|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
by JENN WOOD
***
A federal judge has dismissed accused killer Alex Murdaugh‘s civil rights lawsuit against disgraced former Colleton County clerk of court Rebecca “Becky” Hill, ruling that Murdaugh – the central figure in the so-called ‘Trial of the Century’ in South Carolina – failed to establish the legal standing necessary to pursue damages tied to the cost of his original murder trial.
In an order issued Wednesday (August 5, 2026), U.S. district court judge Richard Gergel granted Hill’s motion to dismiss the lawsuit without prejudice, concluding Murdaugh failed to show Hill’s admitted jury misconduct caused the financial injury alleged in his complaint.
The ruling (.pdf) represents an early procedural victory for Hill – but stops short of foreclosing future litigation arising from Murdaugh’s retrial.
Murdaugh filed the lawsuit in May after the S.C. supreme court unanimously overturned his murder convictions, finding Hill engaged in what the justices described as “shocking jury interference.”
The complaint, brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleged Hill violated Murdaugh’s Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights by improperly communicating with jurors during his six-week murder trial. As damages, Murdaugh sought to recover approximately $600,000, claiming he liquidated his 401(k) retirement account to pay for his legal defense during the original trial and that Hill’s misconduct caused those funds to be lost.
***
Hill moved quickly to dismiss the lawsuit, arguing Murdaugh would have incurred those defense costs regardless of any misconduct on her part because he still had to defend himself against the murder charges.
Judge Gergel agreed.
In the five-page order, the court found Murdaugh’s claim suffered from what it called a “fatal flaw” — the absence of a causal connection between Hill’s misconduct and the money Murdaugh spent defending himself at trial.
According to the order, Hill had no role in initiating the murder prosecution.
Instead, Murdaugh was indicted by a state grand jury and prosecuted by the South Carolina Attorney General’s Office. Regardless of Hill’s later misconduct, the court reasoned, Murdaugh still would have needed to hire attorneys and fund his defense.
“Simply stated,” Gergel wrote, “Defendant’s misconduct was not a proximate cause of Plaintiff’s need to fund his defense costs.”
Because Murdaugh could not demonstrate his claimed financial injury was “fairly traceable” to Hill’s actions, the court concluded he lacked Article III standing to pursue the claim in federal court.
***
RELATED | ALEX MURDAUGH SUES BECKY HILL IN FEDERAL COURT
***
DISMISSED—BUT NOT NECESSARILY OVER
Murdaugh urged the court to follow a Ninth Circuit decision permitting criminal defendants to recover attorney’s fees after being subjected to prosecutions initiated without probable cause. Judge Gergel rejected that comparison, finding the circumstances materially different.
Unlike those cases, Hill did not initiate the criminal prosecution against Murdaugh. Instead, the alleged constitutional violation occurred during an already pending murder trial. Even if Hill had never improperly communicated with jurors, Gergel concluded, Murdaugh still would have incurred the costs of defending himself against the charges.
While Hill prevailed on her motion to dismiss, the ruling does not necessarily end the federal litigation. The case was dismissed without prejudice, meaning Murdaugh is not barred from pursuing other claims if he can establish a legally sufficient basis to do so.
In a notable footnote, Gergel observed that Murdaugh “carefully avoided” seeking damages related to his upcoming retrial because such a claim is not yet ripe. The judge further emphasized that nothing in the order should be construed as expressing any opinion on “the possible merit or lack of merit” of claims Murdaugh may later assert based on damages arising from the retrial itself.
For now, however, the court has concluded that the approximately $600,000 Murdaugh spent defending himself during his original murder trial cannot be recovered from Hill because those expenses would have been incurred regardless of her misconduct.
***
UPDATE |
***
Shortly after Alex Murdaugh's lawsuit against Becky Hill was dismissed, his legal team filed a notice of appeal with the fourth circuit court of appeals… @fitsnews https://t.co/ywkVk0yt0W https://t.co/GwBpMxpNCI
— Jennifer Wood (@IndyJenn_) August 5, 2026
***
THE ORDER…
Subscriber-only document
This PDF is available to FITSNews subscribers. Get full access and be able to view documents like this one.
Subscribe for accessAlready a subscriber? Log in here
***
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.
2 comments
New morning, new hope this transcript excerpt gets through. I do not know why FITS removed the first time anyway.
Anyone and every one can see it on SC JMSC’ website, realizing that Judge McCaslin then went by Chapman:
[Page 128, line 1] MR. STROM: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[Lines 2-3] CHAIRMAN SMITH: All right. Representative Rutherford, we’ll hear about your Salty Nut.
