(NEW YORK) — Alex Murdaugh is suing the former court clerk who served during his double murder trial in South Carolina, alleging she denied him a fair trial before an impartial jury, his attorneys announced days after the state’s top court overturned his murder convictions.
Murdaugh’s wife, Margaret “Maggie” Murdaugh, 52, and younger son, Paul Murdaugh, 22, were found dead from multiple gunshot wounds near the dog kennels at the family’s hunting estate in 2021.
Murdaugh was convicted in 2023 of murdering them following a six-week trial, with jurors deliberating for nearly three hours before reaching a guilty verdict.
Last week, the five-member South Carolina Supreme Court unanimously ruled that Murdaugh must have a new trial, citing the “breathtaking and disgraceful effort” of former Colleton County clerk Mary Rebecca “Becky” Hill to “undermine the jury process.”
“With the South Carolina Supreme Court’s ruling, it has been adjudged as a matter of state law that she deprived Alex of his constitutional rights, deprived him of a right to a fair trial, and as a result we’ve got to do it all over again, which nobody wants to do,” Murdaugh’s attorney, Jim Griffin, said during a press briefing on Monday announcing the lawsuit.
The lawsuit is seeking at least $600,000, Griffin said. The civil complaint notes that Murdaugh spent $600,000 on his trial defense, according to the filing.
“The South Carolina Supreme Court has ruled that Ms. Hill’s actions — motivated by her own desire to profit from the trial — caused these funds to be lost,” the filing stated.
Griffin said they are seeking “accountability” with the lawsuit.
“Now, let me be clear. Alex Murdaugh owes a lot of people a lot of money. None of this money that is recovered will go to him personally,” he said. “The purpose of this lawsuit is to hold Becky Hill accountable for what she did.”
ABC News has reached out to Hill’s attorney for comment.
In its opinion filed last Wednesday, the state supreme court stated that Hill “egregiously attacked Murdaugh’s credibility and his defense, thus triggering the presumption of prejudice, which the State was unable to rebut.”
“As noted at the outset, Hill’s shocking jury interference was accomplished outside the presence and knowledge of the outstanding trial judge and superbly competent and professional counsel for the State and the defense,” it continued.
In the murder trial, prosecutors made the case that Murdaugh, who comes from a legacy of prominent attorneys in the Lowcountry region, killed his wife and son to gain sympathy and distract from his financial wrongdoings, while the defense argued that police ignored the possibility that anyone else could have killed them.
Murdaugh’s defense claimed that Hill influenced the verdict through remarks heard by some jurors during the trial, including in one instance to watch Murdaugh’s body language during his testimony, according to court filings.
Murdaugh has continued to deny having anything to do with the deaths of his wife and son.
Following the decision, South Carolina Attorney General Alan Wilson said his office will “aggressively” seek to retry Murdaugh for the murders “as soon as possible” — possibly by the end of this year.
Hill resigned as the Colleton County clerk of court in March 2024, amid the South Carolina Law Enforcement Division’s investigation into allegations she may have abused her government position for financial gain.
Her book, “Behind the Doors of Justice: The Murdaugh Murders,” was ultimately pulled from publication over accusations of plagiarism.
She pleaded guilty in December 2025 to obstruction of justice, perjury and misconduct in office for showing photographs that were sealed court evidence to a reporter during the trial and then later lying about doing so on the stand during a hearing related to Murdaugh’s bid for a new trial. She was sentenced to three years of probation and 100 hours of community service.
The charges did not allege any jury tampering, and she denied any tampering with the jury during her testimony.
Murdaugh was also convicted on several financial crimes following the murder trial and is serving a 27-year sentence on state charges and a 40-year sentence on federal charges related to those crimes.
In its opinion, the state supreme court found that the trial court acted within its discretion in admitting some evidence of the financial crimes, which supported the state’s theory of motive, though it noted that the evidence could have been presented in a “fraction” of the time. If admitted on retrial, the evidence must be presented “efficiently,” the opinion stated.
Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.
