With hearings scheduled, legal stage is now set for Alex Murdaugh jury tampering hearing

The legal stage is being set for a hearing to determine if what many have dubbed "The Trial of the Century" may result in a retrial for convicted murderer and fallen South Carolina lawyer Richard "Alex" Murdaugh.

This week there is movement afoot and legal motions aplenty in the double murder case of Murdaugh, who was convicted of the June 7, 2021, murders of his wife and son and sentenced to two life sentences on March 3, but has since petitioned the court for a new trial based on allegations of jury tampering against court official Rebecca Hill.

A status conference and a hearing have been scheduled, the S.C. Supreme Court has issued court orders removing any contact with Colleton County officials, and pre-hearing briefs and motions have been exchanged this week between Murdaugh's criminal defense attorneys and prosecutors with the S.C. Attorney General's Office, which prosecuted all of Murdaugh's state grand jury cases.

Here is the latest.

Hearing, status conference set for Murdaugh in state capital

An evidentiary hearing on the allegations against Colleton County Clerk of Court Hill, accused of multiple instances of trying to influence the jury as well as allegedly committing ethics violations before most recently admitting plagiarism in her recent book on the Murdaugh trial, has been scheduled to begin at 9 a.m. on Monday, Jan. 29, tentatively at the Richland County Judicial Center in Columbia.

Before this hearing, there will be a public status conference at 9:30 a.m. on Jan. 16 at the Richland County Judicial Center. This conference, originally set for Jan. 15, was rescheduled due to the Dr. Martin Luther King holiday and, in part, due to the visit of U.S. Vice President Kamala Harris, said court media liaison Jay Bender.

Bender added that the court's media guidelines, which will include the possibility of public streaming and TV broadcasts, will be announced later this week.

Supreme Court takes case entirely out of Colleton County

Judge Clifton Newman, an Upstate circuit judge, presided over Murdaugh's six-week, double murder trial in Walterboro and handed down the life sentences. Newman has since recused himself from the case, and in a Dec. 18 court order, S.C. Supreme Court Chief Justice Donald W. Beatty ordered that Judge Jean Hoefer Toal, retired Chief Justice, be assigned "exclusive jurisdiction" over Murdaugh's motion for a new trial.

On Jan. 3, Chief Justice Beatty issued an order that all "documents, orders, and correspondence" related to Murdaugh's motion for a new trial must be filed with the Clerk of the Supreme Court of South Carolina, and not in Colleton County where the murder case was venued.

"Because Defendant's motion for a new trial contains allegations related to the conduct of the Colleton County Clerk of Court, I find it would be inappropriate for documents in this case to be filed in Colleton County," wrote Chief Justice Beatty.

The ruling also stipulates that Judge Toal file any orders with the Clerk of the Supreme Court, and not in Colleton County.

Alex Murdaugh attorneys file 'Pre-Hearing Brief"

On Jan. 3, Murdaugh's defense team, lead by Richard Harpootlian and Jim Griffin, filed a 21-page "Pre-Hearing Brief" that reinforces its position that Hill attempted to taint the jury's opinion of Murdaugh and violated his right to a fair trial to seek fame and fortune in her book, "Behind the Doors of Justice."

In this brief, Murdaugh's attorneys argue several points, and petition the court for several demands:

• Murdaugh does not need to show actual bias on the part of any juror to obtain a new trial.

"If Mr. Murdaugh proves his allegation that Ms. Hill communicated with the jury about the evidence presented by the defense during his murder trial, South Carolina and federal law require that Mr. Murdaugh receive a new trial, irrespective of whether the Court believes the outcome of the trial would have been the same had Ms. Hill’s jury tampering not occurred," states the brief.

• To prove his case, Murdaugh only needs to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Hill made statements to at least one deliberating juror about the merits of the evidence presented at trial, regardless of what other jurors or alternates testify to.

• Murdaugh plans to use Hill's emails, text messages, and telephone records, testimony from court staff, testimony and documentary evidence from persons involved in the production of her book, complaints against Hill and the results of investigations into her wrongdoing, which could include ethics and plagiarism allegations.

• Murdaugh alleges that emails released to journalists in response to FOIA requests show that Hill was sending emails directly to prosecutors and law enforcement witnesses for the State during the trial about the merits of testimony from defense witnesses under examination at that moment.

Attached to this brief are exhibits of evidence that include copies of those emails, which were not shared with Murdaugh's defense team.

• Hill should not be allowed to invoke her Fifth Amendment rights if questioned during the Jan. 29 hearing because she has already signed an affidavit denying the allegations.

• Murdaugh requests that the state produce its discovery evidence for Murdaugh to prepare for the hearing.

• Murdaugh requests that jurors and Judge Newman, if needed, be questioned "in camera," and not publicly, during the hearing, with other witnesses questioned in open court.

• Murdaugh argues that counsel for non-parties should not be permitted to participate in these proceedings, nor should they be allowed to offer legal filings on the matter.

Attorney Eric Bland, who has represented several of Murdaugh's financial victims and now represents four jurors involved in the murder trial, has requested to participate in the status conference and hearing. Murdaugh is objecting to that.

State responds to Murdaugh, asks for juror protective orders

Also on Jan. 3, attorneys for the S.C. Attorney General's Office and the State Grand Jury filed a motion for discovery as well as a "Pre-Hearing Brief in Opposition" to Murdaugh's request for a new trial.

This brief argues:

• Murdaugh is not required an evidentiary hearing on these matters because not one juror who deliberated on his case has indicated that their verdict was affected by improper contact with Hill. The primary party making allegations was booted off the final jury for violation of court rules and did not deliberate.

• Murdaugh must not only have the burden of proof that these jury tampering allegations occurred, he must also prove that he was actually prejudiced by those actions.

Finally, the State filed a motion seeking a protective order to keep the identities of the jurors, and their juror-related personal information, secret during this entire process.

Throughout this post-conviction process, Murdaugh has denied that he killed his wife, Maggie, and younger son, Paul, and Hill, while admitting plagiarism, has denied jury tampering allegations.

This article originally appeared on Augusta Chronicle: Hearings set, new motions filed in Alex Murdaugh jury tampering case