[Lines 4-11] MS. CHAPMAN: Well, the bad thing is, is that when we would go, it wasn’t like it was some big party. We were with judges, you know. I mean, like federal judges. And I do think that kind of tends to lead to some kind of jealousy. [lines 9-11] But Pete, I have to say those are some really sweet words. Thank you. Thank you. And for sharing my whole life history with all these people.
[Lines 12-15] REPRESENTATIVE RUTHERFORD: Mr. Chairman, thank you. I was a young lawyer in the solicitor’s office, and for the most part most of the lawyers that we dealt with were men.
[Line 16] MS. CHAPMAN: Yes.
[17 to page 130, line 1] REPRESENTATIVE RUTHERFORD: [lines 17-24] And to a great degree that’s still true. But back then Debbie was a standout. And I was one that went to Salty Nut, and it was to get acquainted on a very personal level with other people in the solicitor’s office, other defense attorneys, other judges, other people that were invited to be social and not just simply stand in front of one another and be adversaries. [line 25 to page 129, line 7] And I can tell you that being one of those people that was there, I learned a great deal. You were also one of the first lawyers that I had just met in the solicitor’s office, that I was invited to your house for several barbecues. And Judge Eppes used to come in town and we’d all go to your house, and it would be nothing but a chance for us to network and socialize and get to know and see other lawyers. [lines 8-13] And so standing at a podium, hearing the word Salty Nut can be daunting, but I assure you at the time I got a great deal out of it. And I’m forever grateful for what you did. And to a great degree try to emulate how you practiced law back then, with being social and getting to know people. [lines 14-19] I remember one of our clients, Della Mae Simmons. And Della Mae lived right around the corner from where I live now, and Della Mae was selling crack out of her house. And Debbie came to me on ten different occasions, trying to make sure that Della Mae could get the best sentence possible. [lines 20-25] So when I heard the “not being diligent” about your clients, I’m like you’ve never been on the other end of Debbie trying to get something for one of her clients. And, you know, I listened to you talk about the three lawyers, and the first two you were on a good track, and then you got to the third and then went off the rails. [page 130, line1] And please tell him I said that.
[Lines 2-3] MS. CHAPMAN: Well, I think this is public record.
[Lines 4-21] REPRESENTATIVE RUTHERFORD: [lines 4-15] But I mean, yeah, it just — you helped me get started when I went into private practice. A lot of people that — when I read some of the negative comments, I can see those people being in state court and seeing you operate, and not know how you are in Federal Court, and for lack of a better term, what a beast you are in Federal Court, that you’ve written all those appeals, that you’ve argued in front of the 4th Circuit, that you’ve done things that people that may work in the solicitor’s office have no idea the detail that it takes to be in Federal Court. Because there are not that many lawyers that practice in Federal Court. [lines 16-21] So I just want to commend you and say thank you for all that you’ve done, not just for me but for a bunch of lawyers starting off, teaching us how to do things, how to do them the right way, and showing us that there’s more to practicing law than just standing in front a judge and arguing. So thank you for that.
[Lines 22-23] MS. CHAPMAN: Thank you, Todd. Golly, y’all going to make me cry.
[Line 24] CHAIRMAN SMITH: Senator Rankin.
[Line 25] EXAMINATION BY SENATOR RANKIN:
[Page 131, lines 1-6] Q. Ms. Chapman, I don’t want to make you cry. But I’ll tell you what, you could not have a better — a better story told of you in terms of how you got to the law. And that by Pete Strom, that’s a beautiful story. And unexpected day at the grocery store becomes a law career, perhaps,
[Line 7] A. Absolutely. And I was 17 years old.
[Lines 8-12] Q. I’ve tried to find something other than all these accolades to talk about, and there’s nothing negative to talk about here. I’m curious, did you encourage your husband to retire from the DOT? Or did he do that of his own good —
[Lines 13-23] A. [lines 13-18] No, you can rest assured that he wanted to retire. And, you know, I’ve noticed waiting in the waiting room, everybody else’s husband was here. I really do have a husband. He just happens to be in Illinois, deer hunting. He goes every year for the big one.· And that’s where he is. [lines 19-23] And, you know, he did offer to fly back. I told him, no, I didn’t want him to do that. If I got through all of this, and I was lucky enough to be honored to be a judge, he certainly wouldn’t be sitting with me. So that’s where he is.
[Line 24] Q. What did he do at DOT?
[Line 25 to page 132, line 4] A. He’s a mechanical engineer. And he was there for 32 years. His name is Mike McCaslin. And he’s – you know, I got to tell you, now, he’s from Chapin. He’s my high school sweetheart and my first kiss. And that’s who I married. Pete was at my wedding.
