by JENN WOOD
***
Amid an avalanche of filings tied to his double homicide retrial, attorneys for accused killer Alex Murdaugh are also asking a federal appeals court to revive his lawsuit against former Colleton County clerk of court Rebecca “Becky” Hill – arguing her interference with the jury left him without either a valid trial result or the $600,000 he spent defending himself.
In an October 9, 2026 brief (.pdf) submitted to the U.S. fourth circuit court of appeals, Murdaugh’s legal team challenged U.S. district judge Richard Gergel’s decision to dismiss the civil rights lawsuit.
Their argument centers on a critical distinction: Hill’s conduct did not necessitate Murdaugh’s defense, but it did (allegedly) destroy the value of the defense he purchased.
“He alleged that she destroyed the value of what those lawyers were hired to do, and that loss is traceable to her alone,” the brief stated.
At the center of the dispute is who bears the financial cost of a trial undone by Hill’s jury interference — and whether Gergel’s ruling closed the courthouse door too soon.
***
THE $600,000 DISPUTE
Murdaugh filed the lawsuit on May 17, 2026 – four days after the South Carolina Supreme Court reversed his murder convictions and ordered a new trial.
The complaint alleged Hill violated his Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment right to an impartial jury. It sought $600,000 in compensatory damages, punitive damages and litigation fees.
According to the complaint, Murdaugh obtained court authorization to withdraw $600,000 from his retirement account after his assets were placed in receivership. He alleged those funds represented untainted employer contributions and were spent entirely on his first murder-trial defense.
His attorneys contend Hill’s interference rendered that expenditure worthless: Murdaugh remained under indictment and needed to defend himself again, but the money spent on the first trial was gone.
Gergel rejected the necessary connection between Hill’s conduct and those expenses.
In his August 5, 2026 order, the judge reasoned that Hill had no role in bringing the murder charges and that Murdaugh would have needed to fund his defense regardless of her actions.
“Defendant’s misconduct was not a proximate cause of Plaintiff’s need to fund his defense costs,” Gergel wrote.
He dismissed the lawsuit without prejudice for lack of standing — referring to the constitutional requirements a plaintiff must satisfy before bringing a case to federal court.
***
WHAT THE APPEAL CHALLENGES
Murdaugh’s attorneys argue Gergel examined the wrong injury.
The claimed loss, they contend, was the value of a defense undermined by a court official’s unconstitutional interference. Whether Murdaugh would have needed attorneys in the first place does not answer that claim, according to the brief.
They also argued Gergel confused two separate questions: whether the court had authority to hear the lawsuit and whether Murdaugh could ultimately recover the damages he requested.
“Whether the cost of defending a corrupted trial is a recoverable measure of damages under § 1983 is a question about the merits of the cause of action, not about the court’s power to hear the case,” the brief states.
Section 1983 is the federal statute which permits civil claims against government officials for violations of constitutional rights.
Murdaugh’s attorneys maintained the dispute over defense expenses should have been addressed within the litigation rather than used to dismiss the entire action for lack of jurisdiction.
***
RELATED | Federal Judge Dismisses Alex Murdaugh’s Civil Rights Lawsuit
***
MORE THAN A MONEY CLAIM
Murdaugh’s attorneys argued the lawsuit should survive even if his claim for $600,000 does not.
A proven violation of his right to an impartial jury, they contend, could support nominal damages — typically a symbolic $1 award — and potentially punitive damages. They contend Gergel dismissed the entire case after examining the defense expenses, without addressing those other remedies.
Hill’s attorneys countered that the complaint never expressly requested nominal damages and that punitive damages could not stand alone. Murdaugh’s legal team argued nominal damages were available for the constitutional violation alleged — or that he should be allowed to amend the complaint to expressly request them.
Reviving the lawsuit would also leave Hill’s immunity defenses to be resolved. She asserted Eleventh Amendment, quasi-judicial and qualified immunity, but Gergel declined to address those arguments after finding Murdaugh lacked standing.
Murdaugh’s attorneys maintain Hill is being sued personally, that secretly influencing jurors was not a protected judicial function, and that the prohibition against such interference was clearly established. They ask the Fourth Circuit to send the case back for the district court to address those unresolved issues.
