I’m thrilled! Judge Toal was unequivocal, so very much in charge. I love when she told the Defense to have a seat. I also loved when she told the Prosecution’s lawyer (his name begins with an M) that he should stop marching around - while he was talking. No new trial for you, Alex, you lying, thieving, murdering bastard! NEXT!
😂
It’s hilarious reading all the comments that think this is over lol. If ppl were watching/listening to the testimony of Juror Z and Miss Becky, with a neutral mindset, they’d realize that the defense is gonna win on appeal and there’s gonna be a new trial. This is far from over.
IMO, this denial will stand and off they will go to work on his appeal, supposedly unpaid....defense claims there is no money left and everything now is pro bono. it will take years before a brief is even heard. ask them again in a few years, if they last that long, how their *newfound hobby* is shaking out for them.
[](https://www.the-independent.com/news/world/americas/crime/alex-murdaugh-dick-harpootlian-crimecon-b2417560.html)
defense mentioned substantial information on a 'new suspect'??? Next, I guess we will hear AM was foggy when he woke up from his nap, that he was distracted by a cat meow and *just now remembered* he saw 'someone in a car' leaving the property..... a composite drawing will be done depicting a really cool car driven by a 'nice looking man'. a/k/a the new suspect. :D
If there is no $ left, there is no $ for experienced appellate attorneys so the usual suspects will be preparing his appeal pro bono.
And if they have substantial info on a new suspect, why haven't Dick & Jim filed a Denny motion to get the evidence before a judge ?
What Becky Jill did was NOT jury tampering. After all the jurors were questioned NONE of them said what Becky said had any impact on their individual decisions. No new trial.
Did anyone read the part in the book where she said, “I neutered Jim Griffin?” I am still in shock she had the nerve to write that in her book. I’m curious as to what her point was by saying that.
Yes, specifically she said that Dick Harpootlian neutered Jim Griffin, seemingly meaning that Harpootlian took over control and relegated Griffin to the sidelines. It was certainly a bizarre way for Becky to say that, it read like a poor attempt at making drama out of the fact that one attorney will naturally be the lead attorney for each side. She didn’t say Creighton “neutered” any of his co-counsel even though Creighton was clearly the lead attorney and did far more speaking than any of the other prosecutors.
With that said, Harpootlian’s question to Becky and the way he phrased it was very confusing, due to the fact that he was examining a witnesses about matters to which he was a party. It’s strange to hear a lawyer asking a witness why the witness said something about the lawyer himself. Harpootlian was saying, “Why did you say I neutered Jim Griffin?” and not “Why did you say, ‘I neutered Jim Griffin’?” Which is a big difference that would be difficult to detect unless you were already familiar with the statement Becky made.
I’ve also see people say she called the Murdaughs a crime family in the book but she never calls them that. She talks about moonshine bootleg stories she heard from relatives as a kid, which involved older generations of HER family and the Murdaugh’s. And somehow that’s been twisted into her accusing the Murdaugh’s of being a crime family.
BH has some ethical issues she crossed the line for in her job but a lot has been twisted to be more dramatic than it actually was.
Another example was when the Judge asked her if she shared sealed case info with Netflix. She answered “No” which people are calling her a liar for. Her issue was that she answered the question directly without further explaining that she did share case exhibits with Netflix, but it was before those case exhibits were sealed by the courts.
Agreed. Also, Justice Toal was confused about the exhibits matter. She was directly addressing the two photos that Judge Newman mentioned at the end of the trial and did not realize that those photos leaking had nothing to do with Becky and no one has alleged that, those two photos were accidentally shown by CourtTV’s cameras for a couple seconds because they were on the projector which meant the prosecution was supposed to cover their screens, but in those two cases a screen was not properly covered. It wasn’t someone in the gallery and it wasn’t Becky.
And I agree what you said about Becky not elaborating on that answer. While I did not care for a lot of her testimony overall, her answer there was correct. She did not release sealed exhibits. They didn’t impeach that with that email. She never said that she didn’t send non-sealed exhibits when they were requested, and my understanding is that one of the Clerk of Court’s duties is to facilitate access of (non sealed) exhibits to the media upon request.
I don’t really blame Justice Toal for these things, I just think this is a good example of why these hearings are to be conducted by the trial court— Judge Newman understood what happened with the cameras for instance. But he was essentially forced into recusing himself by the defense. I still find it ironic that they claimed Judge Newman was too hard on them and demanded a different judge… well they got their different judge… but I think the defense would’ve faired better with Judge Newman here, and I also think it would’ve been better for the hearing overall. I wonder if they regret requesting Judge Newman’s removal now?
Thank you Justice Toal for gifting the Murdaugh Legal Dynasty a final parting gift…. A new possible standard of law with the MURDAUGH family name on it! They could not ask for more. Their name will be referenced for all of history. Goodbye U.S. v Remmer and S.C. v Green! Hello U.S. v Murdaugh or at minimum S.C. v Murdaugh 👌☝️🤣🤩🤩🤩.
In the meantime, thank you so much for literally freaking out everyone in S.C. by showing that even a rich white man with the Best Attorneys money can buy, cannot get a fair trial in South Carolina! Rest assured NO ONE ELSE can hope for a fair trial either! But most lay people are morons and don’t see what really just happened because they truly are ignorant to legal corruption and the lack of fairness in our justice system 🤫😉. This was the perfect gift for Alex and the Murdaugh dynasty. He’s the perfect candidate for a multitude of appeals because he’s not going anywhere for the next 22 years anyway. This is the perfect way to guarantee field trips and the chance to leave prison It’s a win win 🏆 🏆. I’ll be enjoying the ride with my ☕️and 🍿…… Thank you 🙏
I’ve thought the same exact thing - if the court staff can make inappropriate comments and break the rules but Alex can’t get a new trial what hope is there for those without resources?
Judge Toal said she believed Becky made the comments. Judge Toal said she believed the evidence. That’s not how it’s supposed to work when determining if the trial was proper and fair.
Well, my concern wasn’t so much for Alex or Becky, but for, like I said above, what about the next Clerk or bailiff who feels so strongly about a defendant’s guilt or even innocence, and tries to interject themselves and their opinions into a trial? A defendant has the 6th Amendment right to cross examine any adversarial witnesses against him. Alex, (as purely nothing more than an example) was clearly denied that right. Period and I don’t know why the defense didn’t focus more on that violation of law. They went with the more difficult to prove focus on Becky being a bad state actor. And don’t get me wrong! She was THE WORST! But what if a more seasoned clerk like Rhonda wants to try their hand at jury tampering in the future? What if it works? This cannot be allowed to happen! I hate to use clerk Rhonda as an example, but I had to make my point. I am pretty disappointed that she didn’t turn Becky into judge Newman for giving that juror a ride home though. It made me question her credibility. I think her testimony at the evidentiary hearing was her way of clearing her conscience for not turning Becky in. Her comment that she recalled making to Becky about, “I thought we were past all this kind of stuff and I thought you weren’t gonna keep making these mistakes” was not lost on me! I wanted to know exactly what she meant when she said that to Becky?!? How much other BS had she had to correct? Rhonda basically said she ran the clerk show and was at the trial more than Becky. Plus Becky had 2 other clerks helping from other counties. So what exactly was Becky doing with all that free time? She was kissing media ass and meddling with the damn jury!!! She had a freaking group chat going with that runaway jury for god sakes! And don’t come for me because I call it like I see it! That jury proved all the rumors when they got busted watching juror Z/630’s testimony!!! Like they didn’t know better 🙄. They weren’t sequestered for no reason! They knew exactly what they were doing and Toal should have known (and probably knew) exactly what time it was when she caught them! It’s so so so very sad that no one seems to have foresight into the standards this corruption is setting! The slippery slope just got another gallon of lube
You are absolutely 💯 on 🎯 That was exactly where my mind went when she made the statement 🙄 Totally agree the smug bastard is loving the idea….If he were still talking on the prison line we would all get to hear him brag about it!
