SC - Paul Murdaugh & mom Margaret Found Shot To Death - Alex Murdaugh Accused - Islandton *Guilty* #44

Welcome to Websleuths!
Click to learn how to make a missing person's thread

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

legalmomma said:
www.fitsnews.com

Supreme Court Agrees To Hear Alex Murdaugh's Jury Tampering Case - FITSNews

Convicted killer's appeal on hold while high court reviews controversial decision not to grant him a new trial...
www.fitsnews.com www.fitsnews.com
South Carolina’s supreme court justices filed an order on Tuesday (August 13, 2024) agreeing to certify the appeal of Alex Murdaugh’s murder convictions – meaning they will take up the controversial decision reached back in January to deny Murdaugh a new trial on the basis of alleged jury tampering.

The ruling from the high court came a little over a month after a motion to certify Murdaugh’s appeal was filed by his attorneys – Dick Harpootlian, Jim Griffin, Phillip Barber and Maggie Fox. That motion (.pdf) asked the justices to revisit former S.C. chief justice Jean Toal’s decision from January denying Murdaugh a new trial – even though he appeared to have met the high bar she established in his case (and even though federal law appears to be on Murdaugh’s side).

According to Murdaugh’s attorneys, Toal erred in denying his motion for a new trial – effectively “ruling that South Carolina courts should disregard (the) binding precedent of the U.S. supreme court.”
...
According to the motion filed by Murdaugh’s counsel, the state supreme court must decide “whether the verdict returned after Mr. Murdaugh’s internationally televised murder trial should be overturned due to unprecedented jury tampering by a state official, the former Colleton County clerk of court.”

The legal principle of major importance the defense is asking the court to consider?

“Whether it is presumptively prejudicial for a state official to secretly advocate for a guilty verdict through ex parte contacts with jurors during trial, or whether a defendant, having proven the contacts occurred, must also somehow prove the verdict would have been different at a hypothetical trial in which the surreptitious advocacy did not occur,” Murdaugh’s lawyers argued.

In other words, was the tampering itself enough to warrant a new trial? Or did Murdaugh’s lawyers also need to prove it impacted the outcome of the proceedings?
...
Click to expand...

What a mess and unnecessary expense to the taxpayers!
 
I'm recalling a law in SC where certain cases of public interest get to cut ahead of the line and be heard quickly in the Appellate Court and wonder if same applies with the Supreme Court. I don't recall when AM's defense petitioned the Supreme Court to review Judge Toal's January 2024 decision. Nonetheless, to begin considering the case for retrial before the end of the year seems somewhat expedited to me. MOO

From quoted DM upthread:

Judge Toal ruled in January that a separate precedent in the South Carolina case of State v. Green meant that Murdaugh's team had to prove the unauthorized communication led to his jury changing their verdict.

But the state's Supreme Court rejected Toal's interpretation on Tuesday and could begin considering Murdaugh's case for a retrial before the end of the year.
 
Seattle1 said:
I'm recalling a law in SC where certain cases of public interest get to cut ahead of the line and be heard quickly in the Appellate Court and wonder if same applies with the Supreme Court. I don't recall when AM's defense petitioned the Supreme Court to review Judge Toal's January 2024 decision. Nonetheless, to begin considering the case for retrial before the end of the year seems somewhat expedited to me. MOO

From quoted DM upthread:

Judge Toal ruled in January that a separate precedent in the South Carolina case of State v. Green meant that Murdaugh's team had to prove the unauthorized communication led to his jury changing their verdict.

But the state's Supreme Court rejected Toal's interpretation on Tuesday and could begin considering Murdaugh's case for a retrial before the end of the year.
Click to expand...
All my angry faces are at the situation, BH, AM and his team, money that will be wasted, etc — not my fellow WS posters.
 
https://twitter.com/x/status/1824438467998146812

www.usatoday.com

Could Alex Murdaugh get new trial for South Carolina murders of wife and son?

Attorneys say though it's possible he'll be granted a new trial, it's unlikely Alex Murdaugh will be released from prison any time soon
www.usatoday.com

[…]

In July, Murdaugh's attorneys filed a motion asking the state Supreme Court to review the case before the appeals court hears it. This can happen if a case meets certain legal standards, such as "significant public interest or a legal principle of major importance." Murdaugh's attorneys argued his case fits both criteria.

Murdaugh's motion demands that the court review Toal's ruling, calling Hill, a "wart" on the South Carolina legal system. The motion describes Hill as an "elected state official in charge of managing juries engaging in deliberate jury tampering in a murder trial to secure a guilty verdict so she can make money selling books about it."

[…]

Murdaugh is also appealing his federal sentencing, arguing the punishment is "grossly disproportionate to the crimes committed." In that appeal, Murdaugh's attorneys claim that Judge Richard Gergel and federal prosecutors sought such a lengthy sentence to provide a backstop and ensure that, regardless of any successful state appeals or alternative verdicts during potential state retrials, Murdaugh would spend the rest of his life behind bars.

