FOLLOW US

INSIDE THIS REPORT

• A federal judge ruled Alex Murdaugh cannot sue former clerk Becky Hill for the $600,000 he spent defending himself at trial.
• The judge found no legal link between Hill's jury tampering and Murdaugh's defense costs — he'd have paid regardless.
• The case was dismissed without prejudice, leaving the door open for Murdaugh to refile once his retrial concludes.

By Samuel López | USA Herald

CHARLESTON, S.C. — Alex Murdaugh wanted Becky Hill to pay for what she did to his trial. On Wednesday, a federal judge told him the math doesn't work that way.

U.S. District Judge Richard Gergel dismissed Murdaugh's civil rights lawsuit against the former Colleton County Clerk of Court, ruling that even though Hill's conduct helped unravel a double murder conviction, it didn't cause the $600,000 hole in Murdaugh's bank account. That money, the judge found, was always going to be spent.

It's a distinction that sounds almost cold on paper — but it cuts to the heart of how federal standing law works, and it just cost Murdaugh a shot at recovering what he says was his life savings.

The Theory That Didn't Survive Contact With the Law

Murdaugh's argument was straightforward: Hill improperly communicated with jurors during his six-week 2023 murder trial, that misconduct was serious enough that the South Carolina Supreme Court unanimously threw out his convictions on May 13, and therefore Hill should be on the hook for the defense costs he incurred fighting charges in a trial she tainted. He said he'd liquidated his 401(k) to cover it.

Gergel wasn't persuaded. In a five-page order, the judge drew a hard line between the tampering and the tab. Hill, he noted, never filed the murder charges against Murdaugh — a grand jury did that, and the South Carolina Attorney General's Office prosecuted the case. Whatever Hill did or didn't do inside that jury room, Murdaugh still would have needed lawyers.

The judge put it plainly: had Hill "performed her clerk of court duties properly," Murdaugh "would have still needed to expend the funds necessary to pay for his defense." In legal terms, that's a standing problem — and a fatal one. Without a traceable link between the harm alleged and the money sought, there's no case to bring in federal court, regardless of how egregious the underlying misconduct might have been.

Hill's attorneys made exactly that argument in their motion to dismiss, and the judge agreed with it in full.

Not Over, Just Not Now

Here's where it gets interesting for anyone watching the broader Murdaugh saga: Gergel dismissed the case without prejudice. That's not a door slammed shut — it's one left ajar. Murdaugh is legally free to come back with a different theory, particularly once his retrial on the underlying murder charges concludes.

In fact, the judge went out of his way to flag that possibility. He noted Murdaugh's complaint "carefully avoided"seeking damages tied to the costs of the upcoming retrial — the second trial made necessary by Hill's own misconduct. That claim, Gergel wrote, simply isn't ripe yet. There's no bill for a trial that hasn't happened.

That distinction matters. It suggests the courthouse door isn't closed on Murdaugh recovering something from Hill — it's just closed on this specific ask, at this specific time, under this specific legal theory.

What Happens Next

For now, Hill notches a procedural win in a case that has shadowed her since her resignation amid allegations of jury tampering that helped topple one of the most closely watched murder convictions in recent South Carolina history. For Murdaugh, it's a reminder that being wronged and being owed money for it are not always the same thing in the eyes of federal law.

The bigger fight — Murdaugh's actual retrial on the murder charges — still looms. And if Gergel's order is any indication, that's where any future claim against Hill for the cost of a second trial would have to be built.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Samuel López is a Senior Legal Analyst, investigative journalist, and legal researcher for USA Herald, covering high-profile criminal and civil litigation across the country with a focus on courtroom strategy and constitutional law.

For exclusive investigative reporting, breaking legal analysis, and insider-level coverage you won't find anywhere else — subscribe to the USA Herald newsletter.

👉 Follow us on X: https://x.com/RealUSAHerald