Guilty Beyond a Reasonable Doubt?
- A self-avowed thief? Yes.
- A self-avowed drug addict at the time? Yes.
- A murderer beyond a reasonable doubt? No.
McNeal sat riveted in the courthouse on the day of the DNA testimony. Profoundly uncomfortable she realized they could convict the wrong man.
Where it all Began ...
Becky Hill, the Clerk of Court
of Colleton County, South Carolina,
invited Shay McNeal to the trial during a nearly two hour conversation on their respective cell phones as McNeal was traveling.
McNeal told Becky that she had to have the phone on handsfree
since she was driving and did Hill object to her putting it on speaker? McNeal also told Hill that her husband was in the seat next to her and did she mind? She replied, "No."
As the nearly two-hour conversation mid-trial in February, 2023,
unfolded, Becky Hill told McNeal that she should know
"Murdaugh is guilty."
Moreover, "you should be careful,
he lies. Just watch him
when you come." "His family has bodies all over Colleton County" and then there was the strange "bootlegging" story, the Cowboys
and so much more. Hill
ultimately convinced McNeal of Murdaugh's guilt before McNeal
even took her seat in court.
Being new and arriving mid-trial, it quickly became apparent
to McNeal that there was no quarter where you could express any doubt regarding the guilt of Alex Murdaugh.
Whispers of "He's guilty" laced most conversations in the media, and uttering doubt of any other outcome brought quizzical looks.
More concerning - could you suffer retribution if you dared to question
the fabric that had been
woven of his guilt?
You bet.
The trial culture created by the prosecution and the Colleton County Clerk of Court was one of obfuscation or old-fashioned slight of hand in a euphemistic way.
The "He's guilty" attitude was
like a bad rash; it had spread throughout the media room and
among the staff. The rash did not affect everyone but enough to
be troubling.
The day after the prosecution's
DNA presentation, McNeal began to express openly that she was having doubts about the prevailing
notion that Murdaugh was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
Arriving early on the following Friday morning, McNeal greeted the same deputy she had said good morning to all week. But this time it was different.
The deputy said, "Miss Shay, someone has reported you were taking
pictures in the
courtroom yesterday and
I have to take your phone."
In astonishment and with a strong verbal protest, McNeal said,
"What? Who?" as she
relinquished her phone to the
woman who had been
so pleasant all week.
No response came except to say,
"I'm sorry, I have to take your phone."
Turning away the deputy
actually looked embarrassed, but she kept the phone.
McNeal's thoughts twisted and
turned in the corridors of her mind. Who could have said such a thing?
The court had already
warned that that action was a contempt of court issue,
which could possibly lead to 30
days jail time and some
robust fines.
A sickening bile-like substance
rose in McNeal's throat
as she climbed the stairs to
leave her case in Becky's
office suite under the watchful eye
of Polly Reilly, Becky's administrative assistant.
Each day, McNeal had left her case containing her medication (a nebulizer in the event of an asthma attack if needed)
and her phone in the suite.
When McNeal entered the
office, she was greeted by Polly
and a co-worker. McNeal responded to the "How are you" greeting
from the two ladies with,
"I am not good.
The worst thing just happened to me. When I arrived, they confiscated
my phone in front of
a lot of people.
It was so embarrassing.
They said I had been taking pictures with my phone
in the courthouse yesterday."
Polly immediately blurted out,
"That's not true, Miss Shay your phone was here all day
yesterday. It rang a lot and we
thought that, because it has a
strange ring, it was another bomb scare!"
At that moment, McNeal realized
that the thought that had
been running around in her head as she was climbing the steps a
few minutes before was all too real.
Thank God for Polly and her
co-worker. Stunned and profoundly sad at this recognition,
McNeal asked Polly to call downstairs and, "Get my phone back immediately."
When it was returned,
McNeal placed it in Polly's office where she had before. Then tucked her atomizer in her pocket
as she fought that fish-out-of-water feeling you get when an attack is threatening and walked toward the courtroom.
There was another intervention,
the starving for air abated, and as she entered the courtroom she successfully
fought back tears of anger and indignation that
wanted to find their way down her
cheeks for the first time in years.
Set up?
The answer may lie on pages 107 and 108 in Becky Hill's book, Behind the Doors of Justice, The Murdaugh Murders.
Weeks later it was against this background that the guilty verdict came quickly, and that
was not a surprise to McNeal.
It had been in the air that permeated both the courtroom and the jury room.
***
But on May 13, 2026 all that was rightfully swept away.
The Supreme Court Decision
Appellate Case Nos. 2023-000392 and 2024-000576
Opinion No. 28329
Heard February 11, 2026 - Filed May 13, 2026
REVERSED AND REMANDED
Key Points
On Rebecca (Becky) Hill, Colleton County Clerk of Court, as well as other issues the court addressed...
