Embargo lifted on testimony from Murdaugh ‘Juror X.’ Here’s what she said.

On Friday morning, attorneys, journalists and a few members of the public gathered in a courtroom on the third floor of the Richland County Courthouse for a preview of Alex Murdaugh’s jury tampering hearing.

A single juror, referred to only as “Juror X” throughout the proceedings, testified about her contacts with Colleton County Clerk of Court Becky Hill and whether they influenced her decision to find Murdaugh guilty of murdering his wife, Maggie, and son Paul.

Judge Jean Toal, who is overseeing the jury tampering hearing, placed Friday’s proceedings under an embargo, forbidding the press from reporting on her questions, the juror’s answers and even the juror’s gender. Toal said she imposed the strict conditions to avoid tainting the remaining 11 jurors, who are set to testify Monday.

Juror X testified Friday due to what Toal called an “unavoidable scheduling conflict” — which was apparently a vacation on which she had already spent money.

That embargo expired at 9:30 a.m. Monday when the full hearing got underway. Friday’s examination offers a roadmap for what Monday’s hearing will likely look like.

Appearing in response to a subpoena, Juror X arrived with her attorney, Eric Bland, who sat in the jury box while she took the stand. Bland represents five of the Murdaugh jurors.

As Juror X prepared to be sworn in, Toal stood and thanked her for appearing and explained the exceptional nature of the inquiry.

Normally, a hearing into jury tampering takes place directly following a trial because that is usually when those issues are raised, Toal said.

“This is almost a year after the verdict. I am very sensitive to how difficult that must be to any of the jurors in this case, including yourself,” Toal said. “Please understand to begin with, you have done absolutely nothing wrong. You have discharged your duties exactly as you were asked to.”

Once the juror was sworn in, Toal launched into a brief and direct series of questions.

Juror X stated that her verdict was entirely based on testimony, evidence and law presented in Murdaugh’s trial. The juror denied hearing Hill make any comments about the merits of the case.

“Was your verdict on March 2, 2023, influenced in any way by the communications of Clerk of Court Becky Hill in this case?” Toal asked

“No, your honor,” Juror X replied.

Toal also asked the juror about questions that had been raised about a private meeting between the juror and Hill.

“Were those about any issue other than the procedure involved with the case?” Toal asked.

“It was about a different matter. It was nothing to do with the case,” Juror X replied.

After Juror X was briefly dismissed, Murdaugh attorney Dick Harpootlian brought to the court’s attention a surprise memo that had been provided by Bland. The memo outlined how Juror X told Bland that before Murdaugh’s testimony, Hill made a number of statements including: “Looks like the defendant is going to testify,” “This is an important day” and “This is an epic day.” The memo also described how Hill made some statement to the effect that it was “rare for a defendant to testify.”

Toal then called the juror back in and read the memo.

“Can you verify that what I have read is something that you heard?” Toal asked.

“Yes ma’am,” said Juror X.

“Did these statements have any impact on your verdict?” Toal asked.

“No ma’am,” Juror X replied.

Toal then dismissed the juror.

The questions offered some insight into how Toal may apply the legal standards that will guide her ruling in the jury tampering inquiry.

In previous statements to the court, Toal has said that she intends to rely on a 2020 case known as South Carolina v. Green as precedent for her decision. In that case, the South Carolina Supreme Court ruled that communications alone between court officials and members of the jury were not presumed to have prejudiced the jury’s verdict.

Instead, it was the defense’s obligation to prove that the contact was harmful.

This is in contrast to a federal case, Remmer v. United States, which Murdaugh’s defense attorneys argued should guide the decision. In Remmer, judges found that any communication with the jury was presumed to be prejudicial and the “burden rests heavily upon the Government to establish… . . . that such contact with the juror was harmless to the defendant.”

In the Friday hearing, when the juror was out of the room, Harpootlian referred to her as “Juror 826” in an exchange with Judge Toal. A review of previous public court filings in the case shows that Juror 826 was the foreperson of the jury. An excerpt from a Sept. 5 motion seeking a new trial by Murdaugh’s lawyer in the South Carolina Court of Appeals also mentions Juror 826.

“Ms. Hill and Juror No. 826, the new jury foreperson, on multiple occasions went to another room to have private conversations lasting five or ten minutes… Sometimes they would go into the jury room’s single-occupancy bathroom together… Foreperson Juror No. 826 never said anything about the content of those conversations to other jurors... Ms. Hill even instructed jurors they could not ask Foreperson Juror No. 826 about the conversations.”

In an affidavit dated Nov. 6, 2023, Hill said, “I did not have private conversation with juror #826 in a bathroom.”

She added “my conversation with Juror #826 did not involve evidence, witnesses, or substance of the trial.”