Lawyer Reacts: Murdaugh Dismissal Update: Ms. Becky Fires Back, More Jurors Speak, Is Someone Lying?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 19 окт 2024
- #alexmurdaugh #lawyeryouknow #truecrime
🔴 Do you or someone you know need to speak to a real lawyer about a case? Or do you find yourself needing legal advice? Please reach out to our firm and we will make sure to answer your questions or find someone who can. Our consultations are always free and confidential. You can call our firm at (727)441-9030 or email us at lawyeryouknow@gmail.com.
✅ For business inquiries contact me at lawyeryouknow@gmail.com
✅ Let's connect: www.tragoslaw....
Twitter - @lawyeryouknow
Instagram - /tragoslaw
Facebook - /tragoslaw
TikTok - /tragoslaw
✅ Join our email list here - bit.ly/33lV3Mb
✅ Get your Lawyer You Know merch here - bit.ly/LYKMerch
✅ Become a LYK Channel Member Here - bit.ly/3OecDDD
SUPERCHATS & DISCLAIMER - 1. Superchats read out are not to be taken as my opinion nor endorsed by me. 2. Questions are answered on best efforts based on my knowledge and jurisdiction.
🔴 NOT LEGAL ADVICE
Intro Music: WNAQ9M6UJF
Outro Music: 7RELUAQ9VY
As a retired Judicial Assistant from San Bernardino County CA I find the entire matter from writing a book at all much less before the appeals process has finished to ANY conversations outside of what do want for lunch to be HIGHLY inappropriate and definitely a cause for a hearing to question all the jurors and Miss Becky. This is NOT how any Court staff should behave. Absolutely mind blowing!!
She definitely needs to be questioned.
it pains me to say this, but I do agree with you. If there was any improper communication between the clerk and jurors, a new trial should be called.
Agreed
Exactly. I hate to see it come to that, but I can't see how it can be avoided if any of this stuff is true.
Absolutely! And if this is found to be true, serious consequences should be had.
@@wesner326exactly, and that not only effects this case, they will have to look into a lot of cases, that clerk was involved with.
There's not going to be a new trial. It's a big desperate attempt by Poot Nanny and Bif Grif in the good ol boys club..
As a former prosecutor, I agree with Peter. There must be an evidentiary hearing.
💯
@@Planet_Shel , and Becky Hill's book keeps pushing the strange ideas that people die when the batteries on their cell phones do and that a man would kill his wife and younger son to gain A LITTLE MORE SYMPATHY than he was already getting from the impending death of his own father.
I am tired of repeating this but am in the middle of reading Becky Hill's book and discovering more lies in it and shocking facts in it.
Mark Tinsley contributed a thousand dollars to Mushelle Smith's Go-Fund-Me page DURING HER TESTIMONY. If that is not brazen bribing of a witness, what is?
Mark Tinsley coveted Moselle in violation of the Holy Commandment "thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house" and testified he threatened Alex Murdaugh to "burn [his] house down."
That the system STILL protects Becky Hill and Mark Tinsley is corruption incarnate.
Hi former prosecutor. Tell us more!
@@ward26102, Someone suggested Jean Toal instead of Judge Newman to hold the evidentiary hearing.
The former Active/Retired South Carolina Chief Justice, for all her good qualities, is the one who fostered and nurtured the NEPOTISM, NEPOTISM, AND THEN MORE NEPOTISM culture of judging in South Carolina.
She may have inherited it from her predecessors; but she did NOTHING to end it.
HERE IS A BETTER IDEA: bring the three living and mentally competent RETIRED U.S. Supreme Court Justices: Kennedy, Souter, and Bryer; and ask them to sit in a panel of three.
Sandra Day O'Connor is still alive but she suffers from that which hit her mother and from which the late Justice Ginsburg had been spared.
In many countries, trial judges sit in panels of three. These are the countries without jury systems. But since this is a fact-intensive finding, it would be appropriate to have a panel of three jurists.
Retired Justice Breyer was appointed by Bill Clinton and is Jewish. Retired Justice Souter was appointed by GHW Bush (father) and is Episcopalian. Retired Justice Kennedy was appointed by Ronald Reagan and is Catholic.
Of the three, only Souter served as a state trial judge in New Hampshire and liked to speak to jurors after trials. But Breyer was once himself summoned for jury duty and showed up. He was, of course, not chosen by either side because each side feared the rest of the jurors will follow what a then-sitting U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice thinks. So, this may be the next best thing to the jury service Breyer never got to accomplish if that is on his bucket list.
Once confirmed by the U.S. Senate, a U.S. Supreme Court Justice is confirmed for life and may, after retirement from the U.S. Supreme Court, sit (and at least Souter and O'Connor sat) on the federal circuit courts of appeals. But there is no chance of Richard Alex Murdaugh's ("RAM") case ever going to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, where Souter sometimes sat after retiring from the U.S. Supreme Court. In my opinion free from false humility, this is the only way this fractured country will ever have any confidence in any FACT-FINDING involving RAM.
