Skip to content 
Hill was charged last May with perjury, obstruction of justice and misconduct. The charges alleged she made sealed evidence available to the media, lied under oath about doing so, and used her court position to promote her book about the trial. She pleaded guilty to the charges in December 2025 and was sentenced to three years of probation.
Murdaugh’s attorneys argued her comments violated his right to a fair trial and an impartial jury, while prosecutors downplayed their importance.
“We agree with Murdaugh,” the court wrote in its ruling Wednesday. “Prejudice is presumed from Hill’s comments, and while this presumption is rebuttable, the State failed to overcome this presumption.”
Defense and prosecution weigh in
Murdaugh’s attorneys, Dick Harpootlian and Jim Griffin, praised the ruling in a statement.
“The Supreme Court’s decision today affirms that the rule of law remains strong in South Carolina,” they said. “We look forward to a new trial conducted consistent with the Constitution and the guidance this Court has provided.”
While the Murdaugh family is not looking forward to another trial, they do believe in Murdaugh’s innocence, Griffin told CNN’s Jake Tapper on Thursday.
“They’re glad that he no longer has the moniker of convicted murderer of his wife and son,” Griffin said.
Meanwhile, there is some concern about whether a new set of jurors could be impartial when presented with the same evidence, given the well-known nature of the case.
Prosecutors are also prepared for a re-do, lead prosecutor, Creighton Waters, told CNN’s Laura Coates on Wednesday.
Waters added: “We live in a society also where the jurors are more used to consuming media and they understand the differences between what’s in the media, what’s in a podcast, and what’s the truth of the evidence on the witness stand.”
“We’re going to depend on our citizens to do that, because there is no going back,” Waters said.
The defense will file a motion requesting the trial venue be moved from Colleton County to a different location in the state, Griffin told CNN.
“It’s not possible to find a jury of 12 who haven’t heard anything about this case. But that’s not the goal,” Griffin said. “The goal is to find 12 jurors who can put aside the noise and listen to the evidence.”
Since the trial, “a lot of people out there who believe in Alex’s innocence” have given them information about “third parties and potential motives,” the attorneys told “Today” Thursday, but the pair wouldn’t characterize the nature of the information or elaborate further.
“I wish we could talk about it, but I think this reversal is going to give us much more access to that information,” Harpootlian said, noting reluctant witnesses may choose to speak up now, but if they don’t, investigators can legally get information through subpoenas.
Appeals court offers ‘guidance’ on financial evidence
Murdaugh’s appeal also challenged whether the prosecution’s extensive focus on his financial crimes was appropriate in a murder trial.
At the trial, a series of witnesses testified about Murdaugh’s history of financial crimes as prosecutors sought to show he killed his wife and son to fend off a “gathering storm” that he believed would soon expose him as a fraud. This evidence was key to their theory of his motive, prosecutors said.
However, Murdaugh’s attorneys argued this motive did not make logical sense. They said the prosecution improperly used the financial crimes evidence to malign Murdaugh’s character and argued it should have been limited or excluded from the trial.
The appeals court said it ordered a new trial based on Hill’s influence on the jury, and so did not officially rule on the evidentiary issues. Still, the justices offered “guidance” for a potential retrial, saying the trial court “allowed the state to go far too long and far too deep into aspects of Murdaugh’s financial crimes.”
As an example, the appeals court noted the testimony of Michael “Tony” Satterfield, a victim of Murdaugh’s financial schemes, who said his brother “is a vulnerable adult and he has a disability.” The court wrote that testimony had “zero probative value” and had “obviously high potential for unfair prejudice.”