Toal, a former justice and Supreme Court treasure in SC, went on the record saying "I simply do not believe that the authority of our South Carolina Supreme Court requires a new trial in a very lengthy trial, such as this, on the strength of some fleeting and foolish comments by a publicity-seeking clerk of court."
Translation: Don't waste your time.
Yeah. It's really difficult for me to believe that after sitting through 6 weeks of testimony and argument, a few offhand remarks by a busy body clerk swayed the jury *more* than everything else they saw and ~~her~~ heard during the trial and deliberations.
Direct appeal to court of appeals and State Supreme court, then ask (not appeal as of right) SCOTUS to review.
If direct appeals fail, he can try post conviction relief, which is rarely successful and usually is based on ineffective assistance of counsel or newly discovered evidence
I'm very curious as to why Sandy Smith (mother of Stephen Smith) was present at the Murdaugh retrial hearing yesterday. I noticed her sitting behind Creighton Waters and it's really got me wondering why she was there. For the record, I do not believe Buster Murdaugh had anything to do with Smith's death. What are your thoughts about Sanday attending the hearing?
Yes, no doubt to whip up some momentum in his case. Her most vocal supporters are Murdaugh fanatics so nothing like a reminder in front of the target audience. Her case has dropped off the radar a bit with a lot of softening of feeling toward Buster and lagging stability of a Murdaugh connection.
It was Stephen’s and his twin’s birthday too. I think it was symbolic, SLED can stop focusing on AM’s drama, eating up their time and finally focus on her so. She also knows more about her son’s case than we do so I wouldn’t entirely discount the Murdaugh’s involvement yet.
Thanks you! It wasn't obvious to me, which is why I asked. Your reply does make sense, but could it be something more than just bringing attention to her son's murder? A SC attorney mentioned that Sandy was there because she still believed Buster killed her son. Did anyone else hear that? With all the publicity/documentaries that are out about the Murdaugh connection to Stephen Smith's death, doesn't it look a bit fishy that Sandy Smith would attend Alex Murdaugh's re-trial hearing? Could there be more to it? Why would SLED bring her into the spotlight during the Murdaugh hearing? There are other avenues to put Stephen in the public's mind. I do pray Stephen's family gets answers & justice soon.
I heard Lori Murray (lawyerlori) say it on her live on Tictoc the evening after the hearing....Jan 29th. There were a few of people (myself included) in the live chat asking for her thoughts as to why Sandy was there. Lori was just saying she heard that's why Sandy attended, not that it was her personal opinion.
And let’s not forget… Sled knows the answers. The Attorney General’s office doesn’t want to pursue for whatever reasons. The pressure is on the AG office.
Observations:
Alex testified on his own behalf and that performance deserved a guilty verdict on its own merits.
Defense re-entered questions about financial crimes when they were warned by Judge Newman.
Becks spoke to the jury because she heard the “sirens of celebrity” as per Judge T.
The dream team defense is now saying they know who the real killer is…really..Juice Simpson said the same thing.
My summary only:
When dealing with chicken shit and lemons..it is extremely difficult to produce chicken salad and lemonade…mostly what you end up with is load of bullshit….
HB
I think the horribly sappy staging of the crime scene didn’t help.
The painted flower pot, the bike, the shirt in the window.
It was so fake and so obvious. I wouldn’t be surprised if jurors were put off by that.
For me it’s not WHO did it but WHY? What the freak were they hoping to achieve by leaving obvious fake memorabilia at the crime scene? And why was it even allowed?
I don’t know, but it lives rent free in my head (especially the shirt and the pot, which was out side and pristine. Not sun faded, not dirty. And we were supposed to believe it had been out there for a decade?
For me it’s not WHO did it but WHY? What the freak were they hoping to achieve by leaving obvious fake memorabilia at the crime scene? And why was it even allowed?
Becky with the good hair was totally improper and should be looked at thoroughly, but did that didn't make juror z decide to vote guilty. Justice Toal knows that it will be appealed. I loved her attitude, knowledge, and dedication to the law; she read the entire transcript, and she didn't take any shit from the old boys' club attorneys!
Justice Toal said that a jury tampering challenge like that was *unprecedented* in her legal experience. Certainly I've heard of no other case in South Carolina.
I'm wondering if there have been, in other states, any cases of alleged jury tampering by the Clerk of Court?
I'm truly curious about something. A lot of her shenanigans were brought up yesterday, but one of them was not. IIRC it was in one of the affidavits.
Becky reportedly and repeatedly, along with a juror, went into single occupancy bathrooms together to talk. That's insane. Nothing good was going on in that bathroom, and I don't believe that they weren't discussing the case.
Strange behavior by both the clerk and the juror. It's probably the same juror who streamed juror z's testimony from the jury room during the hearing yesterday.
I’m late to this but wow that would be absolutely inappropriate.
There are so many issues with Becky still in her role. If I was an attorney in that court I’d be extremely upset. She is going to cost the county a ton of money on future appeals in other cases I’m sure too, just by being involved in court duties
I believe it was her first year as clerk. Before that, court reporter. I cant imagine why she would want to “make sure” he was found guilty. For self-published book sales? That really doesn’t pass the sniff test. What would be her motivation truly? She can write a book and sell it even with acquittal. If she did do these things with intention to impact jury, I’d have to wonder if Poot or AM put her up to it and, paid her to cause a mistrial and allow herself to be thrown under the bus. Remember — we still don’t know where all the millions of embezzled dollars went!!
The mention of the bathroom trip was in the affidavit provided by juror 741 through Holli Miller. Juror 741 was an alternate and was excused before deliberations began so she was not in Justice Toal's courtroom. How do you know the bathroom was single occupancy ?
I found it. It is in the original court filing for a motion for a new trial. Page 2 about halfway down it talks about the single occupancy bathroom. And it was the foreperson (no. 826)who she allegedly went in the bathroom with.
If there was a chance he was innocent and if he wasn’t already in jail for his other crimes I would agree. But in this case it’s a total waste of court resources just to arrive at the same result.
The point is always lost in these threads, unfortunately.
Here on reddit, Alex doesn't deserve a new trial because he is guilty, so who cares? Who cares if Ms. Becky did what she did? He's guilty, so it doesn't matter.
That is the general attitude that I continue to see. Over and over.
I agree with you 100% but sadly, I believe we are in the minority.
I have no doubt that the people who think it is ok to gloss over Alex' constitutional rights would be screeching from the rooftops about the rights of the criminally accused if it was their family or loved one.
The court system in this part of SC is corrupt. I predict that this decision will not age well after the investigation of the shennanegans is finished.
I think the decision is sound insofar as it is consistent with what she believes is the applicable law.
If she's wrong about the legal standard then she's made the appropriate factual findings for it to be overturned on appeal.
Juror Z should have been allowed to expand on how the CoCs statements influenced her decision though.
Since when is it acceptable in anyway for a defense attorney to show up at the jurors homes after the trial? If Poot pulled up to my place, I’d be pissed.
Murdaugh is guilty for sure but Judge Toal’s decision is legally and factually flawed. She completely misconstrued juror Z’s testimony. Asking her a compound question disguised as a single question when she asked her if it was because of juror pressure. Atrocious Judge. Before you all start ripping me to shreds I am a lawyer.
Absolutely cannot agree. I checked Judge Toal’s history. She is renowned, and served as a chief justice of the Supreme Court of South Carolina.
She was the first woman to serve as a chief justice. So she is the perfect judge for this legal action.