The only problem with this idea is whether three advanced octogenarians can be convinced to come to South Carolina, whether Colloton County or Columbia; but may be the lure of some sunny days to escape the fall/winter drear of Boston and New Hampshire may do the trick.
No joke. Really.
@@ward26102, no one in South Carolina would tell this story in its full breadth.
It can be a big scoop for you AFTER you fact-check, which should be easy enough if you have Becky Hill's book "Behind the Doors of Justice." It turns out not only Becky Hill and the jurors of the Alex Murdaugh case wanted "their 15 minutes" but they put their children, too, with them.
In Becky "Boo" Hill's book page 191, you see a photo of Boo's daughter with this caption:
Country music star, Dustin Lynch, and my "plus one" (daughter Aubrey) spent time together in NBC's The Today Show green room.
TRANSLATION: At least Becky Hill AND HER DAUGHTER flew expense-free to New York with at least three jurors who voted guilty, each of which PRESUMABLY has a "plus one," too.
So, at least 8 people had a luxury junket to New York paid for with the blood and tears of Paul, Maggie, and Alex Murdaugh.
It gets even worse:
At pages 59-60 of her book, Becky Hill writes:
What I learned on our flight to New York City after the trial was that three close friends of his [meaning of a male juror who voted guilty] all chipped in and paid the financially strapped juror his regular salary. For all six weeks of the trial! Several thousand dollars.
TRANSLATION: Thousands of dollars were being paid DIRECTLY from an outside source to a juror who voted guilty to enable him to stay on the jury.
WHO ARE THOSE THREE CLOSE FRIENDS? Why was it important for them that THIS juror serve on the jury? Was that even their own money or were they funnelling it from an outside source?
That is way, way, worse than anything Becky Hill admits to about her own misconduct.
I work for an plaintiffs attorney and have been involved in many trials. I don’t care who the defendant is, this is problematic for a few reasons.
Agreed. The DH and JG need to be punished for dragging this poor clerk though the MUD with little to no evidence. It's all smoke.
Puuurlease excuse my grammar OCD lol, but the word "an" (plaintiff) should only precede words beginning with A, E, I, O, U. ❤😂
@Denny yes, his defense team is completely desperate. But the fact that jurors who voted guilty reached out to his defense lawyers?? Thats not a common thing at all. Attorneys also would not come forward without any proof. Especially with their level of experience, it would destroy their careers if it was found to be fabricated. My personal opinion is that she saw an opportunity to become famous and jumped on it.
@@vinceishere8058 I'm confused. Dick has been doing that the this whole trial? Where did you get the information a juror reached out to them? It's my understanding, not even ONE juror who deliberated and convicted Alex, has corroborated their story??
Did you read the State's response? THEY destroyed them.
Meanwhile, 9 of the jurors who DELIBERATED have given the state Statement in support of the Clerk... Just because DH says it, doesn't mean it's TRUE.. Yikes..
DH included an affidavit from an attorney on his team LOLL.. I mean c'mon, HEARSAY YA THINK?
Have you thought for a second that the "Mastermind" behind the Murders came up with this bullshit scheme to "change" the public perception so they can keep him out of State Prison?
I was once a former Chief Deputy Clerk in Dallas during many jury trials. Not once did I or anyone engage in conversations with jurors. Any questions would have been passed on to the presiding Judge. Our opinions would never have been discussed with any jurors. If this clerk offered up any opinions with any jurors, that is very wrong and prejudicial. FROM TEXAS
She's an idiot. She has already said that she planned to write a book before the trial even started.
Yee haw, we appreciate your service and rationality - from a fellow Dallasite👏🏼
Just want to say hello, fellow Texan here. Born and raised in Arlington.
And, as my Mother-Law- used to say, You don't mess with Texas.
Wait, you never had conversations with the jurors? if the jurors asked about lunch breaks, did you pass the question on to the judge? Isn't that kind of thing the Clerk's job?
One thing that sticks in my mind is that we have this clerk in her own writing attempting to use her office to receive advertising for her book as a condition of use of the courthouse. That's an extremely clear and pretty much quintessential case of government corruption. And while it doesn't directly speak to what she said to the jury, it at the very least shows a profound lack of judgement that calls her actions into question.
She quite thoroughly investigated with all of her superiors if what she was doing was okay re: the book.
@auto_mata
This! 👆 I ran out of room on my comment, but this too erodes public trust in our justice system. Thanks for bringing it to the conversation.
@@Ieezecafun fact, they didn’t say she’s in the clear
@@Ieezeca If you read the inquiry she submitted (several RUclips channels have covered it), it's clear she was less than forthcoming about her intentions for the book she wrote. I don't think you can call what she did a "thorough investigation." While it remains to be seen whether this lady is guilty of jury tampering, I agree with @auto_mata that her integrity and judgment are questionable at best.
I always thought it was sus that she released a book and especially so soon after the trial.
