In a filing with the U.S. Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, Rebecca “Becky” Hill, the former clerk of court for Colleton County, South Carolina, defended the $600,000 she authorized for Alex Murdaugh’s original murder‑trial defense. Hill’s attorneys argue that the money continues to benefit Murdaugh, even as his lawyers push to have the recent murder indictments thrown out.
Background of the civil‑rights suit
Murdaugh filed a civil‑rights lawsuit on May 17, 2026, alleging that Hill’s improper communications with jurors violated his Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights to an impartial jury. The complaint sought compensatory and punitive damages, as well as litigation fees, claiming the $600,000 came from untaxed employer contributions in his retirement account and was spent entirely on his first‑trial defense.
U.S. District Judge Richard Gergel dismissed the suit on August 5, 2026, finding that Murdaugh would have needed a defense regardless of Hill’s conduct, and therefore he lacked standing to recover the funds.
Hill’s response and the defense’s argument
Hill’s brief emphasizes that Murdaugh’s attorneys entered a flat‑fee agreement and pledged to see the case through. The filing cites an October 21, 2022 receivership consent order that authorized the use of defense funds for a trial and appeal. Hill’s team points to public statements from Murdaugh’s lawyers stating, “We got paid to do a job and we will see it all the way through,” to argue that the defense money has already produced tangible results, including the successful effort to overturn his convictions.
According to Hill’s counsel, the continued representation demonstrates that the funds have not been wasted and that Murdaugh still benefits from the legal services purchased before the alleged misconduct.
Challenge to the murder indictments
Separately, Murdaugh’s attorneys filed a motion to dismiss the new murder indictments, arguing that state prosecutors failed to address alleged false testimony presented to the grand jury. The dispute centers on testimony from former South Carolina Law Enforcement Division (SLED) agent David Owen regarding blood spatter on a shirt and the type of ammunition recovered from shotguns at the Moselle property.
The defense highlights a laboratory report dated November 10, 2021, which found no human blood on cuttings taken from the shirt in August 2021—eight months before Owen’s July 2022 grand‑jury presentation. The reply contends that the State’s response did not refute the claim that Paul Murdaugh’s DNA was absent from the alleged spatter areas.
Prosecutors maintain that Owen simply omitted the earlier laboratory report and that blood‑stain pattern analyst Tom Bevel later reviewed the report and upheld his original opinion. The defense counters that Bevel’s later change of opinion was based on a mistaken belief that he had received RAW image files, when in fact the images were JPEGs, a fact documented in a January 20, 2023 affidavit.
Implications for the case
The outcome of these filings could affect whether the state must seek new indictments should the current ones be dismissed. It also raises questions about the adequacy of evidence presented to the grand jury and the procedural integrity of the prosecution’s case.
Both sides continue to argue that the record, rather than speculation, should determine the next steps in this high‑profile legal battle.
Original reporting: FITSNews — read the source article.
