|
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.
