Can Alex Murdaugh Sue Becky Hill? Federal Judge Faces Rare Legal Questions

Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...

by JENN WOOD

***

For nearly two months, Alex Murdaugh and former Colleton County, South Carolina clerk of court Rebecca “Becky” Hill have been locked in a high-stakes legal battle that could determine whether Hill can be held personally liable for the jury tampering that prompted the South Carolina Supreme Court to overturn Murdaugh’s murder convictions.

The federal civil rights lawsuit, filed just days after the state’s highest court unanimously vacated Murdaugh’s convictions and ordered a new trial, accuses Hill of violating his constitutional right to an impartial jury. Murdaugh seeks compensatory and punitive damages, alleging Hill’s misconduct rendered the approximately $600,000 he spent defending himself during the 2023 double murder trial effectively worthless.

Since the lawsuit was filed, much of the public conversation has focused on that eye-catching figure.

Can Murdaugh really recover the money he says he spent defending himself in a trial the South Carolina Supreme Court later threw out because of jury tampering?

But beneath that headline-grabbing dollar amount lies a far more complicated legal battle—one involving constitutional law, qualified immunity and a damages theory few courts have been asked to evaluate.

In a reply brief (.pdf) filed Thursday, Hill’s attorneys urged U.S. district judge Richard Gergel to dismiss the lawsuit before it reaches discovery, arguing Murdaugh has failed to allege a legally recognizable injury and that, even if he has, Hill is protected by qualified immunity.

For non-lawyers, the competing legal arguments can be difficult to untangle.

Here’s what Judge Gergel is actually being asked to decide.

***

THE CENTRAL QUESTION

Both sides agree on one important point.

The South Carolina Supreme Court has already ruled that Hill’s conduct deprived Murdaugh of his constitutional right to a fair trial, unanimously concluding her interactions with jurors required his murder convictions to be overturned and a new trial ordered. That decision is not being relitigated in this case.

Instead, the federal lawsuit asks a different question entirely.

Can Hill be held personally liable for the financial consequences of that constitutional violation?

At first glance, the answer might seem obvious. If the state’s highest court determined Hill’s actions violated Murdaugh’s constitutional rights, why wouldn’t she be responsible for the damages he claims resulted?

Federal civil rights law, however, doesn’t work that simply.

To prevail under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 — the federal statute Murdaugh is suing under — a plaintiff must do more than show a constitutional violation occurred. He must also establish that the defendant’s conduct caused a legally recognizable injury and that the defendant is not protected by doctrines such as qualified immunity.

Those questions are at the heart of Hill’s motion to dismiss.

Hill’s attorneys argue that even accepting every allegation in Murdaugh’s complaint as true, he still has not alleged an injury she legally caused. Murdaugh’s attorneys respond that the constitutional violation has already been established and that Hill should be held accountable for rendering the first murder trial — and the hundreds of thousands of dollars spent defending it — a legal nullity.

That disagreement — not whether Hill improperly influenced the jury, but whether she can be held personally liable for the consequences — is what makes this case unusually complicated and potentially significant beyond the Murdaugh saga.

***

WHY BOTH SIDES KEEP SAYING THE CASE IS “NOVEL”

Neither side disputes that constitutional violations can give rise to civil lawsuits. The problem is that very few cases look like this one.

Most civil rights lawsuits involve allegations such as:

• False arrest
• Illegal searches
• Fabricated evidence
• Malicious prosecution
• Coerced confessions

In those cases, the government official’s alleged misconduct typically occurs before or during the investigation, directly leading to someone’s arrest, prosecution or imprisonment. Courts have spent decades developing legal precedent addressing those types of claims.

This case follows a different path.

No one argues Hill caused Murdaugh to be charged with murder, indicted by a grand jury or brought to trial. Instead, the allegation is that she improperly influenced jurors during an otherwise valid criminal trial, ultimately prompting the South Carolina Supreme Court to throw out the convictions and order a new trial.

That seemingly small distinction creates a much larger legal question.

Murdaugh contends Hill should be responsible for the money he spent defending a trial that was ultimately declared constitutionally defective. Hill argues those legal expenses would have been incurred regardless of her alleged conduct because she played no role in the decision to prosecute him in the first place.

Because few reported cases involve a court official accused of corrupting a criminal trial after charges have already been filed, both sides spend pages citing decisions from around the country that address similar legal principles—but not this exact factual scenario. That’s why each side describes the case as “novel,” even while relying on decades of constitutional precedent to support its position.

***

RELATED | Becky Hill Seeks to Shut Down Murdaugh Lawsuit

***

WHAT THE PRECEDENT SAYS

Although both sides agree the lawsuit should be analyzed under decades of federal civil rights law, they disagree sharply about which line of cases best fits the facts.