The prosecution is fighting too hard for Becky Hill and the jurors to NOT be interviewed. I find that very suspicious. Hill was also pretty clear in her book. I think the entire situation is suspect.
The United States should be very careful about putting the Jury on Trial after the Verdict. This is troubling because now we have Jurors needing to obtain Attorneys. This will impact future Jurors and their witnesses to be involved in High Profile Cases and Violent Crime Cases.
So true.
@@5paces164
They need an evidentiary hearing
She definitely should have known better. Unbelievable just like this whole case has been.
I don't think Becky would tell the truth in the first place
They should focus on things that can be verified. Like the Facebook post and egg lady’s tenants. That’s not he said, she said.
I honestly believe Becky Hill crossed the line and interfered where she’s absolutely not supposed to. The book she wrote was nothing more than a obnoxious brag fast of who she met and trying to explain how important she is what a big deal she is, and it was such a horrible book that there’s no way it was worth writing and causing all these problems in addition to others.
The book was taking it to an yet untouched level of irresponsibility by a court clerk! An absolutley wild action to take, much less while the trial is still ongoing with appeals... 🤯
I agree, and didn't the judge have a concern that she was "mixed up" in that business where the one juror was dismissed because her ex husband said something on line...and it came out to NOT even be her ex husband? But Becky had her nose all up in it. Seems sketchy to me now, thinking, "Did Becky deceitfully get that juror removed for some reason?"
So agree, hope she gets removed from office at least.
Awesome! Bam!!
I feel all jurors should be asked if anything beyond the presented evidence influenced their verdict. If the answer is yes then there has to be a retrial. If no, then there should be no retrial. It is the tax payers hard earned money and resources should not be wasted . Appropriate action should be taken against Miss Becky. That’s justice - the law may differ.
The fact AG doesn’t want her “interrogated “ is suspicious to me
That is sus, wonder why?
@@BamaCyncuz she’s gona get pressed on her actions and what she said. She shld be questioned there’s too much to ignore.
@@imalwaysright88 That should have been AM, phone changed to AG🫠
No doubt it's similar / reflective of why SLED didn't want their casework re-investigated...
It was not “her” it was the jurors should not be “interrogated”. And I agree they should not be intimidated by attorneys from either side. Trust the judge to question them. He is an honorable man.
I’m sick over this!!! I HATE to say this but this should grant AM a new trial. 🤢🤬😥
I agree 100%. If the clerk was inappropriate regarding her interactions with the jury, there needs to be a new trial.
No, there needs to be an Evidentiary hearing. Then if any impropriety, a new trial, qhich is a shame as Alex is clearly guilty, new trial will cost taxpayers, and it won't bring back Maghie and Paul.
@@melvonmonkers3823 No, it won't bring Maggie or Paul back and yes, unfortunately it will cost the taxpayers money, BUT it is something that MUST be done not just for Alex, but for everyone who has the right to a fair trial.
I know it's hard to accept that a guilty man may get a new trial, but we can't simply let it go because we don't want to take the chance of a different result.
If we don't give him a fair trial than we take away our own chances of a free trial. It has to be the same for everyone to protect everyone.
At the end of the day this should be investigated further. I hate this and if I was a juror I would be very upset to be questioned about how I handled myself and especially if I took all the Misty to heart. This long trial was no picnic for them and to have it be a waste of my time and energy would really anger me. Especially, if a person representing the court was involved in anyway. Sadly this makes me feel like I would never want to serve on any jury.
The Prosecution's response is FULL of black holes and EVERYTHING about it is misleading.
The first black hole is that ONE of the TWELVE who actually deliberated REFUSED to be voluntarily interviewed by SLED. If that juror WAS influenced by Becky Hill, it does NOT matter in any way how many others were not influenced.
The misleading part is that Becky Hill's denials are limited and in quotes which is TECHNICALLY not perjury if one word in the quotes is different. For example, if she said "don't believe him" but she denies saying "don't credit him," it is misleading but TECHNICALLY not perjury.
Therefore, it should be full confrontation, not limited to pre-restricted questions.
Another "cutie" by Becky Hill is that she denies giving the jurors business cards of media people "during the trial." If she gave them those business cards BEFORE or AFTER the trial, then her affidavit is misleading but NOT TECHNICALLY perjury.
There is nothing funny or amusing about a man innocent of two murders getting convicted because four people, AT THE VERY LEAST, wanted and got a free luxury trip to New York. People have killed for less than that.
But this whole trial was for more than that: to extort Alex and Buster Murdaugh into settling the boat crash case.
This is our world now.
Face it.
I'm not sure if there'll be a new trial or not. But I think, regardless, Ms. Becky can't stay in her current position. Even if they decided against a retrial, the mere allegations are such that if I were a defense attorney, I'd be wary of her poisoning the jury against my client. If I were the prosecution, I'd worry about her mere presence giving cause for appeal if not a mistrial.
And she went and wrote a book. Oy.
Question: Wasn't all this revealed in HER BOOK? I absolutely feel, like I did weeks ago, that he should get a re-trial. Where am I wrong here?
