The former South Carolina court official whose alleged misconduct helped unravel Alex Murdaughs murder conviction is now urging a federal judge to throw out the disgraced attorneys civil lawsuit against her.
In a motion filed Thursday in federal court, former Colleton County Clerk of Court Becky Hill asked that Murdaughs suit seeking $600,000 in damages be dismissed, arguing that the once-powerful Lowcountry lawyer has no legal basis to recoup the money he voluntarily spent on his 2023 double-murder defense, according to Fox News. Hills filing underscores a central theme: that Murdaughs attempt to turn his overturned conviction into a financial windfall is both legally unsupported and fundamentally at odds with how the justice system is supposed to work.
Hill is pressing the court to dismiss the case on several independent grounds, including multiple layers of immunity that traditionally shield public officials acting in their official capacities. She maintains that any conduct at issue occurred while she was performing her duties as clerk of court, a role that, under long-standing precedent, is afforded substantial protection from civil liability.
"Most critically, even if Plaintiff states a compensable claim, Defendant is nonetheless entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity, quasi-judicial immunity, and qualified immunity, all of which bars Plaintiffs suit," her lawyers wrote. Those doctrines, if accepted by the court, would effectively shut down Murdaughs effort to turn alleged trial irregularities into a personal damages claim against a government official.
The motion marks the latest legal confrontation between Hill and Murdaugh following the South Carolina Supreme Courts decision to vacate his murder convictions on the ground that Hills conduct undermined his constitutional right to a fair trial. While that ruling was a significant rebuke of Hills behavior, her new filing argues that the remedy for such a violation is a new trial, not a retroactive refund of defense costs from a public servant.
According to the lawsuit, Murdaugh alleges he withdrew $600,000 from his retirement account to fund his murder-trial defense and now wants Hill to reimburse him through a federal civil rights action. Hills attorneys counter that this theory stretches civil-rights law beyond recognition, insisting that Murdaugh would have incurred those legal expenses regardless of anything Hill allegedly said or did around the jury.
"Whether guilty or not, the Plaintiff would have most certainly incurred the exact same amount of attorney's fees he now seeks to recover," Hill's attorneys wrote. In other words, they argue, the decision to hire a high-powered defense team in a double-murder case was a consequence of the charges themselves, not of any later-found misconduct by a court official.
The filing repeatedly characterizes Murdaughs lawsuit as advancing a "novel theory" that has never been endorsed by courts within the Fourth Circuit. Hills lawyers stress that while Murdaugh succeeded in obtaining a new trial, that procedural victory does not automatically entitle him to claw back the costs of defending himself against serious criminal accusations.
According to the motion, Murdaugh has already received the full measure of relief the law provides when a conviction is tainted by constitutional error: the vacating of the verdict and the opportunity to be tried again before an untainted jury. Hills defense team argues that Murdaugh "got exactly what he asked for"a new trialand that he is now improperly attempting to convert that remedy into a cash payout.
The motion also attacks the causal link between Hills alleged conduct and the damages Murdaugh claims. Prosecutors and a grand jury, not Hill, brought the murder charges and compelled him to stand trial, the filing notes, meaning the massive legal bills he now cites would have existed regardless of any alleged comments to jurors.
Prosecutors and a grand jury, not Hill, brought the murder charges against Murdaugh and required him to stand trial, according to the filing. Her lawyers argue those legal expenses would have existed regardless of any comments allegedly made to jurors.
The filing further contends that Murdaugh lacks standing to pursue his claim because the damages he seeks are not fairly traceable to Hills actions. By that logic, his lawsuit fails at the threshold, before the court even reaches the question of immunity or the merits of his constitutional allegations.
Hills attorneys also invoke former South Carolina Chief Justice Jean Toals initial decision denying Murdaughs request for a new trial, arguing that it shows reasonable jurists could and did disagree over whether Hills behavior rose to the level of a constitutional violation. That disagreement, they suggest, underscores why Hill should not be personally exposed to damages for conduct that even a respected jurist initially found insufficient to overturn the verdict.
The motion arrives months after Hill herself pleaded guilty to obstruction, perjury and misconduct charges stemming from her handling of the nationally watched murder trial. She was sentenced to probation and later resigned as Colleton County clerk of court, a fall from grace that has been seized upon by Murdaughs team but that her lawyers insist does not transform her into a personal insurer of his legal strategy.
Murdaughs convictions for the murders of his wife, Maggie, and son, Paul, were overturned in May after the South Carolina Supreme Court concluded that Hill had engaged in a "breathtaking and disgraceful effort" to influence jurors. He remains incarcerated, however, due to separate state and federal convictions for a sprawling series of financial crimes that predate and extend beyond the murder case.
The latest filing lands as Murdaughs defense team continues to prepare for a potential retrial that will again test the states ability to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. In a new interview on "Crime & Justice with Donna Rotunno," defense attorney Dick Harpootlian said the team has a plan to confront the now-infamous kennel video that prosecutors used to place Murdaugh near the scene of the killings.
"We absolutely do, we absolutely do," Harpootlian said when asked whether the defense had a plan for dealing with the video. "Yes, and we understand that's an issue and it's got to be dealt with."
Harpootlian added that it remains uncertain whether Murdaugh will again take the stand if the case is retried, describing that decision as a "game-day decision." The veteran defense lawyer predicted that any second trial would be significantly shorter than the first and reiterated his view that prosecutors will struggle to meet the high burden of proof.
"We don't have to prove him innocent," Harpootlian said. "We have to show and argue that the state did not prove him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt."
A federal judge will now determine whether Murdaughs civil suit can move forward or whether Hills bid for dismissalgrounded in immunity doctrines and causation challengeswill prevail. A representative for Hill declined to elaborate, telling Fox News Digital, "We stand by the legal authority and arguments asserted in our pleadings filed with the Court today."
Harpootlian did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The outcome of this motion will not only shape Hills personal legal exposure but could also signal whether high-profile defendants like Murdaugh can leverage overturned convictions into lucrative civil claims against public officials, a prospect that many conservatives warn would chill public service and further weaponize the courts.
Login