Alex Murdaugh returned to the South Carolina Supreme Court on Wednesday through his attorneys, continuing to deny he killed his wife, Maggie, and his younger son, Paul, even as he serves a life sentence for their June 2021 shootings. The court heard arguments in Columbia, and Murdaugh was not present.
Murdaugh’s legal team argued that the trial judge made rulings that, in their view, prevented a fair trial. They told the justices that evidence they said had nothing to do with the killings—testimony and material about Murdaugh stealing from clients—could have biased jurors against him.
The defense also challenged what it described as a lack of physical evidence, saying no DNA or blood was found splattered on Murdaugh or on any of his clothes. The attorneys further argued that the killings involved close range with powerful weapons that were never found.
Another focus for Murdaugh’s appeal was the role of the court clerk assigned to oversee the evidence and jury during the murder trial. Murdaugh’s attorneys pointed to comments they said could have influenced jurors before they deliberated, and they argued that such influence could occur subtly, even if jurors did not recognize it.
Prosecutors, represented by Creighton Waters, said the defense was overstating the significance of clerk-related issues and argued that problems were isolated during the six-week trial and had no impact. Waters contended that what matters was what jurors heard from the evidence and the defense’s theory of influence was not enough to undo the conviction.
Chief Justice John Kittredge pressed the state on the question of whether the trial process met the requirement of a fair and impartial jury. Kittredge said, “It was improper. Perhaps not improper to the point of reversal, but it was improper,” adding later that the court understood “the gravity of the situation and the entitlement of every individual to a fair and impartial trial.”
Murdaugh’s appeal also coincides with a separate, long federal prison sentence that will keep him from leaving prison even if his bid for relief from the state convictions succeeds. The AP said Murdaugh faces a 40-year federal prison sentence for stealing more than $12 million from clients intended for medical care and living expenses after injuries suffered by clients and their relatives.
After the hearing, attorney Jim Griffin said Murdaugh could not accept being convicted of killing his wife and son even though he acknowledged wrongdoing in other matters. Griffin described Murdaugh as someone who “said he deserved to go to prison for what he did financially, but he can’t accept the fact that he was convicted of murdering his wife and son, for which he constantly proclaimed his innocence.”
During the state Supreme Court arguments, the same attorneys who litigated the case at Murdaugh’s 2023 murder trial appeared again for both sides, according to the AP account. The hearing also featured Republican South Carolina Attorney General Alan Wilson at the prosecution table alongside Waters.
Prosecutors reiterated in their filings that there was no reason to set aside the guilty verdicts. The AP said prosecutors emphasized Murdaugh’s deteriorating finances and argued that his financial vulnerability, including circumstances tied to Paul Murdaugh’s boat crash, helped explain motive and the pressure that built before the killings.
The state also discussed evidence prosecutors said supported Murdaugh’s conviction, including his account to investigators in which he said he hadn’t seen his wife and son for about an hour before they were killed. Prosecutors said that story was not challenged until investigators cracked the passcode on Paul Murdaugh’s phone and found a video with a barking dog and Murdaugh’s voice admonishing it five minutes before Paul stopped using his phone.
Murdaugh’s attorneys, meanwhile, told the court that the way the case was presented prevented jurors from considering him fairly. They said the court allowed an unfair trial and that jurors were effectively led to disregard his presumption of innocence before deliberations.
The justices did not indicate an immediate decision, with rulings typically taking months.