Major Allegations About Murdaugh Trial Clerk Could Lead to NEW Trial?! W/ Jonna Spilbor & David Wohl

All right, so let's get into some more about what they're alleging this woman did, this Becky Hill. By the way, just in case the audience is curious, this is Becky Hill on her post-verdict media tour, so you have a sense of what she looks and sounds like. I'm the one that read the verdict of Alec Murdoch, and I was a little... My breath was knocked out for a moment, but then I have to tell myself to treat this just like any other trial, any other verdict that I have to read, and I have to place my mind there and take out any other personal relationship. Oh, Becky, if this really was you treating this just like any other trial, how many trials now are going to be opened up, David? How many other... I mean, you're a criminal trans attorney. If you had a client and she was the clerk, wouldn't you be going back in there right now? You'd be trying to find every juror to say, what'd Becky say to you in our case? Oh, absolutely. I mean, she has opened up a can of worms bigger than she can imagine. All the defense attorneys who practice in that courthouse are now going to engage in investigation, and Megan, in all likelihood, the presiding judge of that courthouse will do so also, order that investigation takes place, because how many verdicts were altered by that kind of tampering with the jury in cases where she thought one side or the other should win, and so her input was critically important. Wow, this is... You know, practicing law 34 years, I've never seen anything even remotely like this. There's going to be... I mean, like I said, there's going to be a new trial, I mean, when you look at it, and she... There's going to be two new trials. There's going to be a trial for Mr. Murdoch, and there's going to be a trial, people versus Becky Hill. She's going to be the defendant. All right, two things. Number one, these are allegations. Number two, she denies them. So far, all she said is that they're untrue, and we'll hear from her and her defense, I'm sure, at some point soon. Number three, there are no criminal charges against her yet, however, Murdoch's lawyers have sent a request to the South Carolina U.S. Attorney's Office to open up a federal investigation into what they say was the violation of Alec Murdoch's civil rights, and if they can prove jury tampering here, Jonna, potentially there would be a crime committed by her. I mean, that's if they can prove it, but that's not really what our court is about. Our court is about whether the first guy accused of a crime, Alec Murdoch, gets a new trial because of these allegations. So here's just a little bit more meat on the bones. Details from their motion, which had to be filed with the appeals court asking for an evidentiary hearing on their allegations. That would be the next step. To get a hearing, the judge who oversaw the trial would probably be a witness in this proceeding. He was probably the judge we all fell in love with. He was like totally measured. He probably won't be the judge, it'll be somebody else hearing these allegations. And this is what is alleged. She instructed jurors not to be misled by evidence presented by Murdoch's defense. Hello, the scales of justice supposed to have a little blindfold over them, that she told jurors not to be fooled by Murdoch's testimony in his own defense, that she had frequent private conversations with the jury foreperson, who it's also alleged she manipulated into getting that role, that the jury actually wanted somebody other than this person, but that because Becky wanted this foreperson, they got it, that she asked jurors their opinions on Murdoch's guilt or innocence. My God, the impropriety of it, if true, Jonna, and that she pressured jurors to come to a conclusion in their deliberations quickly, allegedly telling them they would be taken to a hotel for the night if they didn't come to a verdict, and did not allow smokers to take smoke breaks until deliberations were complete. And on top of all that, that she furnished false information about that one juror she thought was pro-Murdoch to the judge, which did result in that juror being booted on the last day of the trial. The lawyers allege that Becky Hill targeted that juror because she thought the juror was a possible vote to acquit. Specifically, they claim that Becky lied to the judge about an alleged inappropriate Facebook post, well, a Facebook post that alleged inappropriate conduct by the juror. And what happened during the trial, I remember this, because I remember I was dropping Yardley off at school, and this was on the radio. I was like, oh my God, they're actually going to boot one of the jurors. And the allegation was that that juror's ex-husband had posted on Facebook that the juror was blabbing about the case and her opinions about the case, and if so, that was clearly inappropriate. And she did get booted. That was, I think, one of the things the judge looked at, but there were other alleged instances of misconduct by the juror too. And what the defense is now alleging is that the analysis of the ex-husband's Facebook account showed he did not make that post. So I don't know where Becky was getting that from, but that's just one of the many allegations against her. Can we just go back to ask the jurors their opinions on his guilt or innocence? Right, and my question is, one of my many questions, how? How did this clerk have that kind of access? Like, literally, she is