What happened to innocent until proven guilty? These scummy, bottom feeders make an accusation as a hail mary to end run our legal system (after harassing jurors for finding their client guilty, which also should absolutely should never happen) and you want to fire her? These attorneys are a disgrace and continue to get down in the mud with this thief and murderer, a complete and utter disrespect to Maggie and Paul.
Her writing a book was in bad taste and just cringe. Its Like she has been waiting for a cash-grab case. Now she’s doing interviews and making money off these people’s deaths. I mean she didn’t even wait a year. It sets a bad precedent.
Agreed- her book likely wasn't illegal but definitely done in horrible taste & horrible timing! It was a gross ego fest!
i agree with you Peter. there’s reasons for standards and procedures
I subscribed during the murdaugh trial when I heard how crazy it was. It's nuts that it's still going!
Housework done, dinner in the oven, now to relax and be armchair laywer..lol
That Facebook post thing Ms. Becky pulled is just insane
And we know is near the truth because even the judge said on record that he was “unhappy with the clerk interrogating jurors”
I agree and believe she didn’t recently become this bold… she just got caught this time!
@@theghost4282 The Prosecution's response is FULL of black holes and EVERYTHING about it is misleading.
The first black hole is that ONE of the TWELVE who actually deliberated REFUSED to be voluntarily interviewed by SLED. If that juror WAS influenced by Becky Hill, it does NOT matter in any way how many others were not influenced.
The misleading part is that Becky Hill's denials are limited and in quotes which is TECHNICALLY not perjury if one word in the quotes is different. For example, if she said "don't believe him" but she denies saying "don't credit him," it is misleading but TECHNICALLY not perjury.
Therefore, it should be full confrontation, not limited to pre-restricted questions.
Another "cutie" by Becky Hill is that she denies giving the jurors business cards of media people "during the trial." If she gave them those business cards BEFORE or AFTER the trial, then her affidavit is misleading but NOT TECHNICALLY perjury.
There is nothing funny or amusing about a man innocent of two murders getting convicted because four people, AT THE VERY LEAST, wanted and got a free luxury trip to New York. People have killed for less than that.
But this whole trial was for more than that: to extort Alex and Buster Murdaugh into settling the boat crash case.
This is our world now.
Face it.
The alleged Facebook post situation had ZERO to do with why Juror 785 (egg juror) was dismissed. This was stated by Judge Newman, ON THE RECORD in open court. She was dismissed for discussing the case, giving her opinion, outside of court with 2 of her tenants.
@@melvonmonkers3823 doesn’t matter. If there were ANY conversations that Becky had with jurors about the case, it’s misconduct. A judge stating on record her apparent speaking with jurors to get her kicked off lend undoubted support to the other Murdaugh claims. New trial 100%
I agree with you Peter. There should be a hearing, persons involved should be questioned, and if the evidence shows inappropriate communication, there should be a new trial.
Another RUclipsr (non lawyer) reviewed this document yesterday but omitted the chart with 3 columns you read! Thanks for covering the WHOLE document.
Peter, I completely agree with you. We have to preserve the legal process.
I agree with you Peter. Each person at this trial, employees or jurors should be interviewed 'interrogated '. Thanks for sharing this.
Hi Sheila 🌹🌹
How are you doing?
Great job as always. Someone is lying . I also agree with you. A new trial is warranted if there is evidence of tampering from the clerk.
Exactly. The fact that there are conflicting stories about Becky Hill’s behavior, should be enough for a hearing to investigate. If the jurors said she was disappointed when they didn’t do news interviews? Why is she so personally invested in this case?
@@MarieAntoinetteandherlittlesis The Prosecution's response is FULL of black holes and EVERYTHING about it is misleading.
The first black hole is that ONE of the TWELVE who actually deliberated REFUSED to be voluntarily interviewed by SLED. If that juror WAS influenced by Becky Hill, it does NOT matter in any way how many others were not influenced.
The misleading part is that Becky Hill's denials are limited and in quotes which is TECHNICALLY not perjury if one word in the quotes is different. For example, if she said "don't believe him" but she denies saying "don't credit him," it is misleading but TECHNICALLY not perjury.
Therefore, it should be full confrontation, not limited to pre-restricted questions.
Another "cutie" by Becky Hill is that she denies giving the jurors business cards of media people "during the trial." If she gave them those business cards BEFORE or AFTER the trial, then her affidavit is misleading but NOT TECHNICALLY perjury.
There is nothing funny or amusing about a man innocent of two murders getting convicted because four people, AT THE VERY LEAST, wanted and got a free luxury trip to New York. People have killed for less than that.
But this whole trial was for more than that: to extort Alex and Buster Murdaugh into settling the boat crash case.
This is our world now.
Face it.
