While I've not yet listened to the Oral Argument, I'm feeling confident that the high court will concur with the facts outlined in the State's Brief (linked below), and affirm Murdaugh's conviction for the murders of Maggie and Paul.
The Appellate Court is not available to a defendant who wants a do-over-- because they did not like the result of their trial! And it's also not an opportunity to re-litigate issues long settled by the record --including the 2024 Chief Justice's Order denying the convicted defendant a new trial-- for comments made by the Clerk of the Court, and/or Murdaugh's own admissions.
IMO, there is nothing here by the Appellant that provides even a hint of Murdaugh being innocent of the charges, and the higher court should affirm the verdict in the interest of justice and for the protection of the public. MOO
As the S.C. supreme court reviews the case that captivated the nation, prosecutors and defense attorneys make their final arguments — seeking to frame two irreconcilable truths.
www.fitsnews.com
11/12/2025
THE DEFENSE BRIEF: ‘A TAINTED TRIAL AND A BROKEN SYSTEM’
In his final brief, Murdaugh argued his conviction was fatally compromised by “jury tampering, improperly admitted evidence, and an investigation riddled with error.”
His lawyers told the justices that Colleton County’s then-clerk of court,
Rebecca “Becky” Hill had “inserted herself into the jury’s deliberations, urging jurors to watch Murdaugh’s demeanor and to reach a quick verdict.”
They insisted those actions “crossed the line from commentary to constitutionally impermissible advocacy inside the jury room.”
Murdaugh’s team also accused prosecutors of turning financial crimes into character evidence, writing that the trial court “allowed a week of unrelated financial misconduct testimony that became a trial within a trial, distracting jurors from the absence of direct proof that Alex committed these murders.”
[...]
THE STATE’S RESPONSE: ‘OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE’
In a 182-page final brief filed November 5, 2025, attorney general
Alan Wilson’s office urged the Supreme Court to affirm the convictions — calling Murdaugh’s appeal “an attempt to re-litigate issues long settled by the record and his own admissions.”
“The verdict was solely the product of the jury’s honest deliberations,” prosecutors wrote, “and reflected the overwhelming evidence of (Murdaugh)’s guilt.”
They argued the alleged misconduct by Becky Hill amounted to “foolish and fleeting comments” – which according to prosecutors “did not influence the verdict” and were “heard by only three jurors.”
Prosecutors leaned heavily on retired chief justice Jean Toal’s order (.pdf) denying Murdaugh’s motion for a new trial, which concluded the verdict was “based on the evidence presented at trial.”
That evidence, they wrote, included the famous
dog kennel video which placed Alex Murdaugh “at the scene minutes before the murders, his own admissions of lying to law enforcement, and forensic timelines showing both victims’ cell phones locked within thirty seconds of each other.”
On the central issue of motive, the state repeated its “gathering storm” narrative — reasserting that by June 7, 2021, the day of the murders, Murdaugh was facing exposure for “millions of dollars he had stolen from his clients and his law firm.”
“The murders,” the brief asserted, “immediately put a stop to the gathering storm at Appellant’s doorstep.”
Prosecutors defended the admission of financial crimes evidence, concluding the testimony was “properly admitted under multiple, independent legal theories” and that “the trial court acted well within its discretion in ensuring the jury heard the complete narrative of events.”
They also argued Murdaugh “waived his objection” by failing to challenge every legal ground trial judge Clifton Newman used to admit that evidence — adding that even if the justices disagreed, any error was “harmless given the avalanche of proof.”
Ultimately, Wilson’s team urged the court to leave the verdict intact: “The jury convicted (Murdaugh) because he was obviously guilty.”
JUSTICE TOAL'S ORDER DENYING DEFENSE MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL
LINKS TO PDF DOCS FILED AT S.C. SUPREME COURT, NOV 2025:
FINAL BRIEF OF APPELLANT
FINAL BRIEF OF RESPONDENT
FINAL REPLY BRIEF OF APPELLANT
