Alex Murdaugh Retrial: The Ruling, the Evidence, and the Fight Ahead

A defense attorney and former prosecutor breaks down how the conviction fell, what survives, and what a second trial actually looks like.

Hidden Killers w/ Tony Brueski

May 14, 2026

Alex Murdaugh’s murder convictions are gone. The South Carolina Supreme Court reversed them unanimously, finding that former Colleton County Clerk Becky Hill made improper comments to jurors that denied Murdaugh his constitutional right to a fair trial. The court adopted a new legal framework for handling jury tampering claims, dismantled the post-trial court’s reasoning point by point, and issued binding guidance restricting the financial crimes evidence that dominated the first trial.

But a reversal is not an acquittal. Attorney General Alan Wilson has confirmed the State will retry. And the retrial will look nothing like the first trial.

Defense attorney and former prosecutor Eric Fadds provides the most comprehensive legal breakdown of what happened, what it means, and what comes next. He starts with the ruling itself — how former Chief Justice Jean Toal placed the burden of proof on the wrong party, violated evidence rules by questioning jurors about their deliberative mental processes, and relied on testimony the Supreme Court said should never have been considered. He explains why Hill’s perjury conviction likely tipped the court’s willingness to reject Toal’s credibility findings wholesale.

Then Fadds turns to the evidence. The court said the prosecution went “far too long and far too deep” into Murdaugh’s financial crimes — twelve and a half hours over ten trial days — and ordered any retrial to present that evidence efficiently. The motive timeline can survive. The emotional parade of individual victims likely cannot. The defense also has unresolved evidentiary challenges from the direct appeal that the Supreme Court left for the retrial court to decide.

Finally, Fadds maps the retrial landscape. Murdaugh’s prior testimony is locked in. Becky Hill has a criminal conviction. The venue question is a nightmare. Both sides gained ammunition over three years, but the advantages cut in opposite directions. Fadds picks a side and explains why...

(Continued In Video 👆)

Available for iOS and Android

This publication contains commentary and opinion based on publicly available information. All individuals are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Nothing published here should be taken as a statement of fact, health or legal advice.