|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
by JENN WOOD
***
Even before the South Carolina supreme court issued its decisive ruling overturning accused killer Alex Murdaugh’s murder convictions this week, former Colleton County clerk of court Rebecca “Becky” Hill – whose office oversaw Murdaugh’s 2023 double homicide trial – had already become one of the most controversial figures in this sprawling crime and corruption saga.
Now, following the high court’s blistering rebuke of Hill’s conduct – and the consequences it has wrought – a new question is rapidly moving to the forefront of the public debate: why was Hill never charged with jury tampering?
Last week, S.C. first circuit solicitor David Pascoe – who is campaigning for attorney general of the Palmetto State – issued a sharply worded social media communique arguing the supreme court’s opinion made “a very compelling case” for prosecutors to pursue criminal charges against Hill related to her interactions with jurors.
“The Supreme Court determined that Ms. Hill made improper statements to jurors in the Murdaugh case and that she was motivated to influence them to find him guilty so she could sell more books and buy a lake house,” Pascoe wrote.
***
***
Pascoe further noted that while Hill previously pleaded guilty to multiple criminal charges — including misconduct in office, perjury and obstruction of justice — none of those charges involved allegations she improperly attempted to influence the jury itself.
“I went back and reviewed Ms. Hill’s guilty plea,” Pascoe wrote. “None of her convictions dealt with jury tampering.”
Pascoe added that under South Carolina law, there is no statute of limitations on jury tampering charges.
Last week, the supreme court issued one of the most extraordinary judicial rebukes in South Carolina history — unanimously and unambiguously concluding Hill “placed her fingers on the scales of justice” and improperly influenced jurors during one of the state’s most high-profile murder trials.
That resulted in the two guilty verdicts against Murdaugh – which Hill announced to a waiting world on the evening of March 2, 2023 – being reversed on the basis of her conduct violating Murdaugh’s Sixth Amendment right to an impartial jury.
***
‘TRIAL OF THE CENTURY’
Alex Murdaugh’s double homicide trial became a national obsession in early 2023. For six weeks, prosecutors in the office of attorney general Alan Wilson laid out how they believed the once-powerful Hampton County attorney murdered his wife, 52-year-old Maggie Murdaugh, and younger son, 22-year-old Paul Murdaugh, near the dog kennels at the family’s sprawling Colleton County hunting property, known locally as Moselle.
The state argued Murdaugh carried out the killings on the evening of June 7, 2021 as his decades-long web of financial crimes and deceitful fleecing of clients, co-workers and family members began collapsing around him. This “gathering storm,” to hear lead prosecutor Creighton Waters tell it, motivated Murdaugh to kill his wife and younger son as a means of avoiding having to face the music for those crimes.
The trial drew unprecedented attention to South Carolina’s judicial system. National media flooded Walterboro. Streaming coverage turned courthouse figures into public personalities. And at the center of the logistical operation surrounding the trial sat Hill — the elected Colleton County clerk of court who was responsible for managing jurors and overseeing courtroom operations.
At first, Hill was widely celebrated – by prosecutors, defense attorneys and the media – for her role in handling the enormous proceeding. That changed quickly, however.
Within months of the guilty verdicts, Murdaugh’s attorneys filed a bombshell motion accusing Hill of improperly influencing jurors in an effort to secure both a conviction and future financial opportunities tied to publicity surrounding the case.
Those allegations would eventually unravel the verdict itself.
***
THE CASE AGAINST HILL…
***
According to sworn affidavits submitted by jurors, Hill repeatedly inserted herself into discussions about the merits of the case during the trial.
Several jurors alleged Hill warned them not to be “fooled” by the defense prior to Murdaugh taking the stand to testify in his own defense. Others recalled her urging jurors to closely watch his body language and behavior on the witness stand.
One juror — Mandy Pearce — later stated she “felt influenced” by Hill’s comments before deliberations even began.
Another juror recalled Hill telling them the trial would make them “famous.”
These allegations expanded beyond comments made inside the courthouse.
Questions also emerged regarding Hill’s role in the controversial removal of juror Myra Crosby — known nationally as the “egg juror” because she left court carrying a dozen eggs after being dismissed from the panel on the morning deliberations concluded.
Crosby has long maintained she was improperly targeted because she was viewed as potentially favorable to the defense — a claim that has fueled years of speculation surrounding what actually occurred behind the scenes during the trial’s final days.
FITSNews previously reported on emails and filings suggesting Hill allegedly handled outside complaints involving jurors inconsistently — aggressively elevating allegations involving jurors perceived as sympathetic to Murdaugh while allegedly ignoring concerns involving jurors viewed as likely to convict him.
The controversy only deepened after Hill published a book about the trial, Behind the Doors of Justice (portions of which she plagiarized), and participated in extensive media appearances following the convictions.
***
RELATED | THE EGG JUROR CONSPIRACY
***
THE COURT’S DEVASTATING CONCLUSION…
For months, state prosecutors attempted to characterize Hill’s conduct as inappropriate but ultimately harmless. The supreme court unanimously – and emphatically – rejected that argument.
In a sweeping twenty-seven-page opinion issued Wednesday, the justices concluded they had “no reason to find Hill did not make all of the statements the jurors reported.”
“As her book’s title suggests, it turns out Hill was quite busy behind the doors of justice, thwarting the integrity of the justice system she was sworn to protect and uphold,” they noted, describing her conduct as “shocking,” “egregious” and “improper.”
The justices compared Hill’s conduct to Parker v. Gladden — a landmark U.S. supreme court case involving a bailiff who improperly commented on a defendant’s guilt to jurors during trial.
“Hill became a character witness on behalf of the state, encouraging the jurors to question Murdaugh’s credibility,” the opinion stated.
The court concluded Hill’s actions constituted improper outside influence on the jury and triggered constitutional protections under Remmer v. United States — the landmark federal precedent governing jury tampering and outside influence claims.
Under that framework, once improper outside influence is shown to be “more than innocuous,” prejudice against the defendant is presumed unless the state can prove the contact was harmless.
The supreme court ultimately concluded prosecutors failed to meet that burden.
***
HILL’S GUILTY PLEA…
***
Hill’s own criminal case proceeded on a separate track. She eventually pleaded guilty to misconduct in office, perjury and obstruction of justice related to allegations she improperly used public funds, provided unauthorized access to sealed exhibits and lied under oath during subsequent investigations.
But no jury tampering charge was ever filed against her – and the court expressly cited that fact in giving her a lenient sentence that included no prison time.
This distinction has become increasingly difficult for critics to ignore following the supreme court’s opinion.
Under South Carolina law, jury tampering does not require proof that a defendant successfully altered a verdict — only that there was an improper attempt to influence jurors. Pascoe specifically highlighted that point in his Facebook post this week.
“In South Carolina, it is a crime to improperly influence a jury — even if it is only an attempt to do so,” he wrote.
Whether prosecutors will now revisit the issue remains unclear. Neither the attorney general’s office nor the S.C. State Law Enforcement Division (SLED) has publicly indicated whether additional charges are under consideration.
Still, the legal and political landscape surrounding Hill changed dramatically this week.
For nearly two years, allegations surrounding the Murdaugh jury were debated through affidavits, media reports, sealed filings and competing narratives. Now, South Carolina’s highest court has formally concluded Hill improperly attempted to influence jurors in one of the state’s most consequential criminal trials.
That finding may not automatically guarantee additional criminal charges — but it has fundamentally changed the nature of the conversation.
The debate is no longer about whether Hill acted improperly. The supreme court has already answered that question. Now the focus is shifting toward whether those actions should carry additional criminal consequences.
***
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.
