, who had induced me to read a lengthy transcript without pre-payment but with a false promise of after-payment, that I would testify that estrogen is present at birth and it is progesterone, not estrogen, that does not appear until puberty, and that the supposed UNMEASURED and undated redness on the girl’s mons pubis was transient and NOT indicative of CSC.
With that lawyer not presenting my testimony, even though I was sitting (despite my excruciating knee pain) in that courtroom, Judge Dickson denied PCR.
That lawyer did NOT even tell Michael until I saw, on Lexington County’s Public Index, a letter from Michael to Lexington County’s Clerk of Court. I went to the courthouse myself and saw the file. The letter indicated that Michael did not learn of what ruling was entered but thought he had won and was asking when could he go home.
Poor, poor thing!
That day or shortly thereafter, I emailed that lawyer, “Are you a monster, Mr. [lawyer], doing this to someone who trusted you?” I meant that failure to tell the client of the unfavorable outcome made him run out of time to appeal.
I would have reported that lawyer to SC’s ODC (Office of Disciplinary Counsel) had he not acted promptly (and undoubtedly in fear of the consequences to HIMSELF ALONE, not out of care for the client who had pre-paid his last dime to that lawyer) and acknowledged his negligence and cooperated in getting that client a belated appeal, which the client ultimately won with an appointed lawyer, but after A DECADE more of incarceration.
And, on this Sunday, I ask Judge Dickson, is the Sabbath made for people or people for the Sabbath?
Paraphrasing Jesus Christ’s statement, lawyers are made for clients, not clients for lawyers.
And rules are made for courts to dispense efficient and SPEEDY justice, NOT delay justice.
Had I stood up on my crutch that March/April 2013 day and asked Judge Dickson to hear my expert testimony which Michael’s lawyer had maliciously suppressed, would Judge Dickson have heard me or held me in contempt of court?
And I ask Judge McCaslin what she would have done had she been then in Judge Dickson’s seat on the bench.
I know what Kittredge did to me for allegedly emailing Rasputin Shearouse asking why some of my cases had inexplicably disappeared from SC C-track. Kittredge mercilessly, and after an unconstitutional trial WITHOUT A JURY (which I had timely demanded) but before himself and four associates, threw me in the fearsome Alvin S. Glenn Detention Center (ASGDC), where even some guards are violent criminals, and where I was struck with a heart condition which was then deliberately neglected by ASGDC and has since become permanent and incurable.
And NOT ONE lawyer or judge in the length and breadth of SC spoke up for me or for that Constitution they wax eloquent in defending BUT ONLY when the national cameras are rolling.
Would Judge McCaslin hear my expert testimony over Alex Murdaugh’s defense team’s heads, and over the inexplicable grudge Kittredge still holds against me even though I did nothing to him but he almost caused my death in that ASGDC?
Would Judge McCaslin, on her own motion, invite my expert testimony that would efficiently and inexpensively, not only exonerate Alex Murdaugh of the shootings of Paul and Maggie, but also compel the withdrawal of his guilty pleas for the so-called “financial crimes” because made under the duress of his then-undiagnosed depression of Paul and Maggie’s demise and Alex’s failure to prevent it by having placated whoever the real shooters were?
Would Judge McCaslin have the courage to “do the right thing” when it is THE OPPOSITE of the system-sustaining thing?
Jesus Christ dispensed a miracle cure on a sabbath because He was obeying a higher Biblical Commandment to not put off till tomorrow the good you can do today.
Jesus Christ did not await the sabbath’s lapse because He did not want a man to remain unhealed FOR EVEN ONE DAY LONGER.
A warning higher than punctilious court rules is: Justice Delayed IS Justice Denied.
5 April 2027 is NOT fast enough to BEGIN to exonerate Alex Murdaugh when Judge McCaslin has the power, on her own motion, to call independent Court Experts TOMORROW to explain to her the various SCIENTIFIC points I have been raising since I watched that now-vacated-trial unfold.
