In The Alex Murdaugh Trial, The Court Clerk Speaks Out About Claims Of Jury Tampering: Know More Here

Prosecutors released a statement on Tuesday, revealing that the South Carolina court clerk at the centre of Alex Murdaugh’s attempt for a fresh murder trial had broken her silence and denied trying to persuade jurors to find him guilty quickly.

“I did not tell the jury ‘not to be fooled’ by the evidence presented by Mr Murdaugh’s attorneys,” she wrote in an affidavit responding to explosive claims made by the defence team.

In The Alex Murdaugh Trial, The Court Clerk Speaks Out About Claims Of Jury Tampering: Know More Here

“I did not instruct the jury to ‘watch him closely.’ I did not instruct the jury to ‘look at his actions.’ I did not instruct the jury to ‘look at his movements.’ I did not say to the jury, ‘This shouldn’t take us long.'”

Hill further denied discussing the issue with the jurors or forbidding them from taking smoke breaks until after the deliberations were concluded.

The Colleton County court clerk stated that she did not manufacture a Facebook post to remove an undecided juror from the panel in the three-page document, which refutes 26 different accusations.

“Indeed, the machinations alleged do not even begin to make sense,” Deputy Attorney General Creighton Waters wrote in the filing. “Only Alex Murdaugh could conceive of such a confounded gambit as even remotely plausible, and he is projecting his own calculating, manipulative psyche onto a dedicated public servant in an effort to save himself.”

In their request for a fresh trial, defence attorneys Jim Gryphon and Dick Harpootlian accused Hill of pressing jurors to find her guilty quickly in order to get a book contract.

Jurors found 55-year-old Murdaugh guilty of all charges after less than three hours of deliberation about the June 2021 shooting deaths of his wife Maggie and son Paul. On March 3, he was given two life sentences in jail.

Based on the accusations of misconduct by Hill made by four jurors, the South Carolina Attorney General’s Office, which handled the case, requested that the judge reject Murdaugh’s request for a hearing on a new trial.

Juror No. 630, who deliberated; Juror No. 785, who was removed from the panel for discussing the case; and a defence paralegal who recorded jurors 741 and 326’s statements were all highlighted in affidavits by Murdaugh’s attorneys.

A strange twist was noticed in the prosecution’s filing: Juror No. 630 is the tenant of Juror No. 785.

The prosecutor countered that none of the jurors who deliberated claimed that their decision was influenced by Hill, even if the defense’s charges were accurate.

According to Waters, the state will demonstrate that the “allegations are unfounded and not credible” if the court decides to hold a hearing for a fresh trial.

The landlord-tenant pair who gave affidavits directly to the defence was not interviewed by agents with the South Carolina Law Enforcement Division (SLED), but the majority of the jurors were.

As to the petition, none of the individuals questioned by SLED supported the allegations of tampering. Furthermore, there were comments from four court employees refuting the claim that Hill engaged in improper talks with jurors.

Hill’s memoir, “Behind the Doors of Justice: The Murdaugh Murders,” was published on August 1. Waters did not mention it.

The defence contended in their motion that a number of jurors had been riled up by the book and by Hill’s multiple media appearances, which had prompted them to step forward.

On Tuesday, Justin Bamberg, Hill’s lawyer, issued a statement.

“We have fully respected the investigatory process, which has been tough given the horrible things said about Mrs. Hill on Alex Murdaugh’s behalf,” he said. “However, you can put to bed any allegation that Mrs. Hill tampered. You can also put to bed any allegation that she’s going to be charged criminally.”

Leave a Comment