[…]
 
Seattle1 said:
I'm recalling a law in SC where certain cases of public interest get to cut ahead of the line and be heard quickly in the Appellate Court and wonder if same applies with the Supreme Court. I don't recall when AM's defense petitioned the Supreme Court to review Judge Toal's January 2024 decision. Nonetheless, to begin considering the case for retrial before the end of the year seems somewhat expedited to me. MOO
Click to expand...

Cindizzi said:
In July, Murdaugh's attorneys filed a motion asking the state Supreme Court to review the case before the appeals court hears it. This can happen if a case meets certain legal standards, such as "significant public interest or a legal principle of major importance." Murdaugh's attorneys argued his case fits both criteria.
Click to expand...

OK, now we know the Motion wasn't filed with the Supreme Court until July, and the defense did call on the SC law I recalled (to expedite a decision to hear the case and fast track a ruling). Just more fuel for the entitlement AM believes was his since birth! MOO
 
Breaking News kids.(smile)

Peter@ The "Lawyer You know" is now an approved source at WS.
Peter did this video today on the juror issues/problems in both trials.

'LIVE! Major News On Ashley Benefield And Murdaugh - Will Juror Misconduct Overturn..."​


 
Izzylizzy said:
Have any of you ever seen/heard of a juror who during deliberations complained to the judge that they were being pressured?
Click to expand...

Not during deliberations. In my experience, this typically comes after the jurors are dismissed and there's public outcry on the verdict, and one or more jurors come forward to lament they felt pressured by others on the panel.

On the other hand, I just experienced the Karen Read Trial in MA and here there were jurors complaining about each other to the Judge-- long before deliberations. At least one complaint led to the dismissal of a juror during the trial. MOO
 
Seattle1 said:
Not during deliberations. In my experience, this typically comes after the jurors are dismissed and there's public outcry on the verdict, and one or more jurors come forward to lament they felt pressured by others on the panel.

On the other hand, I just experienced the Karen Read Trial in MA and here there were jurors complaining about each other to the Judge-- long before deliberations. At least one complaint led to the dismissal of a juror during the trial. MOO
Click to expand...
Thank you.
Were the issues that jurors were having with each other ever made public?
 
Izzylizzy said:
Thank you.
Were the issues that jurors were having with each other ever made public?
Click to expand...

No, the jurors were called in individually at sidebar to talk with the Judge. Cameras in place for the trial in progress were also removed from the Courtroom-- causing a huge panic with trial watchers that Court was dark and many feared there had been a change to the decorum Order and cameras were out. This was because the Courtroom was closed and nobody knew that the jurors were being called inside to talk to the Judge. However, the Court did dismiss the juror in public view and thanked her/him for their service.

ETA: When one juror was removed, there was speculation only that she'd made comments that she hated the way the defendant laughed but there's no factual evidence why the juror was removed.
 
Seattle1 said:
No, the jurors were called in individually at sidebar to talk with the Judge. Cameras in place for the trial in progress were also removed from the Courtroom-- causing a huge panic with trial watchers that Court was dark and many feared there had been a change to the decorum Order and cameras were out. This was because the Courtroom was closed and nobody knew that the jurors were being called inside to talk to the Judge. However, the Court did dismiss the juror in public view and thanked her/him for their service.

ETA: When one juror was removed, there was speculation only that she'd made comments that she hated the way the defendant laughed but there's no factual evidence why the juror was removed.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the explanation on what happened.
I missed that during the trial.
I looked online and couldn't find anything about Judge Whyte dismissing a juror.
 
Izzylizzy said:
Have any of you ever seen/heard of a juror who during deliberations complained to the judge that they were being pressured?
Click to expand...
They *may* have pressured her or she may not be someone who can stand her ground, but IMO she ultimately voted to convict. That’s on her. Bam. Period. She doesn’t get to come back later to change her vote. If this is accepted by the court and contributes to a new trial, God help us. Other convictions might not stand the test of time! Our justice system will be in chaos! OMO.
 
IIRC didn't the judge query both the Prosecution and Defense and both were satisfied with the judge's action? I think I felt at the time that the judge was being especially judicial in order to be transparent about the sitiation and ruling, protect the defendant's rifht to a fair trial as well as securd the trial to proceed, both sides concurring, as a weigh to document and resolve it and save it from the fires of appeal.

Am I remembering that right?

I swear I recall the Defense agreeing to it.

JMO
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is DeKalb County John Doe (2022)?

Staff online

Members online

... and 171 more.
Total: 2,437 (members: 172, guests: 2,265)

Online statistics

Members online
172
Guests online
2,265
Total visitors
2,437
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
604,579
Messages
18,173,861
Members
232,692
Latest member
Jack B
Back
Top