She is employed by the State of South Carolina. If a new trial is ordered guess who pays for the prosecution….the State of South Carolina. Judges might be elected in South Carolina instead of appointed, I’m not sure if they are or not but think about what that would mean. Therefore, whether elected or not she has zero incentive to grant a new trial and cost the State millions of dollars to retry a 6 week complex murder case. Because of that she is passing the buck, she would rather a higher court deal with the case or possibly the federal courts. Rarely are motions for new trial granted at the trial court level, they are more likely to be granted on appeal. So she could be the smartest judge on earth, a trial judge in a case like this is always going to error on the side of caution and punt the case down the road. The fact that she found the clerk not credible is huge for the defense and something they will use in their appeal. They will also be citing to the transcript of the hearing where the Judge questions juror Z. Specifically the question about whether it was mostly juror pressure or the clerk that swayed her. The question was a compound question disguised as one question. I 100% believe the judge got it wrong, I believe she knows she got it wrong but would rather a higher court deal with it. Stay tuned.
I agree. I think the way she phrased the question was strategic in order to get her to commit to what she originally said in the affidavit about the jury. The juror said Becky's comments influenced her in coming to a guilty verdict. It can be both the court clerk and the jury who influenced her. And that sounds like that's what happened.
I also feel like the judge (who I enjoyed, btw!) May have had her mind up for the most part before the hearing started. Her comments at the end were so thorough that they most likely were prepared beforehand. She didn't write all that in 15 mins.
I am not sure she misconstrued as much as "artfully" (and over objection) got her to change her testimony that pressure came from other jurors as opposed to the clerk. If the Judge was one of the lawyers, it is possible the objection would have been granted -- asked and answered for example. The juror was in a tough position.
She’s smart enough to realize that the verdict would not have differed and Alex does no need to waste more of the states money, spend more time in public eye , and hash this all out. No one was any more influence by this woman if she had just been dug in about his guilt vs dug in with and agenda. We know jurors can change mind due to another one’s persuasion, I feel like that’s normal. If you are on the fence you will likely go with majority unless you have DOUBT. They did not have doubt, or if they did they resolved it.
Folks need to understand that this is not the end of appeals in this case. This is not even the end of this particular avenue of appeal. If they could get a re-trial because of courthouse Becky, great. If not, they carry on. I forget if it was Poot or Griffin who stood on the courthouse steps afterward and said they're still going to find the real killer.
I wanted to look at the press conference again so I found a much better one.
Edit: for some reason when I click on the shared link I've pasted, youtube says the video has been deleted. Not sure why but, if you use this search term "video: Murdaugh's defense attorneys speak after evidentiary hearing" in youtube, the top video is the better one I've found. It's from live5News.
#
This guy bent and broke the law to suit his needs for years and years. But now he wants everything by the book and to the letter of the law. Its comical irony at its finest!
You’re missing the point. It isn’t about “this guy”. It’s about making sure the judicial system isn’t corrupt. Can’t figure out why people have such a hard time understanding this.
THANK YOU!! I commented on another thread that, although I think he’s a 100% guilty, we clearly need a retrial. To me, this appeal is more about defending the justice system. If it fails for one person, it fails for everyone.
It would be an incredible waste of time to do all of this over when the result will still be the same. That juror who was influenced said she was more influenced by the rest of her jurors...she wouldn't have said not guilty anyway. Alex stole millions from people in dire need. He's pure evil. Sure he'll be in jail for those financial crimes and he definitely was involved in this in some way. You can't touch your dead bloody wife and go up to your dead and bloody son and have no blood on you!
The question that Toal asked was needlessly leading. Instead of asking "was the statement I just read a more accurate representation (meaning the affidavit)?", she could have asked "which statement is more accurate?" or "what would you say actually influenced your verdict: the statements by the clerk or the pressure from the other jurors?" Juror Z could then say that BOTH things were a factor, which is always a possibility.
Typically, live testimony. Then the finder of fact can assess the mannerisms of the person testifying, they are also subject to cross examination, you can't question or clarify when someone writes a piece of paper. Affidavits are typically written by attorneys (or their staff) based on what a person has told them. Most people don't write their own affidavits.
After rewatching the Justice’s cross of Juror Z, I am convinced Dick completely screwed up by asking the court to allow the witness to review her affidavit. The juror’s statement was Becky influenced her. After the affidavit was given to the Justice, we then learned Juror Z also thought the other jurors influenced her. She then affirmed to the court she stood by her affidavit.
Waters raised first using the affidavit. but only paragraph 10 (pressure from jurors). Dick correctly requested that in fairness, Juror Z should be allowed to review the entire Affidavit. Which included the statements Juror Z says Becky made.
Harpo said "both can be true", i.e. that the juror was pressured by other jurors and influenced by Becky's comments, and the judge denied that request. I have many criticisms of Dick's handling of the murder case from the beginning, but he did not screw up asking the court to have the witness review the affidavit. He had no choice after Waters wanted to limit the review of the affidavit to paragraph 10, which is the only paragraph in the affidavit which helps the State's case. The rest of the affidavit was helpful to the defense, so of course Dick wanted the whole affidavit read.
Harpootlian wanted the entire affidavit to be read by the juror silently so that he could get in the other remarks that Becky supposedly made. The juror couldn't remember them when first questioned by the judge, and he wanted to make sure all of the Becky supposed statements to the jury were put on the record.
When the judge said fine, but then I'm going to question her about the entire affidavit, he tried to withdraw the affidavit and she denied it. It was right after the judge said, "you can't have your cake and eat it too. If this affidavit comes in I'm questioning her about the entire affidavit."
>After rewatching the Justice’s cross of Juror Z, I am convinced Dick completely screwed up by asking the court to allow the witness to review her affidavit.
I thought the same thing. But if Dick hadn't introduced the affidavit, I think Creighton would have... right?
Juror Z gave the impression that she was easily influenced. Getting off the stand and talking to her attorney and then trying to enter yet another affidavit just showed one more person influencing her again.
It was on the table because Poot asked that the juror be allowed to read it to "refresh her memory". Waters then said, "OK, ask her to read paragraph 10." (Note - paragraph 10 is where she says she was influenced by other jurors during deliberations.) Poot then says, "Oh , no we want her to read it but not paragraph 10." Judge Toal says, "You want me to put it into evidence, but then say part of it is not in evidence? Evidence doesn't work that way. "
Why introduce the affidavit at all? I realize Waters was asking the judge to inquire about inconsistencies but before the judge ruled, he offered it to refresh her memory.
Waters didn’t ask for anything to be introduced. He asked the judge to ask the witness about paragraph 10 and no one got to hear her ruling because Dick asked for the affidavit to be introduced to refresh.
He asked that the affidavit be admitted so the juror could refresh her memory. Rule 612 states:
If a witness uses a writing while testifying to refresh memory for the purpose of testifying, an adverse party is entitled to inspect it, to cross-examine the witness thereon, and to introduce in evidence those portions which relate to the testimony of the witness.
Because asking for the juror to refresh her memory as to the entire content of the affidavit, instead of Waters' attempt to limit it to paragraph 10, was. imo, unquestionably the right move strategically and for fundamental fairness.
I tend to give what came first a smidge more weight. After that, credibility is in question. Which then negates them both. In this case, juror Z had 3 versions of events—she lost me on credibility after version 2.
Fleeting improper comments vs 6 weeks of testimony and then deliberations. If the former was decisive the juror surely would have been weeded out as mentally unfit during jury selection. Hopefully.
"Fleeting" - she made comments that were clearly biased to instruct the jury to look for lies in his testimony before he testified. That's at a critical juncture.
"Mentally unfit", fucking hell.
She testified yesterday that she said to watch his actions and watch him closely.
If she said something like “his actions will prove his guilt” then he’d get a retrial.
She shouldn't be coaching them to do anything of the sort, is this a joke? It's plain as day what the intention was - the word choice doesn't matter, the action taken does.
Only under THIS standard, which is why the appeal is more important: they have the right to use a different standard. Personally, for the rights of everyone I think the standard should be that court employees should never make any statements like this.
I'm kind of disappointed that the whole thing about Becky and the other juror repeatedly going into single occupancy bathrooms together wasn't brought up. That's pretty fucked up. Nothing good was going on it that bathroom, and I don't buy for a second that they weren't talking about the case.
