A South Carolina judge on Monday denied Alex Murdaugh’s request for a new double-murder trial following a daylong hearing that looked into claims a court clerk had improperly influenced the jury. 

All 12 jurors testified that they stood by their guilty verdicts, with only one, Juror Z, testifying that they were swayed by Rebecca Hill’s comments. 

Judge Jean Toal ruled that even if Hill told jurors to “watch [Murdaugh’s] actions” and to “watch him closely” on the stand, it did not take away from the validity of their verdict. 

Murdaugh’s 2023 trial captivated the country and was one of the most closely watched trials in South Carolina history.

Toal said after reviewing the full transcript of the six-week trial, she couldn’t overturn the verdict based “on the strength of some fleeting and foolish comments by a publicity-seeking clerk of court.”

“I find that the clerk of court was not completely credible as a witness,” Toal said. “Miss Hill was attracted by the siren call of celebrity.” 

Toal added that Hill’s comments alone did not taint the judicial process nor merit a new trial.

Murdaugh, 55, was convicted on March 2 of killing his son, Paul, and his wife, Margaret. The jury took only three hours to find him guilty of two counts of murder and two counts of possession of a weapon during a violent crime. The slayings set off a bizarre chain of events that led to dozens of charges accusing him of financial fraud. Murdaugh was in court all day Monday. 

A state police agency has been tasked with investigating the allegations against Hill, who has not been charged with a crime and has denied most of the complaints against her.

Nine of the other jurors who testified Monday said they did not have any communication with Hill and that their verdict had not been influenced by her. Two others testified they had spoken to Hill but that their decision on Murdaugh’s guilt had not been compromised. 

Prosecutor Creighton Walters said during his closing statements that what mattered most was that the jury’s decision was a product of honest deliberation. 

“You have 11 of them strong as a rock who said this verdict was not influenced,” he said. “The evidence is overwhelming from the people who mattered.”

In his closing, defense attorney Jim Griffin said it had been proven that Hill made prejudicial comments to the jury, and “one of those jurors says ‘it influenced my verdict.’ How is that not prejudice?” 

CLICK HERE FOR MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

Monday’s hearing is only the start of Murdaugh’s many legal appeals. 

His lawyers have raised concerns with the court over the alleged unfairness he faced during his trial, which included the judge allowing jurors to hear testimony of his financial crimes, which they argued allowed prosecutors to paint Murdaugh as a greedy fraudster with evidence not directly linked to the murders of his wife and son.