A process of a court, on its own motion, summoning neutral court experts with no financial interest in the ultimate outcome will NOT be a violation of the rules but will be obedience to the constitutional rules of MEANINGFUL Due Process and SPEEDY trial/retrial.
Alex Murdaugh already missed the funeral of his mother and the birth of his first grandchild, all while the real shooters of Paul and Maggie roam free.
Does Judge McCaslin have the courage to “do the right thing” over the system-sustaining thing?
And as always, would FITS have the courage to run this comment of mine?
FITS has my permission to run this comment of mine as a stand-alone letter.
Will he have the courage to do so?
Back to Becky Hill; and I hope neither John Mobley nor Ever-Bluffing Eric Bland (“EBEB”) is a red line for you, FITS, because neither is likely to advertise on your outlets.
But an MSM removed all comments because I commented on something outrageous their VERY biased guest said.
He fed the frankly stupid conspiracy theory which won’t go away; and that is that Becky Hill was in cahoots with Alex Murdaugh so he can get a new trial when Becky’s misdeeds are discovered.
I previously responded many times, here and on other outlets, that if Becky had been paid by Alex and/or his defense team, then Becky would have pushed the jury to find Alex NOT guilty and been done with it.
Undoubtedly, John Mobley read my responses or heard of them. He came up with what he thought was a brilliant rebuttal. But in reality, his rebuttal is even more stupid that the conspiracy theory itself.
According to John Mobley, Becky Hill was “manna from heaven” because her acts let Alex’s defense team see the Prosecution’s playbook and be better prepared for the next trial.
And let me sur-rebut that in terms John Mobley and his hostess can understand.
Let’s even assume Alex is guilty and he wanted a first trial as a dress rehearsal for a new trial. Why then did Becky Hill machinate so hard to get the one likely hold out juror, the egg juror that is, kicked out before deliberations?
A hung jury would have PERFECTLY served Alex’s supposedly evil purpose of a dress-rehearsal first-trial followed by an ASSURED second trial with the Prosecution’s playbook known in advance, all WITHOUT the expense, effort AND risks of an appeal, the outcome of which is never assured.
That harkens to a confabulation EBEB invented and gave on a show: supposedly, Alex shot Paul because Paul was short and flimsy and would have suffered a lot in prison when convicted and incarcerated for the boat crash case.
Again, let me rebut that in terms even EBEB cannot counter.
Let’s assume Paul was 100% going to get convicted and imprisoned for a long time for the boat crash case. No defense, no reasonable doubt as to who (if any one) was ACTUALLY piloting the boat, no contributory negligence by the other under-age drinkers on that boat, no plea deal, no pre-trial intervention, no mercy by the court, no anything.
And let’s even assume Alex and Maggie were 100% sure of the long imprisonment awaiting Paul.
Why didn’t Alex help Paul escape or fake his own death instead?
Paul did not have to wear an ankle monitor for his bond conditions. And the Murdaughs had remote islands and places for small planes to land. And who better than Alex Murdaugh to procure a fake identify for Paul wherever he flees to?
The stupidity of the theories the Alex haters come up with is matched only by the stupidity of the theories Hatchet-for-Hire Heather came up with to FALSELY arrest me and try me for supposedly harassing my neighbor SUPPOSEDLY because that neighbor would not come to court with me against the landlady we had in common.
Further, Hatchet-for-Hire Heather INSISTED at my trial that said neighbor and supposed “victim” of mine could not go to court as a witness because that would interfere with her work schedule.
The PROBLEM with that is said neighbor was UNEMPLOYED; and Hatchet-for-Hire Heather KNEW IT but REPEATEDLY lied to court about it and suborned her witnesses to perjure themselves about it.
More important than South Carolina’s image to the nation and the world are the consciences of the prosecutors who lie and suborn perjury with impunity and the judges who let them go rogue.