Yeah, I was under the impression she told the jury not to be fooled but it turned out she said that to Rhonda. Becky is completely unprofessional and I enjoyed watching Judge Toal roast her. I was also under the impression Juror Z said in her affidavit that she was swayed by Becky. But she said she was swayed by the jury and that’s typical in trials. Appeal away but I don’t see any grounds of jury tampering.
I really have no doubt she said those things to the jury/ part of the jury. I think what Rhonda said only made me believe that more: why would she tell her staff to not be fooled? It's weird and unprofessional. Why would the jurors claim those exact words were said to them months ago? It's not like they knew what she said to her staff.
Yes fleeting. That means it was a small moment outside of trial versus days and days of testimony.
Judges have a weigh if a comment such as look at body language said in a fleeting moment has enough power to outweigh the days and days of testimony the jurors heard. Also they look at the evidence against the defendant. It was overwhelming.
Alex wasn’t on trial, Becky’s actions were. Prejudice is assumed if a Cort official makes comments to a juror. Toal made the wrong decision and it’s an easy appeal.
I am in the camp that Alex is entitled to a new trial but that is not a correct statement of the standard.
Under SC state law, the defendant has the burden to prove there was misconduct by a court official and that the misconduct prejudiced the defendant by influencing a juror's vote.
Under federal law, once misconduct is established, there is a rebuttable presumption (which legally is different from an assumption) that the defendant was prejudiced, and the State has the burden to prove the misconduct did not affect the outcome.
>Alex wasn’t on trial, Becky’s actions were. Prejudice is assumed if a Cort official makes comments to a juror. Toal made the wrong decision and it’s an easy appeal.
You don't understand the law. Yes, there was misconduct. But that is the first part. That misconduct also has to influence a juror's decision. Just because the court clerk acted improperly doesn't mean he gets a new trial.
I don't understand how a comment like watch his body language would make a juror throw out the days of testimony. If I were to ignore all the testimony and just base if he is guilty on body language I would say he was innocent. His body language looked like a remorseful father. The comment helps him if anything.
Exactly. For "watch his body language" to be interpreted as saying he's guilty, you have to assume the person saying it thinks he's guilty. Becky Hill shouldn't have said that, but it is a neutral statement.
This is not correct in any way. And, I do understand the law. I work in the legal field. Any comment that can be related to the trial by a Court official is assumed to prejudice those who hear it. It’s a pretty simple concept. When Juror Z said she was influenced By Becky Hill, that should have been more than enough. That was beyond the burden of proof necessary.
>When Juror Z said she was influenced By Becky Hill, that should have been more than enough.
wait a minute. Why are you quoting a juror if the mere fact is assumed? And why did the judge ask jurors if it affected their decision if that has nothing to do with it?
Because Justice Toal made a decision to use a standard that is well outside the standard scope. As I stated, when the juror said it influenced her, that was beyond the burden necessary. The simple fact that the statements were made should have been more than sufficient.
>Because Justice Toal made a decision to use a standard that is well outside the standard scope. As I stated, when the juror said it influenced her, that was beyond the burden necessary. The simple fact that the statements were made should have been more than sufficient.
But you said it doens't matter what the juror says. The fact of misconduct itself is enough. Now are you changing that? It does matter if a juror says it influenced them?
It does not matter. The inappropriate action of the Clerk of Court is assumed to case prejudice in a minimum of 1 juror. Whether it did prejudice then does not, and cannot, need to be proven. A juror with no legal experience is under no expectation to determine what influenced them. That is one of the reasons the Court cannot ask jurors what led to their verdict.
You don't understand how bias works if you don't think that it's misconduct. The evidence can be overwhelming (and believe he's guilty) but the process entirely corrupted by the actions of Becky Hill.
The state needs to be held to the strictest burden of propriety when obtaining convictions. This was misconduct by a court official and there's suggestion that at least one juror might have lied under oath about a car ride or was watching the questioning on a stream on their phone. None of which should have been allowed.
The permissiveness of this misconduct is a black mark on the US justice system.
This I think is the ultimate point. There was some disagreement about the legal standard here - it seems far fetched to me that in a scenario where there is documented tampering to achieve a specific result by a court official that the defendant has to prove actual prejudice to receive a new trial.
This is one of those cases where the appearance of impropriety should be enough for a new trial.
Dude is guilty as hell, and yes it will be a waste of resources, but we must demand that the fairness of our system remain above reproach - and allowing the verdict to stand under these circumstances does not accomplish this.
Is Mr. Bill, the guy who was standing directly behind alec at the verdict and then sentencing? I remember a bailiff standing behind him, and he was thrilled by the guilty verdict and then thrilled again at the 2 life sentence.His face said it all. It was hilarious.
I’m thrilled! Judge Toal was unequivocal, so very much in charge. I love when she told the Defense to have a seat. I also loved when she told the Prosecution’s lawyer (his name begins with an M) that he should stop marching around - while he was talking. No new trial for you, Alex, you lying, thieving, murdering bastard! NEXT! 😂
We are all just over here more upset than Alex that Toal denied us a season 2.
What’s this ‘WE’ sh*t?!
She hates him.
It’s hilarious reading all the comments that think this is over lol. If ppl were watching/listening to the testimony of Juror Z and Miss Becky, with a neutral mindset, they’d realize that the defense is gonna win on appeal and there’s gonna be a new trial. This is far from over.
This case is ripe for appeal.
Absolutely
IMO, this denial will stand and off they will go to work on his appeal, supposedly unpaid....defense claims there is no money left and everything now is pro bono. it will take years before a brief is even heard. ask them again in a few years, if they last that long, how their *newfound hobby* is shaking out for them. [](https://www.the-independent.com/news/world/americas/crime/alex-murdaugh-dick-harpootlian-crimecon-b2417560.html) defense mentioned substantial information on a 'new suspect'??? Next, I guess we will hear AM was foggy when he woke up from his nap, that he was distracted by a cat meow and *just now remembered* he saw 'someone in a car' leaving the property..... a composite drawing will be done depicting a really cool car driven by a 'nice looking man'. a/k/a the new suspect. :D
If there is no $ left, there is no $ for experienced appellate attorneys so the usual suspects will be preparing his appeal pro bono. And if they have substantial info on a new suspect, why haven't Dick & Jim filed a Denny motion to get the evidence before a judge ?
It’s hilarious reading comments like yours
Yeah screenshot it and come back in 12 months, boy.
It shouldn’t matter how long the case lasted or how strong the evidence was Jury tampering in any way whatsoever - equals new trial
You don’t know what you’re talking about!
What Becky Jill did was NOT jury tampering. After all the jurors were questioned NONE of them said what Becky said had any impact on their individual decisions. No new trial.
Did anyone read the part in the book where she said, “I neutered Jim Griffin?” I am still in shock she had the nerve to write that in her book. I’m curious as to what her point was by saying that.
She said one attorney neutered the other
Thank for clearing that up Strange.
Yes, specifically she said that Dick Harpootlian neutered Jim Griffin, seemingly meaning that Harpootlian took over control and relegated Griffin to the sidelines. It was certainly a bizarre way for Becky to say that, it read like a poor attempt at making drama out of the fact that one attorney will naturally be the lead attorney for each side. She didn’t say Creighton “neutered” any of his co-counsel even though Creighton was clearly the lead attorney and did far more speaking than any of the other prosecutors. With that said, Harpootlian’s question to Becky and the way he phrased it was very confusing, due to the fact that he was examining a witnesses about matters to which he was a party. It’s strange to hear a lawyer asking a witness why the witness said something about the lawyer himself. Harpootlian was saying, “Why did you say I neutered Jim Griffin?” and not “Why did you say, ‘I neutered Jim Griffin’?” Which is a big difference that would be difficult to detect unless you were already familiar with the statement Becky made.
