Context:

During Alex Murdaugh's appeal for his double-murder conviction, South Carolina Supreme Court justices scrutinized the role of a county clerk's alleged bias and the relevance of Murdaugh's financial crimes presented during the trial. The justices expressed skepticism regarding the prosecution's arguments, particularly criticizing the clerk's improper comments that may have influenced jurors. Murdaugh's attorneys contend that these comments and the extensive focus on his financial crimes compromised the fairness of the trial. The court must decide whether to uphold the conviction or grant a new trial, with no deadline for their ruling.

Dive Deeper:

• Murdaugh was convicted in March 2023 for the murders of his wife, Maggie, and son, Paul, and received two life sentences. He also pleaded guilty to multiple financial crimes, resulting in concurrent sentences of 27 and 40 years in state and federal prison.

• The South Carolina Supreme Court justices pointed out that the excessive focus on Murdaugh's financial misconduct during the murder trial could have unfairly prejudiced the jury, raising concerns over the relevance of such evidence to the murder charges.

• Becky Hill, the former court clerk, was accused of making prejudicial comments during the trial that implied Murdaugh's guilt. Although some jurors acknowledged hearing her comments, most denied it, complicating the defense's argument for a new trial.

• Hill was charged with perjury and obstruction of justice after she made sealed evidence available to the media and later wrote a book about the trial. She was sentenced to three years of probation after pleading guilty to these charges.

• The justices' questioning revealed a divided perspective on the prosecution's use of financial evidence, with some justices expressing difficulty in understanding how it directly related to the motive for the alleged murders, indicating a potential flaw in the prosecution's case.