Throughout the brief, they point to the state Supreme Court’s findings about Hill’s conduct — interference that Gergel’s own dismissal order acknowledged had prompted the reversal of Murdaugh’s convictions.
***
WHAT MURDAUGH IS ASKING FOR
Murdaugh wants the Fourth Circuit to set aside the dismissal and send the lawsuit back for further proceedings. His attorneys also request oral argument.
A ruling reviving the case would allow the litigation to continue. It would not itself award Murdaugh $600,000 or resolve Hill’s immunity defenses.
The existing complaint does not seek the cost of the upcoming retrial. Gergel expressly left open the possible merits of a future claim involving those expenses.
For now, the appeal asks whether Murdaugh can pursue damages against Hill for the first trial — including whether the alleged loss of his constitutional right can sustain the lawsuit even if his claim for defense costs does not.
***
THE APPELLATE BRIEF…
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.
1 comment
This little-noticed first-trial OFFICIAL trial transcript should put to rest the FALSE claim that Alex lied about being at the kennels. He just did not volunteer the details:
The Prosecution does NOT want to test the male DNA in the swab from Maggie’s phone because it knows that, like the DNA from Maggie’s fingernails, it will EXCLUDE Alex because Alex NEVER had Maggie’s phone that night and was eager to help the responders on the scene find it the next morning.
Besides, Alex NEVER ever actually said “I was never at the kennels” or ANYTHING like that. TO THE CONTRARY, when Rogan Gibson told “Grandmar” (Maggie’s mother) that he heard Alex’s voice in the background of the phone conversation with Paul which preceded the unsent video, Alex WAS in the room with Rogan Gibson and Grandmar but did NOT “stand up and say no I wasn’t there.”
Here is the trial transcript, with page and line numbers, from the OFFICIAL Record on Appeal (RoA):
[RoA_2669, line 25] Q. 172. Is that another screen shot of your phone?
(R. GIBSON – DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. WATERS [Transcript page 1437 = RoA_2670])
[1] A. It is.
[2] Q. And are those other missed calls that came in?
[3] A. 10:25 p.m. and 10:30 p.m.
[4-6] Q. When you spoke to Special Agent Croft on June 8th of 2021, did you tell him and Special Agent McCallister who you thought you heard on that phone call at 8:40?
[7] A. I did.
[8] Q. And who did you say you heard?
[9] A. I thought it was Mr. Alex but I wasn’t exactly sure.
[10] Q. And did you give him a percentage?
[11] A. I did.
[12] Q. What did you say?
[13] A. 99 percent.
[14] Q. That you heard Mr. Alex on that phone call at 8:40.
[15] A. That’s correct.
[16-17] Q. As time went on after the murders, did you go to Moselle where all of the family and friends were gathering?
[18] A. I did.
[19] Q. Were you there a fair amount?
[20-21] A. Probably the whole part of that — or that — later that week.
[22-24] Q. While you were there at the house where the family and friends had gathered, did anyone ever ask you about your last contact with Paul?
[25] A. There was.
(R. GIBSON – DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. WATERS [RoA_2671 = 1438])
[1] Q. And who asked you?
[2] A. Grandmar.
[3] Q. And that would be Ms. Branstetter?
[4] A. That’s correct.
[5] Q. Maggie’s mother?
[6] A. That’s correct.
[7] Q. And what did you say?
[8-10] A. I told her, yeah, that I had talked to Paul about the dog. I told her that I heard Ms. Maggie in the background, and I heard a male voice that I thought was Mr. Alex.
[11] Q. Was he in the room then?
[12] A. Yes.
[13] Q. Did he stand up and say no, I wasn’t there?
[14] A. He didn’t.
[15-16] Q. Did you ever have any conversation with Alex Murdaugh about what happened that night?
[17] A. No, sir.
[18-19] Q. Did he ever ask you about whether or not you heard him on that phone that night?
[20] A. No, sir.
[21] Q. Did he ever tell you what he did that night?
[22] A. No, sir.
[23] Q. Did you ever ask him what he did that night?
[24] A. No, sir.