I agree. The clerk's behavior was outrageous, illegal, and disgusting. There needs to be an evidentiary hearing and she needs to be brought up on charges
As a 30 year law enforcement officer, I have to agree with you. Even the slightest remark by the clerk or a bailiff could affect a juror's decision either way and the juror may not even realize it. I will go as far to say I don't believe any court personnel should have discussions with jurors at all because jurors are on high alert looking for body language or even the slightest remarks that are made, even if they are made unintentionally. Obviously, there has to be discussions about logistics, but other than that, no discussions at all, not even, "How is your family." As a law enforcement officer, I could manipulate a juror by having discussions with jurors and butter them up making them think I am honest, a good person, hard worker, ethical, and brilliant. This may lead only one juror to think if law enforcement thinks the defendant is guilty after a thorough investigation, then they must be guilty.
As a potential juror and on the LYK rewatch crew I have learned a lot from you and your father on this channel. Having said that I wasn’t convinced AM was guilty. The testimonies and evidence did not convince me. So, I agree with you Peter. There is enough here to question the potential misconduct of Miss B.
You always summarize what I am interested in. Thank you for that Peter.
100% agree with everything you said Peter. I Always appreciate your perspective and willingness to look at both sides of an issue. I may have missed it but again, can you please explain why the jurors were put in two different rooms even just on break or whenever they were in two different rooms.
She spoke to a juror about her ex husband. The Judge was not happy and commented. THAT should be enough for a new trial.
Thanks Peter!!! She was up to something and them calling the jurors uncrediable is disheartening from the prosecution (Attorney General)
This isn't from the prosecution, its BH & her lawyer-the fluffy white haired man seated prominently during the trial.
@@Ieezecaahh okay! I thought he said in the beginning it was from the prosecution with her signed statement attached.
@@IeezecaBH called the jurors uncredible? If that’s true, they can’t be trusted to render a verdict, can they? That comment will Vite her in the ass
@@Gidget_Lynn It is the response to the defense's request from the prosecution, you're correct.
Yes, Becky Hill completed her affidavit with the assistance of her counsel, but it is attached to th response from the prosecution.
At this point we need to have an evidentiary hearing. I have my feelings, but the only way to something close to the truth is a hearing where all of the jurors are questioned, not interrogated, as well as Becky, deputies, and the judge.
The Prosecution's response is FULL of black holes and EVERYTHING about it is misleading.
The first black hole is that ONE of the TWELVE who actually deliberated REFUSED to be voluntarily interviewed by SLED. If that juror WAS influenced by Becky Hill, it does NOT matter in any way how many others were not influenced.
The misleading part is that Becky Hill's denials are limited and in quotes which is TECHNICALLY not perjury if one word in the quotes is different. For example, if she said "don't believe him" but she denies saying "don't credit him," it is misleading but TECHNICALLY not perjury.
Therefore, it should be full confrontation, not limited to pre-restricted questions.
Another "cutie" by Becky Hill is that she denies giving the jurors business cards of media people "during the trial." If she gave them those business cards BEFORE or AFTER the trial, then her affidavit is misleading but NOT TECHNICALLY perjury.
There is nothing funny or amusing about a man innocent of two murders getting convicted because four people, AT THE VERY LEAST, wanted and got a free luxury trip to New York. People have killed for less than that.
But this whole trial was for more than that: to extort Alex and Buster Murdaugh into settling the boat crash case.
This is our world now.
Face it.
@@marieassaad-faltas1299 he got convicted because of the evidence.. mainly because of him lying about being at the kennel but then Paul's video surfaced later. . he was was done ..
@@frisbeeshawn5356, for the nth time, Paul's video has NO importance because the Prosecution's supposed time of death is incorrect.
Please read my detailed previous posts about that.
@@marieassaad-faltas1299
While I'm not convinced of Alex innocence, I do question the time of death and the timeline after, both of which should result in doubts for any reasonable person.
The prosecution is using body temperature obtained by placing fingers under the armpits of the deceased and the last time the deceased used their cell phones to set the time of death.
There is no need to explain why the method used to obtain body temperature is neither scientific or accurate, it just isn't. It isn't even the standard method of practice, a thermometer is the standard. Why wasn't one used?
As far as the cell phones, I question this because according to Apples testimony, Paul's phone had 2% battery life immediately after he made the Cash the dog kennel video.
As a decades long iPhone user, I know that when my iPhone has 2% battery life, there is no point in attempting to do anything with the phone.
At 2%, a phone call will not connect and a text message MAY send, but the phone will shut down immediately after, and a video? No video will send at 2% and that's precisely why Rogan didn't receive it. Isn't it just as possible Paul was alive, but simply not using his phone?
As far as Maggie, same thing. Isn't it possible she just wasn't using her phone? She was at the kennels to tend to the dogs, not to be on her phone. Based upon her clothing, it's likely her phone wasn't on her person, but rather sitting somewhere while she was working.
The "last" time they used their phones simply doesn't seem as relevant as the prosecution wants it to be, particularly when you think about Paul's battery.
If I were on the jury during deliberations, I would have insisted upon working out the time of death and timeline to make sure it make sense before committing to a guilty verdict.