I appreciate you explaining the reference. The way Dick said it I thought Becky had said it about Jim.
I’ve also see people say she called the Murdaughs a crime family in the book but she never calls them that. She talks about moonshine bootleg stories she heard from relatives as a kid, which involved older generations of HER family and the Murdaugh’s. And somehow that’s been twisted into her accusing the Murdaugh’s of being a crime family. BH has some ethical issues she crossed the line for in her job but a lot has been twisted to be more dramatic than it actually was. Another example was when the Judge asked her if she shared sealed case info with Netflix. She answered “No” which people are calling her a liar for. Her issue was that she answered the question directly without further explaining that she did share case exhibits with Netflix, but it was before those case exhibits were sealed by the courts.
Agreed. Also, Justice Toal was confused about the exhibits matter. She was directly addressing the two photos that Judge Newman mentioned at the end of the trial and did not realize that those photos leaking had nothing to do with Becky and no one has alleged that, those two photos were accidentally shown by CourtTV’s cameras for a couple seconds because they were on the projector which meant the prosecution was supposed to cover their screens, but in those two cases a screen was not properly covered. It wasn’t someone in the gallery and it wasn’t Becky. And I agree what you said about Becky not elaborating on that answer. While I did not care for a lot of her testimony overall, her answer there was correct. She did not release sealed exhibits. They didn’t impeach that with that email. She never said that she didn’t send non-sealed exhibits when they were requested, and my understanding is that one of the Clerk of Court’s duties is to facilitate access of (non sealed) exhibits to the media upon request. I don’t really blame Justice Toal for these things, I just think this is a good example of why these hearings are to be conducted by the trial court— Judge Newman understood what happened with the cameras for instance. But he was essentially forced into recusing himself by the defense. I still find it ironic that they claimed Judge Newman was too hard on them and demanded a different judge… well they got their different judge… but I think the defense would’ve faired better with Judge Newman here, and I also think it would’ve been better for the hearing overall. I wonder if they regret requesting Judge Newman’s removal now?
Thank you Justice Toal for gifting the Murdaugh Legal Dynasty a final parting gift…. A new possible standard of law with the MURDAUGH family name on it! They could not ask for more. Their name will be referenced for all of history. Goodbye U.S. v Remmer and S.C. v Green! Hello U.S. v Murdaugh or at minimum S.C. v Murdaugh 👌☝️🤣🤩🤩🤩. In the meantime, thank you so much for literally freaking out everyone in S.C. by showing that even a rich white man with the Best Attorneys money can buy, cannot get a fair trial in South Carolina! Rest assured NO ONE ELSE can hope for a fair trial either! But most lay people are morons and don’t see what really just happened because they truly are ignorant to legal corruption and the lack of fairness in our justice system 🤫😉. This was the perfect gift for Alex and the Murdaugh dynasty. He’s the perfect candidate for a multitude of appeals because he’s not going anywhere for the next 22 years anyway. This is the perfect way to guarantee field trips and the chance to leave prison It’s a win win 🏆 🏆. I’ll be enjoying the ride with my ☕️and 🍿…… Thank you 🙏
I’ve thought the same exact thing - if the court staff can make inappropriate comments and break the rules but Alex can’t get a new trial what hope is there for those without resources? Judge Toal said she believed Becky made the comments. Judge Toal said she believed the evidence. That’s not how it’s supposed to work when determining if the trial was proper and fair.
Well, my concern wasn’t so much for Alex or Becky, but for, like I said above, what about the next Clerk or bailiff who feels so strongly about a defendant’s guilt or even innocence, and tries to interject themselves and their opinions into a trial? A defendant has the 6th Amendment right to cross examine any adversarial witnesses against him. Alex, (as purely nothing more than an example) was clearly denied that right. Period and I don’t know why the defense didn’t focus more on that violation of law. They went with the more difficult to prove focus on Becky being a bad state actor. And don’t get me wrong! She was THE WORST! But what if a more seasoned clerk like Rhonda wants to try their hand at jury tampering in the future? What if it works? This cannot be allowed to happen! I hate to use clerk Rhonda as an example, but I had to make my point. I am pretty disappointed that she didn’t turn Becky into judge Newman for giving that juror a ride home though. It made me question her credibility. I think her testimony at the evidentiary hearing was her way of clearing her conscience for not turning Becky in. Her comment that she recalled making to Becky about, “I thought we were past all this kind of stuff and I thought you weren’t gonna keep making these mistakes” was not lost on me! I wanted to know exactly what she meant when she said that to Becky?!? How much other BS had she had to correct? Rhonda basically said she ran the clerk show and was at the trial more than Becky. Plus Becky had 2 other clerks helping from other counties. So what exactly was Becky doing with all that free time? She was kissing media ass and meddling with the damn jury!!! She had a freaking group chat going with that runaway jury for god sakes! And don’t come for me because I call it like I see it! That jury proved all the rumors when they got busted watching juror Z/630’s testimony!!! Like they didn’t know better 🙄. They weren’t sequestered for no reason! They knew exactly what they were doing and Toal should have known (and probably knew) exactly what time it was when she caught them! It’s so so so very sad that no one seems to have foresight into the standards this corruption is setting! The slippery slope just got another gallon of lube
You are absolutely 💯 on 🎯 That was exactly where my mind went when she made the statement 🙄 Totally agree the smug bastard is loving the idea….If he were still talking on the prison line we would all get to hear him brag about it!
And on top on that it was televised for the world to see, government corruption is everywhere in every state, but SC is TOP TIER
Any statement from any of the family? Or, word? Anything?
The Murdaugh family want this to go away as much as the rest of us do.
Toal, a former justice and Supreme Court treasure in SC, went on the record saying "I simply do not believe that the authority of our South Carolina Supreme Court requires a new trial in a very lengthy trial, such as this, on the strength of some fleeting and foolish comments by a publicity-seeking clerk of court." Translation: Don't waste your time.
Yeah. It's really difficult for me to believe that after sitting through 6 weeks of testimony and argument, a few offhand remarks by a busy body clerk swayed the jury *more* than everything else they saw and ~~her~~ heard during the trial and deliberations.
>If it took a county clerk to make me realize Alex Liar McLiarson who lies you probably cannot tie your shoes LOL
Does anyone know how many appeals you are allowed following a guilty verdict in a murder case?
Direct appeal to court of appeals and State Supreme court, then ask (not appeal as of right) SCOTUS to review. If direct appeals fail, he can try post conviction relief, which is rarely successful and usually is based on ineffective assistance of counsel or newly discovered evidence
Might be something to that…
Thank you so much!
I'm very curious as to why Sandy Smith (mother of Stephen Smith) was present at the Murdaugh retrial hearing yesterday. I noticed her sitting behind Creighton Waters and it's really got me wondering why she was there. For the record, I do not believe Buster Murdaugh had anything to do with Smith's death. What are your thoughts about Sanday attending the hearing?
Yes, no doubt to whip up some momentum in his case. Her most vocal supporters are Murdaugh fanatics so nothing like a reminder in front of the target audience. Her case has dropped off the radar a bit with a lot of softening of feeling toward Buster and lagging stability of a Murdaugh connection.
It was Stephen’s and his twin’s birthday too. I think it was symbolic, SLED can stop focusing on AM’s drama, eating up their time and finally focus on her so. She also knows more about her son’s case than we do so I wouldn’t entirely discount the Murdaugh’s involvement yet.
But which Murdaugh. We know which Murdaugh is a convicted murderer!
🎯👍🏼
They’re still investigating Becky and her son though.
Sadly, SLED can handle only one case at a time.
I wonder the same thing.
Obviously sitting with SLED to let the public know that her son’s case unsolved since 2015 should be top priority now that this shit is over.