[Line 5] Q. And you’re from Florida, originally?
[Lines 6-10] A. I was born in Florida. My father — my father’s Spanish, and he’s deceased now, that’s where he was born. When he married my mom, he came up here for school. She ·– they married and she moved to Florida with him. And there’s six of us.
[Line 11] Q. Where are you in that pecking order?
[Lines 12-13] A. I am the oldest daughter, born on my daddy’s birthday.
[Lines 14-15] SENATOR RANKIN: All right. That’s all I have. Thanks.
[Lines 16-17] CHAIRMAN SMITH: All right. Any further questions?
[Line 18] SENATOR YOUNG: Mr. Chairmain.
[Line 19] CHAIRMAN SMITH: Senator Young.
[Line 20] MS. CHAPMAN: Oh, no. Not Tom.
[Line 21 to page 133, line 13] SENATOR YOUNG: [lines 21-25] I’ve got a couple questions. But I first will need to put on the record, too, that I was working in the office with Ms. Chapman and Mr. Strom when I was a law clerk my third year of law school. And Mr. Harpootlian was in that office too. [page 133, lines 1-10] And I was a law clerk for all three of them. Primarily for Mr. Strom, but also for the other two doing different things, and learned a lot in that – I participated in a trial that Ms. Chapman and Senator Harpootlian tried with the state grand jury in McCormick, and learned a bunch in that trial, and learned a lot from all three of them in that office as a law clerk. And it had a big impact on me in my private — in my legal career. And I eventually went — got out of law school and ended up practicing with Pete for several years. [lines 11-13] But anyway, I wanted to put that on the record, that I had worked with Ms. Chapman when I was in law school.
[14-15] CHAIRMAN SMITH: Thank you. Any further questions?
[Line 16] (Hearing none.)
[Line 17 to page 134, line 16] CHAIRMAN SMITH: [lines 17-25] All right. Ms. Chapman, this will conclude this portion of our screening process. I want to take this opportunity to remind you, that pursuant to the Commission’s evaluative criteria, the Commission expects candidates to follow the spirit as well as the letter of the ethics law.· And we will view violations or the appearance of impropriety as serious and potentially deserving of heavy weight in screening deliberations. [page 134, lines 1-6] As you know, the record will remain open until the formal release of the report of qualifications, and you may be called back at such time if the need arises. I thank you for offering for this position and for your service to the State of South Carolina. And enjoy your five o’clock traffic back to Chapin —
[Line 7] MS. CHAPMAN: Absolutely.
[Line 8] CHAIRMAN SMITH: — through Malfunction Junction.
[Lines 10-11] MS. CHAPMAN: That is like an hour and a half, you understand. Chapin has grown so much.
[Lines 12-17] CHAIRMAN SMITH: Well, your former boss, Senator Harpootlian, is going to fix Malfunction Junction. And I do want to make an observation as I know that, that comment about you holding court at Salty Nut is no longer applicable, because Senator Harpootlian has shut down Five Points.
[Line 18] MS. CHAPMAN: Absolutely.
[Line 19] CHAIRMAN SMITH: That is not on the record.
[Lines 20-22] MS. CHAPMAN: Vice Chairman, can I just walk over there and just give Pete a hug? I hadn’t seen him in years.
[Line 23] (Candidate excused.)
Might as well, God willing and FITS permitting, paste it here, too.
The truth is finally, God willing, coming out in bits and pieces; but my moral authority is needed to improve the system.
Here is what I just wrote of FITS’ today’s WIR:
At minutes 32:23 to 33:35, you, Will and Jenn are, thank God, ALMOST coming around to what I have been saying and writing for years: Richard Alexandre Murdaugh (“RAM”) could NOT POSSIBLY have been THE or A shooter of Paul or Maggie Murdaugh.
But think of what you said next: RAM’s “actions precipitated what happened.”
Whatever RAM did, whether it was not paying his druggies or keeping the insurance fraud loot all to himself and not sharing it with his willing collaborators in the scheme, does it justify whoever shot Paul and Maggie to have taken their lives?
Justice for Paul and Maggie means finding the real shooter(s) and “cleaner(s).”
But PLEASE be careful with that “third gun” story. It raised my hopes up but worried me that your leaking it would give the anti-RAM forces time to spin it away before it gets validated.
PLEASE release all you know about that third gun. And do not worry about validating me because I have been writing for years that Maggie was shot with ONE OF Paul’s two previously stolen guns.
The truth should not be hidden for fear of validating the long-suffering and now-almost-dying Dr. Marie Faltas.