The way in which the timeline stands, the prosecution wants us to believe that Alex committed two murders, cleaned up himself and the area, hid the weapons and his clothing, went back to the house and spent time there, made phone calls, left to go to his parents, and got rid of Maggie's phone, all in 16 minutes. I have a hard time with this.
If the time of death is not accurate, then that gives Alex even less time to have completed all of those tasks, including the actual murders.
Peter, can you PLEASE cover & dive into everything that’s going on with the Delphi case & how the judge is blatantly violating Allen’s rights & refusing to follow proper & lawful procedures/due process. It’s like she’s gone rogue, lost all objectivity & seems to be acting very sketchy by wanting to keep things secret. It’s unbelievable what is going on & that a judge is behaving this way. It’s so scary & wild that anyone is being subjected to such treatment in our justice system! Especially when a person is supposed to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. I’ve been dying to hear your opinion on this!
Ditto
For this reason I think all court hearings should be videoed live for the world to see so Judges like in the Delphi case can be seen and heard. There is a lot of this unfairness in court rooms and no one sees it.
I am certainly not a fan, but everyone deserves a fair trial.
IT was a fair trial😊
I think there should be a hearing, I also agree that specific words were used very carefully. Becky Hill did not state “ at no time did I say, “Watch his body language “. This trial and the legal system will be tainted by this, a proper hearing needs to be done and the jurors asked specifically about the actions in question. Love your content, found your channel during Depp/ Heard.
It’s been forever since I’ve caught up on the Murdaugh mess. Maya has taken up all my time so I’m excited for this rundown!
It seems to me that the jurors were responding in their affidavits to close-ended questions that constrain or limit the type of answers that could be given. I agree that an evidentiary hearing is necessary. Thank you for reading more of the state filing than others on RUclips.
This was so interesting and informative. I was on a grand jury two weeks and two short one day trials. Thanks for spending all the time on it. Yes, there needs to be a hearing.
I wasted 38 minutes waiting for Becky to respond?
@@dandydon6049 I hope you don't get this the wrong way because a lot of people don't extend a friendly 🥰🥰🥰 hand to strangers. Forgive 🙏🙏 me if I just invaded your privacy. But I hope you understand that I'm just trying to be a friend☘️🌺communication and friendship 🙏. Thanks💕
I 100% agree with you and I’m so disappointed to hear this. Thank you for this video!
Becky sounds like she was looking to use this trial as an opportunity for personal gain.
That’s one way to look at it. The other way is to think that she was trying to manage a huge trial in their small town and make everything flow smoothly, as her job required. Her mistake was to underestimate the slickness of Team Murdaugh
I would feel more suspicious about Ms. Hill IF the jurors had stated in their handwritten pages that "Ms. Hill said to watch his body language" but they didn't say exactly who made that statement. I do remember C. Waters saying that in closing arguments. Regarding the Facebook post the Deputy Clerk found, is it protocol for her to pass it up to the judge via the Court Clerk or could she have handed it to him personally? I would assume there is some sort of chain of command that has to be followed.
The while purpose of the affidavits was about her and her actions, why would they be talking about closing arguments? And as for the Facebook thing, am I wrong or did she just make that up? Wasn't there no such post ever?
As a former English teacher, I immediately noticed the 2 jurors who wrote in cursive! Probably shows their age. And I could read every word of the cursive writing you said was too messy to read. I have years of experience with sloppy handwriting. 😂
As the daughter of 2 English teachers with sloppy cursive, I could read it, too. 😂 Seems Peter missed the juiciest part about the egg lady knowing ahead of time they were going to the crime scene (her husband told her). Seems that was one of the reasons she was dismissed? And perhaps something about talking to tenants. I agree there should be a hearing, to dispel the rumors, but am not convinced there was any tampering. I do believe B.H. showed poor professional judgement with the book and questioning the juror (judge's job, not hers).
People have a difficult time reading my handwriting because it is a mixture of cursive and print. 🤷🏼♀️
I have add and we have notoriously bad handwriting. It goes with the territory. High IQ, terrible people skills and even worse handwriting…
Totally agree with you…at a minimum there needs to be an evidentiary hearing. I am confused as to why the court would have SLED investigate/interrogate the jurors and court staff. The court had to realize the mere appearance of SLED there investigating/interrogating jurors and court staff would be anxiety producing at the very minimum but more importantly, for the jurors (who are not lawyers, nuanced in which if any of the alleged behaviors by Miss Becky rose to the level of being criminal) or if by them engaging with her might lead the jurors that did so being charged with some crime. Therefore, it isn’t out of the question the jurors may have chose to withhold any improprieties to protect themselves when being interrogated by SLED (just because SLED is a very well known State Law Enforcement Branch here in SC). Lastly, the Murdaugh trials created a circus in the small county of Colleton, as well as the several neighboring jurisdictions due to the vast national media coverage and their need for accommodations (i,e, hotel, food etc) and there just was not enough of those accommodations in Colleton county alone. From what I could tell from family in the area; most locals just wanted him found guilty and it all to be over as soon as possible. Just my opinion…I could be wrong!!! Love your channel; thanks for all you do. I do not know how you have time to be a successful lawyer, follow all the cases you cover, prepare you videos and have any down time!!