Murdaugh’s attorneys rely heavily on cases holding that criminal defense costs can sometimes be recovered in civil rights lawsuits when government misconduct foreseeably caused those expenses. Those decisions generally involve police officers or other government officials whose unconstitutional actions directly led to a criminal prosecution, forcing defendants to spend money defending themselves. Murdaugh argues the same principle should apply here because Hill’s alleged jury tampering rendered the first trial a constitutional nullity.

Hill points to a different line of cases reaching the opposite conclusion. Those courts have held that damages under the federal civil rights statute must be tied directly to the defendant’s own conduct — not simply flow from an underlying criminal prosecution. Because Hill did not investigate Murdaugh, arrest him, indict him or decide to prosecute him, her attorneys argue she cannot be held responsible for the legal fees he incurred defending those charges.

Neither line of authority, however, involves allegations that a court clerk secretly influenced a jury during a murder trial, only to have the state’s highest court later vacate the convictions because of that misconduct.

That leaves Judge Gergel with the difficult task of determining which legal framework most closely fits a case unlike almost any that has come before it. His decision could help define the scope of civil liability when a constitutional violation occurs after a criminal prosecution has already begun—not during the investigation or charging process, where most § 1983 cases arise.

For that reason, lawyers on both sides describe the case as “novel.” It’s not because the Constitution or civil rights law is unsettled, but because the factual circumstances underlying Murdaugh’s claim have few direct counterparts in reported federal decisions.

***

THE NOMINAL DAMAGES DISPUTE

Hill’s newest filing also raises a more technical argument that could nevertheless become important.

Murdaugh’s attorneys have argued that even if Judge Gergel rejects the $600,000 damages theory, the lawsuit should continue because constitutional violations may support nominal damages — typically a symbolic award of one dollar.

Hill responds that Murdaugh never actually requested nominal damages in his complaint.

According to the reply, if the court rejects his claim for compensatory damages, the lawsuit would have no remaining legally recognized injury supporting federal jurisdiction because “Plaintiff has failed to plead nominal damages.”

Whether that omission proves fatal remains uncertain.

Federal courts frequently allow plaintiffs to amend complaints rather than dismiss cases over technical pleading deficiencies.

***

RELATED | Alex Murdaugh Fires Back at Becky Hill

***

THE IMMUNITY QUESTION

Hill also renews her claim that she is protected by qualified immunity, one of the most frequently invoked — and often misunderstood — defenses in civil rights lawsuits against government officials.

Qualified immunity does not ask whether a constitutional violation ultimately occurred. Nor does it shield officials simply because they made a mistake.

Instead, the doctrine protects government employees from personal liability unless the law was so clearly established at the time of the alleged misconduct that every reasonable official would have understood the conduct was unconstitutional.

In other words, the question before Judge Gergel is not simply whether Hill violated Murdaugh’s rights, but whether a reasonable clerk of court in 2023 would have known that the specific conduct alleged crossed a clearly established constitutional line.

Hill argues that question remains debatable.

Her attorneys point to former South Carolina Chief Justice Jean Toal‘s January 2024 order denying Murdaugh a new trial. Although Toal found portions of Hill’s testimony not credible, she ultimately concluded the alleged jury contacts amounted to harmless error rather than a constitutional violation requiring reversal. Hill argues that if an experienced jurist initially reached that conclusion, a reasonable clerk likewise could have believed the alleged conduct did not violate clearly established law.

Murdaugh strongly disagrees.

His attorneys argue the relevant question is much broader than whether another judge later found the error harmless. They contend the constitutional right to an impartial jury free from improper influence by court officers has been clearly established for decades, citing U.S. Supreme Court decisions holding that comments by bailiffs and other court officials can violate the Sixth Amendment. According to Murdaugh, no reasonable court official could believe it was lawful to privately influence jurors during a criminal trial, regardless of how a lower court initially assessed the impact of that conduct.

Like the damages issue, the qualified immunity question may ultimately turn less on disputed facts than on how broadly or narrowly Judge Gergel defines the constitutional right at issue — and whether existing precedent gave Hill fair warning that the alleged conduct could expose her to personal liability.

***

WHAT HAPPENS NEXT

Judge Gergel must now decide whether Hill’s arguments justify ending the lawsuit before discovery begins.

He could:

• dismiss the case outright;
• dismiss portions of it while allowing others to proceed;
• permit Murdaugh to amend his complaint; or
• deny Hill’s motion and allow discovery to move forward.

Whatever he decides could have implications well beyond the Murdaugh saga.

While jury tampering itself is not a new legal issue, the question of whether a criminal defendant can recover the cost of defending a trial later vacated because of misconduct by a court official is one few courts have addressed directly.

For that reason, Gergel’s ruling could become one of the more closely watched civil decisions to emerge from the long-running legal fallout surrounding South Carolina’s most infamous murder case.

***

THE RESPONSE MOTION

***

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.