COLUMBIA, S.C. — The legal team representing Alex Murdaugh has embarked on dual strategies to contest his convictions for the murders of his wife and son. They argue that a court clerk influenced the jury’s guilty decision in hopes of profiting from a potential book deal, and claim that the trial judge erroneously permitted prejudicial evidence regarding Murdaugh’s financial misconduct.

A comprehensive 132-page appeal was submitted this week to the South Carolina Supreme Court. The prosecution will now have time to respond, and since justices must review the materials related to the six-week trial held in 2023, it may take several months before a hearing takes place.

This appeal elaborates on issues previously raised during the trial, including objections made and inquiries into comments from Colleton County Clerk Becky Hill during the proceedings. Murdaugh’s lawyers asserted that the integrity of his trial hinges on ensuring the public is not swayed merely by “social-media-fed ideas about the details of a crime they did not witness.”

“Ensuring Murdaugh receives the fair trial every South Carolinian expects is crucial to affirming that everyone, regardless of status, is entitled to due process and equal protection under the law,” emphasized the appeal, which is co-signed by Murdaugh’s lead attorneys, Jim Griffin and Dick Harpootlian.

Murdaugh, who is currently 56 years old, is serving a life sentence for the 2021 shootings of his wife, Maggie, and younger son, Paul, at their residence. He has continuously denied any involvement in their deaths, including during his testimony at the trial.

For decades, Murdaugh and his family exerted significant influence over the legal landscape in Hampton County, with prosecutors during his trial revealing how he exploited his power to embezzle funds from clients and evade other difficulties throughout his life.

In its appeal, the defense highlighted the scant physical evidence tying Murdaugh to the crime scene. Investigators were unable to recover the weapons used in the murders—a rifle used to kill Maggie and a shotgun found at the site where Paul was shot.

Additionally, minimal blood was discovered on Murdaugh’s clothing at the scene, and no garments stained with blood were located elsewhere. The defense contended that a state investigator’s testimony linking cartridge markings from a shooting range on family property to those at the scene lacked credibility, as he failed to demonstrate that the markings came from a specific firearm.

They also argued that evidence concerning a blue raincoat, which had trace amounts of gunshot residue, should not have been admissible, stressing that a witness noted Murdaugh was observed with a tarp instead.

Moreover, defense attorneys criticized the judge’s decision to allow an investigator to present questionable experimental testimony about the use of an iPhone. The investigator alleged that he experimented with how to activate the phone screen but provided no data or documentation to support his claims.

Prosecutors suggested that Murdaugh might have disposed of his wife’s phone while escaping from the scene, but technical analysis revealed that the phone’s screen had activated two minutes prior to Murdaugh passing the area where it was subsequently discovered.

A substantial portion of the appeal focuses on the actions of Clerk Hill. In January, Judge Jean Toal acknowledged doubts regarding Hill’s assertion that she did not communicate with jurors about the case but determined this did not warrant overturning the verdict on the basis of her “fleeting and foolish comments.”

Several jurors testified that Hill had encouraged them to pay close attention to Murdaugh’s defense, with one juror suggesting that her remarks implied Murdaugh’s guilt. Additionally, a clerk from another county revealed that Hill expressed intentions to author a book on Murdaugh’s trial and believed a guilty verdict might enhance sales potential.

The appeal also scrutinizes evidentiary challenges during the trial, especially the inclusion of six days of testimony regarding Murdaugh’s theft from his law firm and clients. Prosecutors posited that his financial troubles could serve as a motive for the murders, attempting to garner sympathy and avoid further investigation into the missing funds.

Judge Clifton Newman noted that the jury had the right to ponder whether Murdaugh’s financial desperation influenced his actions but believed that the evidence of financial misconduct alone was insufficient to convince them of his guilt.

Defense attorneys raised vociferous objections throughout the proceedings and in the appeal, referencing prior cases where appeals courts overturned murder convictions because of inadmissible evidence concerning infidelity or abuse without direct links to the crimes charged.

The defense argued, “In this instance, the state was improperly allowed to bring in evidence concerning Murdaugh’s alleged financial crimes solely to damage his character in a case that lacked strength.”

Even if Murdaugh’s appeal results in a new trial, he will not immediately regain his freedom. He is currently serving a 40-year sentence after pleading guilty to embezzling substantial sums from his law firm and clients involved in wrongful death and serious injury lawsuits. As part of his plea deals, Murdaugh has agreed not to contest that sentence.