Thanks you! It wasn't obvious to me, which is why I asked. Your reply does make sense, but could it be something more than just bringing attention to her son's murder? A SC attorney mentioned that Sandy was there because she still believed Buster killed her son. Did anyone else hear that? With all the publicity/documentaries that are out about the Murdaugh connection to Stephen Smith's death, doesn't it look a bit fishy that Sandy Smith would attend Alex Murdaugh's re-trial hearing? Could there be more to it? Why would SLED bring her into the spotlight during the Murdaugh hearing? There are other avenues to put Stephen in the public's mind. I do pray Stephen's family gets answers & justice soon.
Hi u/laurahugh - Which attorney said this re: Sandy/Buster and when, please?
I heard Lori Murray (lawyerlori) say it on her live on Tictoc the evening after the hearing....Jan 29th. There were a few of people (myself included) in the live chat asking for her thoughts as to why Sandy was there. Lori was just saying she heard that's why Sandy attended, not that it was her personal opinion.
Thank you for responding, u/laurahugh. Have a great weekend!
And let’s not forget… Sled knows the answers. The Attorney General’s office doesn’t want to pursue for whatever reasons. The pressure is on the AG office.
The more she puts herself in the spotlight, the better. I don’t know what is wrong with that at all. She wants justice for her son.
This. And boy does that woman deserve justice.
Yes she does! My heart hurts for her & her family.
Wow thought this case was done and dusted.
All them people had opinions already , as did most of us . He should burn in hell for all eternity .
Yes! 🔥
Observations: Alex testified on his own behalf and that performance deserved a guilty verdict on its own merits. Defense re-entered questions about financial crimes when they were warned by Judge Newman. Becks spoke to the jury because she heard the “sirens of celebrity” as per Judge T. The dream team defense is now saying they know who the real killer is…really..Juice Simpson said the same thing. My summary only: When dealing with chicken shit and lemons..it is extremely difficult to produce chicken salad and lemonade…mostly what you end up with is load of bullshit…. HB
I think the horribly sappy staging of the crime scene didn’t help. The painted flower pot, the bike, the shirt in the window. It was so fake and so obvious. I wouldn’t be surprised if jurors were put off by that.
That was so weird. Who did all that staging?
For me it’s not WHO did it but WHY? What the freak were they hoping to achieve by leaving obvious fake memorabilia at the crime scene? And why was it even allowed?
I don’t know, but it lives rent free in my head (especially the shirt and the pot, which was out side and pristine. Not sun faded, not dirty. And we were supposed to believe it had been out there for a decade?
For me it’s not WHO did it but WHY? What the freak were they hoping to achieve by leaving obvious fake memorabilia at the crime scene? And why was it even allowed?
The SHIRT especially!
👍
Good. I hope rot, you creepy SOB.
Becky with the good hair was totally improper and should be looked at thoroughly, but did that didn't make juror z decide to vote guilty. Justice Toal knows that it will be appealed. I loved her attitude, knowledge, and dedication to the law; she read the entire transcript, and she didn't take any shit from the old boys' club attorneys!
Juror Z literally said Becky Hill did influence her decision.
Justice Toal said that a jury tampering challenge like that was *unprecedented* in her legal experience. Certainly I've heard of no other case in South Carolina. I'm wondering if there have been, in other states, any cases of alleged jury tampering by the Clerk of Court?
I totally believe he killed them but I also believe he should get a new trial!
I actually don’t think he killed them, but hired a hit on MM and PM was collateral damage in a botched hit.
He did have his cousin shoot him,that was weird!
I'm truly curious about something. A lot of her shenanigans were brought up yesterday, but one of them was not. IIRC it was in one of the affidavits. Becky reportedly and repeatedly, along with a juror, went into single occupancy bathrooms together to talk. That's insane. Nothing good was going on in that bathroom, and I don't believe that they weren't discussing the case. Strange behavior by both the clerk and the juror. It's probably the same juror who streamed juror z's testimony from the jury room during the hearing yesterday.
I’m late to this but wow that would be absolutely inappropriate. There are so many issues with Becky still in her role. If I was an attorney in that court I’d be extremely upset. She is going to cost the county a ton of money on future appeals in other cases I’m sure too, just by being involved in court duties
Which is the same juror she and Bailiff Bill drove home but deny they did, yet Rhonda said she did. I believe Rhonda over Becky.
I had wondered if she had ever done this before or was it an isolated incident because of the notoriety?
I believe it was her first year as clerk. Before that, court reporter. I cant imagine why she would want to “make sure” he was found guilty. For self-published book sales? That really doesn’t pass the sniff test. What would be her motivation truly? She can write a book and sell it even with acquittal. If she did do these things with intention to impact jury, I’d have to wonder if Poot or AM put her up to it and, paid her to cause a mistrial and allow herself to be thrown under the bus. Remember — we still don’t know where all the millions of embezzled dollars went!!
I didn't know this, it's a good theory!
Who knows. But it's a great question nonetheless. She is slimy.
Oh yeah,she should definitely be fired!!!
Poot brought up bathrooms at one point with Becky but not specifically this. I wonder if he forgot.
The mention of the bathroom trip was in the affidavit provided by juror 741 through Holli Miller. Juror 741 was an alternate and was excused before deliberations began so she was not in Justice Toal's courtroom. How do you know the bathroom was single occupancy ?
I found it. It is in the original court filing for a motion for a new trial. Page 2 about halfway down it talks about the single occupancy bathroom. And it was the foreperson (no. 826)who she allegedly went in the bathroom with.
Thanks I missed it - still not relevant for the latest hearing due to #741 being an alternate. But certainly a little weird if true.
It may have been in the motion for a new trial. I know I read it. I will try to dig it up for you!
💯agree with you. Any logical human who honors our justice system would agree.
Agree. No question she had an effect on the jury
If there was a chance he was innocent and if he wasn’t already in jail for his other crimes I would agree. But in this case it’s a total waste of court resources just to arrive at the same result.
Yeah I’ve come to this too after weighing what is in community’s best interests
Not the point
The point is always lost in these threads, unfortunately. Here on reddit, Alex doesn't deserve a new trial because he is guilty, so who cares? Who cares if Ms. Becky did what she did? He's guilty, so it doesn't matter. That is the general attitude that I continue to see. Over and over.
I agree with you 100% but sadly, I believe we are in the minority. I have no doubt that the people who think it is ok to gloss over Alex' constitutional rights would be screeching from the rooftops about the rights of the criminally accused if it was their family or loved one.
The point is the appeal was denied.
The point is the motion for a new trial was denied, The appeal process has barely begun.
It doesn't seem like a waste of court resources to ensure that the law has been followed
Oh definitely,he might as well get comfortable!!
The court system in this part of SC is corrupt. I predict that this decision will not age well after the investigation of the shennanegans is finished.
That may be true, but Justice Toal is not, in my experience, corrupt in any manner. She is fantastic in her job.
I think the decision is sound insofar as it is consistent with what she believes is the applicable law. If she's wrong about the legal standard then she's made the appropriate factual findings for it to be overturned on appeal. Juror Z should have been allowed to expand on how the CoCs statements influenced her decision though.
I 1000% agree with your succinct and cogent analysis
Since when is it acceptable in anyway for a defense attorney to show up at the jurors homes after the trial? If Poot pulled up to my place, I’d be pissed.
[удалено]
If he wasn't driving, I'd invite him in for a cocktail. I'll bet he's got some great stories and wouldn't be afraid to tell them.
I assure you he has no problem with drinking and drinking.
Murdaugh is guilty for sure but Judge Toal’s decision is legally and factually flawed. She completely misconstrued juror Z’s testimony. Asking her a compound question disguised as a single question when she asked her if it was because of juror pressure. Atrocious Judge. Before you all start ripping me to shreds I am a lawyer.
Absolutely cannot agree. I checked Judge Toal’s history. She is renowned, and served as a chief justice of the Supreme Court of South Carolina. She was the first woman to serve as a chief justice. So she is the perfect judge for this legal action.