Of course there has to be a new trial. There’s standards for a reason. You might hate him but what if it was you or one of your loved ones the state set their sights on?
i agree Peter! She knew. I bet she has done this in every trial that she has been in.
If she is found to have tried to influence the jury, you’d have to go back and look at the other cases she oversaw. A very time consuming and expensive endeavour
That's what I believe she has don't. Shes an opinionated middle-aged brat. She would clearly do this in my opinion
@@sallyannchappell5671only if those jurors spoke up.
She's got a great track record of her many past trials .. . She goes by the book. .
Thanks for covering these cases - always interesting. There's enough reported from the jurors that doesn't jibe with Ms. Hill's recollection which, in my humble opinion, supports looking into the matter further.
I agree with you Peter 100%! What the jurors said she said to them is far more than enough grounds for an evidentiary hearing. This entire thing needs to be handled properly to keep the integrity of the court in tack. I know people don't wanna hear it, but really, a new trial needs to happen.
When I was on a jury (ohio) we really didn't say anything to the clerk of courts. When we needed to get something across it happened in writing. For example we were given paper with our lunch options and we were told to pick one (sandwhiches and what type, turkey veggie etc) then we were to leave the paper in the jury room filled out. When we were in court the paper was collected and for lunch break we came back to the jury room with our lunches waiting (they had our juror number on them).
The only time the clerk said anything was hello/good morning or bye remember to be here at x time tomorrow.
There needs to be a new trial
This stuff is what always makes me skeptical- it was a horrible crime but I still felt unsure about who did what exactly. She undermines trust in the rigor of justice. It’s important that this is taken seriously.
Hi Dawn🌹🌹
How are you doing?
I agree Peter. Judge Carroll in the Hopkins Trial has been EXTREMELY cautious w his staff in the Jurors. To the point a Sheriff goes w anyone when going to the Jurors. 😊 Also that whole Court was extremely loose in how lawyers n Judge handled themselves unlike trials in other areas of the country.
Hi Mary 🌹🌹
How are you doing?
Thank you Peter for struggling through reading these. An evidentiary hearing is definitely needed. One of the reasons is that the juror statements are vague, apparently difficult to read, and sometimes beg more questions than they answer. New trial? That depends on the hearing, but I'm beginning to lean toward the idea because unless multiple jurors are misremembering, exaggerating, or making things up, inappropriate behavior appears to have occurred.
What hurts Becky is now we all know how she was leaning (AM is guilty) during the trial, due to admissions in her book. She herself was convinced of his guilt before the trial was over. That alone is a problem. She should have kept her thoughts to herself and done her job. Free speech is fine, but in the right place and time.
I hope the entire American court system has learned a lesson from this... Ethics Committees or Commissions - PAY ATTENTION! Do not allow court employees to write tell-all books like this. Becky was given vague guidance, the ethics committee allowed her to make her own decision, and did not review the manuscript prior to publication to see if it contained what she said it would. That's regrettable because the book was different in nature of content than what she told them it was going to be (trial proceedings and how that works). They did not do their mission. Fail.
Missed this livestream but loving the rewatch. Thank you Peter.
Who could ever hate you, Peter? I'm with you 100%. This woman truly crossed the line and should have known better!
Hi pretty 🌹🌹
How are you doing?
I agree with you, Peter. I would not want this behavior if it were me on trial.
Beckie just wanted to be in the spotlight and even this juror might be able to sense that
There needs to be an evidentiary hearing, too much questionable at this point.
I’m not a huge fan of Alec but I am a huge fan of propriety and knowing your job. I agree with you, the judge needs to figure this out. What happened? How far did it go? At this point it sounds as though the jurors have walked back their initial statements. Either way, what is the truth? I didn’t have a very good impression of Becky Hill from the beginning. Way to focused on making a book deal.
I agree with you Peter. This should be looked into.
I agree that a evidentiary hearing needs to happen. I also feel that the judge should be removed to prevent any bias.
Great job Peter, have enjoyed your overviews
Yes , there must be an evidentiary hearing
Absolutely, I agree with you, Peter.👍
As a UK resident, who has been a juror in a major complex trial at a crown court, I find it astounding that in the USA, jurors are allowed to talk at all about the case. In the UK, this is strictly forbidden, and court officials as well. It also makes it complicated for the jurors who do not want publicity, as they are tied up with it. In addition, it could taint any new trial or trials for other issues with this defendant. I also found it astounding that Netflix could broadcast a documentary at the same time. In the UK, once charges have been made, it is not allowed to discuss the trial or any evidence, as this can damage the case. To me, this is by far the fairest approach.
At the press conference right after the conviction the prosecution publicly thanked Becky, shortly after that she goes ahead and published a book, too much in this case simply doesn’t pass the sniff test
I agree. If there was inappropriate communications, there needs to be a new trial. Rather or not their verdict would change does not matter.