The decision states in a footnote on page 4:
“As her book's title suggests, it turns out Hill was quite busy behind the doors of justice, thwarting the integrity of the justice system she was sworn to protect and uphold.”
The decision states on
page 6:
The post-trial court determined Hill's denial of making these statements was not credible, finding Hill wanted to write a book, which she believed a guilty verdict would help sell; she was "attracted by the siren call of celebrity"; and "[s]he allowed her desire for the public attention of the moment to overcome her duty to her oath of office and her oath as a witness."
The decision states on
page 7:
“Murdaugh argues he was denied his constitutional right to a fair trial by an impartial jury free from outside influences. He asserts that following Remmer v. United States, 347 U.S. 227 (1954) (Remmer I), prejudice should be presumed from Hill's comments to the jury and that the presumption is irrebuttable. In the alternative, he contends the State failed to rebut the presumption of prejudice.”
On the same page,
“We agree with Murdaugh. Prejudice is presumed from Hill's comments, and while this presumption is rebuttable, the State failed to overcome this presumption.”
The decision states on
pages 14 and 15:
“As the post-trial court found, "Hill was attracted by the siren call of celebrity" and "allowed her desire for the public attention of the moment to overcome her duty to her oath of office."”
Also on page 15:
“We have no reason to find Hill did not make all of the statements the jurors reported. Therefore, we hold Murdaugh established Hill made comments that the day Murdaugh testified was "epic" or "important" and urged the jurors not to be "fooled," "confused," "thrown off," or "convinced" by Murdaugh and to watch Murdaugh's body language closely.”
Moreover on page 15:
“Next, we must decide whether these comments were "more than innocuous interventions,"… Hill's comments attacked the defendant's character and credibility, which certainly were matters before the jury. … Hill became a character witness on behalf of the State, encouraging the jurors to question Murdaugh's credibility. …
In fact, by urging the jurors not to be fooled or convinced by Murdaugh's defense, Hill essentially implored the jurors to find him guilty, the ultimate issue in the case.
Therefore, we hold Murdaugh met the "minimal standard" of showing that "the extrajudicial communications or contacts were 'more than innocuous interventions,'" … and the post-trial court erred as a matter of law in refusing to impose the Remmer presumption.
The decision states on
page 19:
“We also hold the post-trial court erred in finding a lack of prejudice because Hill's comments were "limited in subject and not overt as to opinion, were only heard by, at most, three jurors, and were made in a case with overwhelming and compelling evidence."”….. Hill clearly advised the jurors to find Murdaugh and the evidence he presented not credible and, essentially, urged them to render a guilty verdict….
Next, the limited number of jurors who acknowledged hearing Hill's improper comments did not reduce their prejudicial effect. As the Supreme Court explained, a criminal defendant is "entitled to be tried by 12, not 9 or even 10, impartial and unprejudiced jurors."
In the situation before us, notwithstanding "the strength" of the prosecution's case, the State is unable to overcome the presumption of prejudice. The State's case rested largely on circumstantial evidence, and Murdaugh's credibility was a key component of his defense. Hill's repeated comments challenging Murdaugh's credibility directly undermined that defense.
In summation, Murdaugh met his initial burden of establishing Hill's comments to the jury were more than innocuous interventions, triggering the Remmer presumption of prejudice and shifting the burden to the State.
Evidence of Murdaugh's Financial Crimes
The decision states on
page 24:
“As to …whether the trial court should have restricted the extent to which the State was allowed to present this evidence; that is, whether the trial court should have excluded some of the evidence—we unanimously hold the trial court allowed the State to go far too long and far too deep into aspects of Murdaugh's financial crimes that were not probative of the State's theory of motive, which gave rise to considerable danger of unfair prejudice, and therefore should have been excluded.”
The decision states on
page 25:
“The trial court specifically found Murdaugh's commission of the financial crimes "does not suggest to the jury that the defendant has a tendency to commit murder." As we will discuss below, we find considerable unfair prejudice in allowing the State to go as far and deep into detail as it did.”
The decision states on
page 26:
“By our calculation, the State spent a total of 12.5 hours of actual testimony before the jury over ten days of trial to introduce evidence related to Murdaugh's financial crimes. We are convinced the State could have effectively presented evidence to support its motive theory in a fraction of that time.”
The decision states on the last page 27:
CONCLUSION
As the Fourth Circuit declared, the Remmer presumption is "[a]live and well." It serves to protect the right to a fair trial by an impartial jury for all defendants. Here, Hill, the Colleton County Clerk of Court, egregiously attacked Murdaugh's credibility and his defense, thus triggering the presumption of prejudice, which the State was unable to rebut.
***
As we move to another trial, Alex Murdaugh is now charged with the murders and is innocent until a fair trial finds him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