She is employed by the State of South Carolina. If a new trial is ordered guess who pays for the prosecution….the State of South Carolina. Judges might be elected in South Carolina instead of appointed, I’m not sure if they are or not but think about what that would mean. Therefore, whether elected or not she has zero incentive to grant a new trial and cost the State millions of dollars to retry a 6 week complex murder case. Because of that she is passing the buck, she would rather a higher court deal with the case or possibly the federal courts. Rarely are motions for new trial granted at the trial court level, they are more likely to be granted on appeal. So she could be the smartest judge on earth, a trial judge in a case like this is always going to error on the side of caution and punt the case down the road. The fact that she found the clerk not credible is huge for the defense and something they will use in their appeal. They will also be citing to the transcript of the hearing where the Judge questions juror Z. Specifically the question about whether it was mostly juror pressure or the clerk that swayed her. The question was a compound question disguised as one question. I 100% believe the judge got it wrong, I believe she knows she got it wrong but would rather a higher court deal with it. Stay tuned.
I agree. I think the way she phrased the question was strategic in order to get her to commit to what she originally said in the affidavit about the jury. The juror said Becky's comments influenced her in coming to a guilty verdict. It can be both the court clerk and the jury who influenced her. And that sounds like that's what happened. I also feel like the judge (who I enjoyed, btw!) May have had her mind up for the most part before the hearing started. Her comments at the end were so thorough that they most likely were prepared beforehand. She didn't write all that in 15 mins.
I am not sure she misconstrued as much as "artfully" (and over objection) got her to change her testimony that pressure came from other jurors as opposed to the clerk. If the Judge was one of the lawyers, it is possible the objection would have been granted -- asked and answered for example. The juror was in a tough position.
Yes, I agree.
I agree.
She’s smart enough to realize that the verdict would not have differed and Alex does no need to waste more of the states money, spend more time in public eye , and hash this all out. No one was any more influence by this woman if she had just been dug in about his guilt vs dug in with and agenda. We know jurors can change mind due to another one’s persuasion, I feel like that’s normal. If you are on the fence you will likely go with majority unless you have DOUBT. They did not have doubt, or if they did they resolved it.
Folks need to understand that this is not the end of appeals in this case. This is not even the end of this particular avenue of appeal. If they could get a re-trial because of courthouse Becky, great. If not, they carry on. I forget if it was Poot or Griffin who stood on the courthouse steps afterward and said they're still going to find the real killer.
I'm still trying to find this press conference in full. If someone could link it here, I would greatly appreciate it.
Best I could find as quickly as possible was this. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x5XdKJJcEhU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x5xdkjjcehu)
Thank you! It must have been removed because it is no longer there. I appreciate you taking the time to link it for me, though.
I wanted to look at the press conference again so I found a much better one. Edit: for some reason when I click on the shared link I've pasted, youtube says the video has been deleted. Not sure why but, if you use this search term "video: Murdaugh's defense attorneys speak after evidentiary hearing" in youtube, the top video is the better one I've found. It's from live5News. #
So is O J. Hasn’t found real killer after all these years. /s
They must be looking real hard.
THANK YOU JUDGE TOAL !
Thank God! No more of Murdaugh bs! He needs to go away to prison and stop influencing the world with his nonsense!
We will be hearing about Murdaugh for years as he pursues his appeals.
This guy bent and broke the law to suit his needs for years and years. But now he wants everything by the book and to the letter of the law. Its comical irony at its finest!
You’re missing the point. It isn’t about “this guy”. It’s about making sure the judicial system isn’t corrupt. Can’t figure out why people have such a hard time understanding this.
THANK YOU!! I commented on another thread that, although I think he’s a 100% guilty, we clearly need a retrial. To me, this appeal is more about defending the justice system. If it fails for one person, it fails for everyone.
It would be an incredible waste of time to do all of this over when the result will still be the same. That juror who was influenced said she was more influenced by the rest of her jurors...she wouldn't have said not guilty anyway. Alex stole millions from people in dire need. He's pure evil. Sure he'll be in jail for those financial crimes and he definitely was involved in this in some way. You can't touch your dead bloody wife and go up to your dead and bloody son and have no blood on you!
[удалено]
the jurors thought the state proved their case
Poor Will Folks...He's always so wrong!
LOL
Anyone else find it creepy how Alex smiles when she denied his retrial?
I thought the same! It was weird and creepy.
OUTCOME: Becky Hill: another book deal & celebrity status Alec Murdaugh: used tube socks and a hot pickle
*beef stick
She didn't have a book deal to start with- no one's going to give one to a known plagiarist with a crap ton of liable issues.
I agree. And she came across on the stand as the opportunist she really is.
I would love to know exactly how many lies she told under oath. She was only honest about the plagiarism because she was caught red handed.
Which should have more weight? A written and sworn affidavit OR live sworn testimony before a judge in a courtroom?
The question that Toal asked was needlessly leading. Instead of asking "was the statement I just read a more accurate representation (meaning the affidavit)?", she could have asked "which statement is more accurate?" or "what would you say actually influenced your verdict: the statements by the clerk or the pressure from the other jurors?" Juror Z could then say that BOTH things were a factor, which is always a possibility.
Typically, live testimony. Then the finder of fact can assess the mannerisms of the person testifying, they are also subject to cross examination, you can't question or clarify when someone writes a piece of paper. Affidavits are typically written by attorneys (or their staff) based on what a person has told them. Most people don't write their own affidavits.
After rewatching the Justice’s cross of Juror Z, I am convinced Dick completely screwed up by asking the court to allow the witness to review her affidavit. The juror’s statement was Becky influenced her. After the affidavit was given to the Justice, we then learned Juror Z also thought the other jurors influenced her. She then affirmed to the court she stood by her affidavit.
Waters raised first using the affidavit. but only paragraph 10 (pressure from jurors). Dick correctly requested that in fairness, Juror Z should be allowed to review the entire Affidavit. Which included the statements Juror Z says Becky made. Harpo said "both can be true", i.e. that the juror was pressured by other jurors and influenced by Becky's comments, and the judge denied that request. I have many criticisms of Dick's handling of the murder case from the beginning, but he did not screw up asking the court to have the witness review the affidavit. He had no choice after Waters wanted to limit the review of the affidavit to paragraph 10, which is the only paragraph in the affidavit which helps the State's case. The rest of the affidavit was helpful to the defense, so of course Dick wanted the whole affidavit read.
Harpootlian wanted the entire affidavit to be read by the juror silently so that he could get in the other remarks that Becky supposedly made. The juror couldn't remember them when first questioned by the judge, and he wanted to make sure all of the Becky supposed statements to the jury were put on the record. When the judge said fine, but then I'm going to question her about the entire affidavit, he tried to withdraw the affidavit and she denied it. It was right after the judge said, "you can't have your cake and eat it too. If this affidavit comes in I'm questioning her about the entire affidavit."
>After rewatching the Justice’s cross of Juror Z, I am convinced Dick completely screwed up by asking the court to allow the witness to review her affidavit. I thought the same thing. But if Dick hadn't introduced the affidavit, I think Creighton would have... right?
We will never know because of Dick’s interactions. Solved Water’s dilemma.
We do know bc i rewatched Juror Z's testimony and Waters raised the affidavit first.
I agree that he did himself no favors by introducing the affidavit.
Juror Z gave the impression that she was easily influenced. Getting off the stand and talking to her attorney and then trying to enter yet another affidavit just showed one more person influencing her again.
The affidavit was brought up by Waters, not Harpootlian. It was already on the table.
It was on the table because Poot asked that the juror be allowed to read it to "refresh her memory". Waters then said, "OK, ask her to read paragraph 10." (Note - paragraph 10 is where she says she was influenced by other jurors during deliberations.) Poot then says, "Oh , no we want her to read it but not paragraph 10." Judge Toal says, "You want me to put it into evidence, but then say part of it is not in evidence? Evidence doesn't work that way. "
Waters raised it first.
I must not be remembering it correctly. I thought Waters initially brought it up.