really a concierge to the jury. You make sure the women's room has toilet paper. You make sure the pencils have erasers. You make sure the pizza is ordered on time. You do that kind of thing in a trial like this. How was she having one-on-one conversations? You know, most judges, if you are sharing a restroom with a jury, you walk out if a juror walks in. The clerk should do the same thing. How was she able to have these conversations, to have this kind of influence, and nobody knows what's going on? I mean, there's something really untoward here. And I think if the defense team has made one little tiny thing that I wish they had changed, I wouldn't make the allegation that this clerk was doing this motivated by the opportunity to write a book that wouldn't have happened if there was a mistrial. I would suggest, because this is what it sounds like to me, and I would investigate this, did she do it simply because she didn't like the defendant? That is what's going to open the door to all the prior trials. I totally agree with that. She didn't like him. It doesn't matter about the book. Her defense is going to be, oh, the book has only made me five cents. So that's not the motivation. The motivation was to help take down this guy, this family that so many people were quote-unquote jealous of or didn't like for a number of reasons. And she got to play God, I'm putting that in air quotes, in that sense by influencing the jury. And to me, that's a better road to go down because it's more plausible than I think what they're limiting. Yes. And so she had a co-author on this book, and he spoke with our pal Vinnie Politan over at Court TV, and he was making a similar point to the one you just raised. You're spot on, Johnny. Here he was. His name is Neil Gordon. Take a listen. I was pretty upset at what Harpoolian said was the motivation that Becky had. Last time I checked, Simon and Schuster did not send us a check for $200,000, but Gordons and the Hills put up $30,000 of our own money because we felt this was an interesting story to tell. So right away, Vinnie, for that to be motivation for her to get a book deal is completely false. That is a weird place to take it. I mean, maybe they really do think that was her motivation, but the book itself is weird. I mean, I haven't read the book, but I've seen excerpts of it. And here are a couple that I think got the jurors' ire up. It's called Behind the Doors of Justice, the Murdoch Murders. I mean, everybody cashed in. Have you ever seen a clerk of court write a book? We all know the jury writes books. When does the clerk of court write a book? I mean, it's so weird. That's probably what got the defense lawyers irritated and thinking, you know, maybe this is the motive. But here's what she writes. She talks about when they went to visit the murder scene at Mizzell, where they lived, the Murdoch family, and this is where the pair were murdered. She writes, some of us, either from the courthouse, i.e. her, law enforcement, or the jury at Mizzell, had an epiphany and shared our thoughts with our eyes. We did it with our eyes. I knew and they knew that Alec was guilty. Okay, that's just weird. So she's telegraphing that while the case is still pending, before the jury was allowed to talk about this case with anybody, they were communicating to her and she was communicating to them with their eyes, he's guilty. She better not have been doing that. Then she goes on to say, hold on, although I was conflicted about knowing the Murdoch family, because everybody in South Carolina knew the Murdoch family, and about having so many people watching and listening to me as I read the verdict, I was mostly concerned about Alec being found innocent when I knew in my heart he was guilty. I mean, all of this suggests your claim, Jonna, which is she'd made up her mind, she was reading into her interactions with the jurors, and it makes it much more plausible what these jurors are saying she then did orally. Yeah. And maybe the book is just the catalyst or the means that gives them the reason to write the motion. But this is deeper than that. This is deeper. She didn't like the guy. She wanted to have her 15 minutes of fame. I mean, it all comes together and it's all completely inappropriate. I just don't want the defense team to limit themselves to the book being the motivation here when I think it runs far, far deeper. Junk science. That's what the doctor called many of those fruit and vegetable supplements on the market. Junk science because they use extracts of common produce department fruits and veggies with few health benefits. But I want to tell you about Field of Greens. Field of Greens is different. They use a whole organic fruit and vegetable, not a watered down supplement. And it's backed by a better health promise, which I'm going to tell you about. Each ingredient in Field of Greens was scientifically chosen to support vital organs like heart, lungs, and kidney health. Others support your immune system, blood pressure, metabolism, and healthy weight loss. Their better health promise is simple. The next time you're at the doctor for a checkup, if the doc doesn't say, hey, you're looking healthier than before, you get your money back. That's a deal right there. So let me get you started with 15% off. Visit fieldofgreens.com and use my promo code MK. That's promo code MK at fieldofgreens.com. Hey, thanks so much for watching. If you like what you just saw, hit the subscribe button for more clips and full episodes.