Guilty Beyond a Reasonable Doubt?
- A self-avowed thief? Yes.
- A self-avowed drug addict at the time? Yes.
- A murderer beyond a reasonable doubt? No.
Where it all Began ...
The trial culture created by the prosecution and the Colleton County Clerk of Court was one of obfuscation or old-fashioned slight of hand in a euphemistic way.
Over a number of days, it became apparent to McNeal that there was no quarter where you could express doubt regarding the possible innocence of Alex Murdaugh
Where it all Began ...
The trial culture created by the prosecution and the Colleton County Clerk of Court was one of obfuscation or old-fashioned slight of hand in a euphemistic way.
Over a number of days, it became apparent to McNeal that there was no quarter where you could express doubt regarding the possible innocence of Alex Murdaugh.
Becky Hill had invited Shay McNeal to the trial and had conveyed to McNeal and her husband, in a two-hour conversation mid-trial (Friday, February 10, 2023), that she should know Murdaugh is guilty and "you should be careful, he lies. Just watch him when you come." "His family has bodies all over Colleton County" and so much more ultimately convincing McNeal of his guilt.
Whispers of "He's guilty" laced most conversations in the media, and uttering doubt of any other outcome brought quizzical looks.
More concerning - dare question the fabric that had been woven of his guilt and could you suffer retribution? You bet.
It was against this background that the guilty verdict came quickly and was not a surprise to McNeal. It was in the air that permeated
the courtroom and the jury room.
***
But on May 13, 2026 all that was rightfully swept away.
The Supreme Court Decision
Appellate Case Nos. 2023-000392 and 2024-000576
Opinion No. 28329
Heard February 11, 2026 - Filed May 13, 2026
REVERSED AND REMANDED
Key Points
On Rebecca (Becky) Hill, Colleton County Clerk of Court, as well as other issues the court addressed...
The decision states in a footnote on page 4:
“As her book's title suggests, it turns out Hill was quite busy behind the doors of justice, thwarting the integrity of the justice system she was sworn to protect and uphold.”
The decision states on
page 6:
The post-trial court determined Hill's denial of making these statements was not credible, finding Hill wanted to write a book, which she believed a guilty verdict would help sell; she was "attracted by the siren call of celebrity"; and "[s]he allowed her desire for the public attention of the moment to overcome her duty to her oath of office and her oath as a witness."
The decision states on
page 7:
“Murdaugh argues he was denied his constitutional right to a fair trial by an impartial jury free from outside influences. He asserts that following Remmer v. United States, 347 U.S. 227 (1954) (Remmer I), prejudice should be presumed from Hill's comments to the jury and that the presumption is irrebuttable. In the alternative, he contends the State failed to rebut the presumption of prejudice.”
On the same page,
“We agree with Murdaugh. Prejudice is presumed from Hill's comments, and while this presumption is rebuttable, the State failed to overcome this presumption.”
The decision states on
pages 14 and 15:
“As the post-trial court found, "Hill was attracted by the siren call of celebrity" and "allowed her desire for the public attention of the moment to overcome her duty to her oath of office."”
Also on page 15:
“We have no reason to find Hill did not make all of the statements the jurors reported. Therefore, we hold Murdaugh established Hill made comments that the day Murdaugh testified was "epic" or "important" and urged the jurors not to be "fooled," "confused," "thrown off," or "convinced" by Murdaugh and to watch Murdaugh's body language closely.”
Moreover on page 15:
“Next, we must decide whether these comments were "more than innocuous interventions,"… Hill's comments attacked the defendant's character and credibility, which certainly were matters before the jury. … Hill became a character witness on behalf of the State, encouraging the jurors to question Murdaugh's credibility. …
In fact, by urging the jurors not to be fooled or convinced by Murdaugh's defense, Hill essentially implored the jurors to find him guilty, the ultimate issue in the case.
Therefore, we hold Murdaugh met the "minimal standard" of showing that "the extrajudicial communications or contacts were 'more than innocuous interventions,'" … and the post-trial court erred as a matter of law in refusing to impose the Remmer presumption.
The decision states on
page 19:
“We also hold the post-trial court erred in finding a lack of prejudice because Hill's comments were "limited in subject and not overt as to opinion, were only heard by, at most, three jurors, and were made in a case with overwhelming and compelling evidence."”….. Hill clearly advised the jurors to find Murdaugh and the evidence he presented not credible and, essentially, urged them to render a guilty verdict….
Next, the limited number of jurors who acknowledged hearing Hill's improper comments did not reduce their prejudicial effect. As the Supreme Court explained, a criminal defendant is "entitled to be tried by 12, not 9 or even 10, impartial and unprejudiced jurors."
In the situation before us, notwithstanding "the strength" of the prosecution's case, the State is unable to overcome the presumption of prejudice. The State's case rested largely on circumstantial evidence, and Murdaugh's credibility was a key component of his defense. Hill's repeated comments challenging Murdaugh's credibility directly undermined that defense.
In summation, Murdaugh met his initial burden of establishing Hill's comments to the jury were more than innocuous interventions, triggering the Remmer presumption of prejudice and shifting the burden to the State.
Evidence of Murdaugh's Financial Crimes
The decision states on
page 24:
“As to …whether the trial court should have restricted the extent to which the State was allowed to present this evidence; that is, whether the trial court should have excluded some of the evidence—we unanimously hold the trial court allowed the State to go far too long and far too deep into aspects of Murdaugh's financial crimes that were not probative of the State's theory of motive, which gave rise to considerable danger of unfair prejudice, and therefore should have been excluded.”
The decision states on
page 25:
“The trial court specifically found Murdaugh's commission of the financial crimes "does not suggest to the jury that the defendant has a tendency to commit murder." As we will discuss below, we find considerable unfair prejudice in allowing the State to go as far and deep into detail as it did.”
The decision states on
page 26:
“By our calculation, the State spent a total of 12.5 hours of actual testimony before the jury over ten days of trial to introduce evidence related to Murdaugh's financial crimes. We are convinced the State could have effectively presented evidence to support its motive theory in a fraction of that time.”
The decision states on the last page 27:
CONCLUSION
As the Fourth Circuit declared, the Remmer presumption is "[a]live and well." It serves to protect the right to a fair trial by an impartial jury for all defendants. Here, Hill, the Colleton County Clerk of Court, egregiously attacked Murdaugh's credibility and his defense, thus triggering the presumption of prejudice, which the State was unable to rebut.
***
As we move to another trial, Alex Murdaugh is innocent until a fair trial finds him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.