Had to watch the Take care of maya on 2x to make this live on time - listening to Peter on 2x and his videos on 1.5x is “wild” as Peter would say 👏👏👏
@@DGuidiciI meant premier 👍👍
He’s guilty, but deserves a new trial! 🇨🇦
All your hard work is seen and appreciated Peter 💙⛳️ as always thank you for your insight
27:56 Made me laugh out loud, trying to read text on that badly formatted scan 😂
I agree with you, and it infuriates me, because she knows better! If there is need for a new trial...the time and $ wasted for SO many is impossible to calculate.
Thank you for explaining so well.
I agree with everything you said. If ANY communication (outside of normal duties) took place, a new trial must be granted. If it was me as the defendant, I would want a new trial, and would expect one. Our justice system should be beyond reproach when deciding peoples lives and if the allegations are true, this requires a new trial IMO.
Great job Peter, as always!
I completely agree with you!!
New subscriber. My wife has been watchin you for a while. I just watched this video. I agree that Murdaugh is not a good person, but we have a judicial system with strict guidelines for a reason. The evidence looks like new trial should be ordered. Thank you for breaking this down for us non-law professionals can understand. Please keep up the good work.
Thank you for all the content.
Another well reasoned analysis.
Judge said all the time--do not discuss the case with each other or outside the court.
She was also close to the judge. They could have thought she wasn’t included.
"We don't want the jurors interrogated"....a few moments later...."none of the jurors interviewed by SLED...". They don't want lawyers to ask them questions after they literally send the police to question them. Makes sense.
Morning from Melbourne, Australia. Very interested to hear what she says. I just think Alec and everyone around him are slimy snakes.
This is the second jab at a mistrial, Miss Hill at best opened herself up to this accusation. She gets a day in court. Those poor jurors were hiding in their own homes from HarP & his minions.
Def needs a hearing 100%
I agree it needs to be a new trial if that’s what happened!
They need a hearing because even if 1 juror was talked to as claimed then there needs to be a new trial
Had she not been so ambitious, this scrutiny would not have come about. Her judgement has proved to derail the confidence we require in our judicial system.
Hi April 🌹🌹
How are you doing?
I must have just missed the live… well I am watching it now. Very interesting.. glad you said that anything she left out wasn’t an admission.
You made several comments that the clerk only denied the specific statements she is claimed to have made. BUT at the beginning of her declaration, she included a declaration that there were other things she "did not do", but she is only responding to exactly what has been presented. .....
I like how there is 124 like and Pete hasn't even started 🎉❤
I agree her telling a juror to watch his body language... grounds for a mistrial
I agree with you, Peter, if the allegations turn out to be true, Alex Murdaugh should get a new trial. I had a bad feeling when Judge Newman, while speaking with the 'egg juror,' said he was uncomfortable with the level of communication between a juror and the court clerk. In my view, the judge has admitted in open court that there was more communication between Ms.Becky and the jury. I know it sucks because it's a huge expense for tax payers but Murdaugh will pay his share of another trial, Ms. Becky is the one wasting tax payer money and time.
I think there should be more focus on this and egg juror’s claims because there’s a record for it. Everything else is he said, she said and how do you decide who is lying?
Hey Peter, unrelated question, kinda. I was just a juror 2 weeks ago in the state of Missouri. It was a "he said, she said" r#p# case. We had no evidence and after 4 hours of deliberation, we were called to the jury box and a mistrial was called and we were dismissed. Outside a fellow juror told me it was a clerical error. How this case ever went to trial amazes me. Anyway, have you ever heard of such?
Hi Rhonda🌹🌹
How are you doing?
The jurors and clerk need to be questioned by defence attorneys at the minimum.
I think they need to be questioned by the judge. He's the impartial one.
@@CMA.3636 the defence attorneys are the adversarial ones - that is important.
Thank you for this update I’ve been anxiously awaiting!
Hi Dear🌹🌹
How are you doing?
The judge new it was happening it is a direct violation. The judge and becky both showed their bias after the case in the media, how in the world is this allowed?
The prosecution in their response put in a chart and as part of that chart three of the juries did say that they herd Becky Hill say: watch Alec Murdoch's body language. So now it's not just the jurors who spoke to the defense team but also 3 jurors that spoke to the prosecution for a total of 5 now. The prosecution's own document now gives credence to the defense's statements. We must keep in mind that Ms Hill is a clerk of the court. So that when she give a edict it has more weight.
I would be pissed as well. He deserves a new trial! At least an evidentiary hearing.
She jurist did not say that the clerk said “watch his body language”.
This makes me want to bang my head against the wall. I was so relieved with the guilty verdict and to know he might get a new trial because the clerk of court allegedly acted in ways she absolutely knew were not okay is disheartening and so frustrating. My husband is a prosecutor and I hate when people talk about the justice system being corrupt. Whether true or not, at this point, it just adds fuel to that fire. I really hope the families do not have to endure a new trial. 💔