Episode
Does South Carolina Really Think They Can Win Alex Murduagh Trial 2?
- Published
- May 18, 2026
- Duration seconds
- 2975
- Processing state
not_requested- Canonical source
- https://audioboom.com/posts/8904188
Actions
POST https://stenobird.com/v1/public/podcasts/hidden-killers-with-tony-brueski-true-crime-news-commentary-5840426/episodes/does-south-carolina-really-think-they-can-win-alex-murduagh-trial-2/transcription-requests
Idempotently request low-priority transcript generation for this episode.GET https://stenobird.com/podcast/hidden-killers-with-tony-brueski-true-crime-news-commentary-5840426/does-south-carolina-really-think-they-can-win-alex-murduagh-trial-2.md
Read the agent-friendly Markdown representation of this episode resource.
Summary
The South Carolina Supreme Court didn't just reverse Alex Murdaugh's conviction. It overruled one of its own prior decisions to do it. The court formally adopted the Fourth Circuit's three-step Cheek test for evaluating juror tampering claims, replacing the standard Jean Toal relied on when she denied the new trial motion. That's not a routine correction. That's the court deciding its own precedent was wrong — and the Murdaugh case was significant enough to rewrite the law. Defense attorney Eric Faddis walks through what the Cheek test actually requires. Once the defense showed that Becky Hill's comments to jurors were more than innocuous, prejudice was presumed automatically. The burden then shifted to the State to prove there was no reasonable possibility the verdict was influenced. The court found the State couldn't meet it. Hill told jurors not to be fooled by the defense, to watch Murdaugh's body language, and that deliberations shouldn't take long. She pled guilty to perjury in December 2025 for lying about her conduct under oath. The court found she was motivated by a book deal. Toal also violated Rule 606(b) by questioning individual jurors about whether the Clerk's comments changed their votes — a direct invasion of jury deliberation privacy. The Supreme Court said the proper inquiry stops at whether external contact occurred and whether it was prejudicial. You don't ask jurors how they voted or why. Faddis also addresses the retrial landscape. The court flagged specific financial crimes testimony as having zero probative value on motive and ordered prosecutors to limit that evidence significantly. The State's motive theory survives only if it stays tethered to the exposure timeline — the CFO confrontation the morning of the murders, the hearing three days lat…