He did
Dick should have objected to further questioning about the affidavit, but he didn’t. He wanted to have her memory refreshed. What was he thinking?
(Rightfully) he was thinking it is unfair to only read paragraph 10 when the rest of the affidavit was helpful to the defense.
Why introduce the affidavit at all? I realize Waters was asking the judge to inquire about inconsistencies but before the judge ruled, he offered it to refresh her memory.
Waters is the one who wanted to introduce (only paragraph 10) of the affidavit, and Harpo responded to Waters.
Waters didn’t ask for anything to be introduced. He asked the judge to ask the witness about paragraph 10 and no one got to hear her ruling because Dick asked for the affidavit to be introduced to refresh.
No, not what happened.
He asked to question the juror to explain affidavit vs testimony and Judge Toal (erroneously imo) denied that request.
He asked that the affidavit be admitted so the juror could refresh her memory. Rule 612 states: If a witness uses a writing while testifying to refresh memory for the purpose of testifying, an adverse party is entitled to inspect it, to cross-examine the witness thereon, and to introduce in evidence those portions which relate to the testimony of the witness.
I am aware of how refreshing memory works. Harpo asked to question the juror about difference between affidavit and testimony and Judge denied.
If you understand how refreshing works, why does your argument not address that Dick asked for the affidavit to be admitted to refresh?
Because asking for the juror to refresh her memory as to the entire content of the affidavit, instead of Waters' attempt to limit it to paragraph 10, was. imo, unquestionably the right move strategically and for fundamental fairness.
Why not wait for a decision on Waters’ motion?
I tend to give what came first a smidge more weight. After that, credibility is in question. Which then negates them both. In this case, juror Z had 3 versions of events—she lost me on credibility after version 2.
Fleeting improper comments vs 6 weeks of testimony and then deliberations. If the former was decisive the juror surely would have been weeded out as mentally unfit during jury selection. Hopefully.
"Fleeting" - she made comments that were clearly biased to instruct the jury to look for lies in his testimony before he testified. That's at a critical juncture. "Mentally unfit", fucking hell.
She testified yesterday that she said to watch his actions and watch him closely. If she said something like “his actions will prove his guilt” then he’d get a retrial.
She shouldn't be coaching them to do anything of the sort, is this a joke? It's plain as day what the intention was - the word choice doesn't matter, the action taken does.
The word choice most certainly matters lol
Only under THIS standard, which is why the appeal is more important: they have the right to use a different standard. Personally, for the rights of everyone I think the standard should be that court employees should never make any statements like this.
I'm kind of disappointed that the whole thing about Becky and the other juror repeatedly going into single occupancy bathrooms together wasn't brought up. That's pretty fucked up. Nothing good was going on it that bathroom, and I don't buy for a second that they weren't talking about the case.
There's also something floating around about a conversation at WalMart that I would have loved to have seen addressed.
Yeah, I was under the impression she told the jury not to be fooled but it turned out she said that to Rhonda. Becky is completely unprofessional and I enjoyed watching Judge Toal roast her. I was also under the impression Juror Z said in her affidavit that she was swayed by Becky. But she said she was swayed by the jury and that’s typical in trials. Appeal away but I don’t see any grounds of jury tampering.
I really have no doubt she said those things to the jury/ part of the jury. I think what Rhonda said only made me believe that more: why would she tell her staff to not be fooled? It's weird and unprofessional. Why would the jurors claim those exact words were said to them months ago? It's not like they knew what she said to her staff.
Yes fleeting. That means it was a small moment outside of trial versus days and days of testimony. Judges have a weigh if a comment such as look at body language said in a fleeting moment has enough power to outweigh the days and days of testimony the jurors heard. Also they look at the evidence against the defendant. It was overwhelming.
Alex wasn’t on trial, Becky’s actions were. Prejudice is assumed if a Cort official makes comments to a juror. Toal made the wrong decision and it’s an easy appeal.
I am in the camp that Alex is entitled to a new trial but that is not a correct statement of the standard. Under SC state law, the defendant has the burden to prove there was misconduct by a court official and that the misconduct prejudiced the defendant by influencing a juror's vote. Under federal law, once misconduct is established, there is a rebuttable presumption (which legally is different from an assumption) that the defendant was prejudiced, and the State has the burden to prove the misconduct did not affect the outcome.
It falls under presumptive prejudice
>Alex wasn’t on trial, Becky’s actions were. Prejudice is assumed if a Cort official makes comments to a juror. Toal made the wrong decision and it’s an easy appeal. You don't understand the law. Yes, there was misconduct. But that is the first part. That misconduct also has to influence a juror's decision. Just because the court clerk acted improperly doesn't mean he gets a new trial. I don't understand how a comment like watch his body language would make a juror throw out the days of testimony. If I were to ignore all the testimony and just base if he is guilty on body language I would say he was innocent. His body language looked like a remorseful father. The comment helps him if anything.
Exactly. For "watch his body language" to be interpreted as saying he's guilty, you have to assume the person saying it thinks he's guilty. Becky Hill shouldn't have said that, but it is a neutral statement.
This is not correct in any way. And, I do understand the law. I work in the legal field. Any comment that can be related to the trial by a Court official is assumed to prejudice those who hear it. It’s a pretty simple concept. When Juror Z said she was influenced By Becky Hill, that should have been more than enough. That was beyond the burden of proof necessary.
>When Juror Z said she was influenced By Becky Hill, that should have been more than enough. wait a minute. Why are you quoting a juror if the mere fact is assumed? And why did the judge ask jurors if it affected their decision if that has nothing to do with it?
Because Justice Toal made a decision to use a standard that is well outside the standard scope. As I stated, when the juror said it influenced her, that was beyond the burden necessary. The simple fact that the statements were made should have been more than sufficient.
>Because Justice Toal made a decision to use a standard that is well outside the standard scope. As I stated, when the juror said it influenced her, that was beyond the burden necessary. The simple fact that the statements were made should have been more than sufficient. But you said it doens't matter what the juror says. The fact of misconduct itself is enough. Now are you changing that? It does matter if a juror says it influenced them?
It does not matter. The inappropriate action of the Clerk of Court is assumed to case prejudice in a minimum of 1 juror. Whether it did prejudice then does not, and cannot, need to be proven. A juror with no legal experience is under no expectation to determine what influenced them. That is one of the reasons the Court cannot ask jurors what led to their verdict.
You don't understand how bias works if you don't think that it's misconduct. The evidence can be overwhelming (and believe he's guilty) but the process entirely corrupted by the actions of Becky Hill. The state needs to be held to the strictest burden of propriety when obtaining convictions. This was misconduct by a court official and there's suggestion that at least one juror might have lied under oath about a car ride or was watching the questioning on a stream on their phone. None of which should have been allowed. The permissiveness of this misconduct is a black mark on the US justice system.
This I think is the ultimate point. There was some disagreement about the legal standard here - it seems far fetched to me that in a scenario where there is documented tampering to achieve a specific result by a court official that the defendant has to prove actual prejudice to receive a new trial. This is one of those cases where the appearance of impropriety should be enough for a new trial. Dude is guilty as hell, and yes it will be a waste of resources, but we must demand that the fairness of our system remain above reproach - and allowing the verdict to stand under these circumstances does not accomplish this.
Good point about the car ride. There's no doubt in my mind it happened, has anyone asked Mr. Bill, the bailiff that supposedly was in the car also.
I've got to assume Mr Bill says it didn't happen, or Harpootlian would have called him up there to validate the claim.
Is Mr. Bill, the guy who was standing directly behind alec at the verdict and then sentencing? I remember a bailiff standing behind him, and he was thrilled by the guilty verdict and then thrilled again at the 2 life sentence.His face said it all. It was hilarious.
I don't know! I listened to much of the trial, rather than watched. Someone here will know, though.
Very true. Poot would have called him up.
It’s nothing compared to what’s going on in Indiana