Thread by @DrewTripp

Breakdown of Alex Murdaugh's updated pre-hearing motion and major arguments therein:

1. Witnesses - Murdaugh provides the list of witnesses he may call. A big one: Rhonda McElveen, Clerk of Court in Barnwell County. She helped Becky Hill during the Murdaugh trial in Colleton.

Murdaugh argues he should be allowed to call McElveen because she "may have personal knowledge of facts" regarding Hill's jury interactions. Murdaugh says McElveen will testify Hill said things to her during trial "substantively identical" to things she allegedly said to jurors.

McElveen will also testify she got "several complaints from court staff about Hill having inappropriate & excessive contacts with jurors," according to Murdaugh.
Example: McElveen reportedly received a complaint of Hill interacting with jurors in public at Walmart during trial.

Other notable jurors Murdaugh will / may call:
- Current & former members of Hill's court staff
- Hill's son, Jeffrey Hill, under indictment for wiretapping—reportedly to spy on conversations about his mom
- Judge Clifton Newman
- Juror 630 & 785, main jury tampering accusers

2. Becky Hill's credibility - I've seen many people on Twitter who seem dismissive of the idea Hill's book, emails, phone, etc. may have any bearing on the jury tampering case. Murdaugh's lawyers make the case succinctly here. They say Hill has a "character for untruthfulness."

Murdaugh wants it to come down to Becky Hill's word vs. the word of Juror 630, with some salt & pepper from jurors 785 ("Egg Lady"), 741 & 254. But mainly Hill vs. 630. Murdaugh thinks the State doesn't have anyone else who can refute 630 after rendering Hill's word worthless.

This speaks to Murdaugh's request for "wide latitude" to "impeach" Hill. They want to stack the deck so thoroughly in J.630's favor the court would have no choice but to take their word over Hill's. Under such a circumstance, Murdaugh believes a retrial would be undeniable.

Yet—at the same time—Murdaugh's defense lawyers also argue the court should restrict which jurors & witnesses the State can call to testify in Becky's defense. They argue testimony is irrelevant and inadmissible unless a witness was in the room for comments J630 claims Hill made.

Murdaugh's logic is as follows: Several jurors were in separate rooms for a significant portion of the trial, thus testifying they never heard Becky Hill say anything Juror 630 alleged is potentially meaningless unless they can show they were there at the time.

The rest is mostly restatement of what Murdaugh put forward in the original pre-hearing brief. The central thesis is this: Murdaugh only needs to prove jury tampering occurred for a retrial to be granted. He does not need to show bias resulted from any such tampering.

We'll get a sense for how much of this Justice Jean Toal will accept and vice versa in the status conference coming up on Tuesday, January 16. Lots at stake with some heavy-duty legal arguments.
(@threadreaderapp unroll)