(NewsNation) — An attorney for some of the jurors who took part in the murder trial of Alex Murdaugh is disputing claims from other jurors that a court clerk pressured them into returning a guilty verdict.
Murdaugh’s lawyers have appealed his convction and demanded a new trial, claiming Colleton County Clerk of Court Rebecca Hill told jurors to not be “misled” or “fooled” by Murdaugh’s testimony. The appeal filing claims Hill regularly talked to jurors, including the jury foreperson.
His defense attorneys, Jim Griffin and Dick Harpootlian, are relying on sworn affidavits from two jurors.
Attorney Eric Bland, who represents other jurors, disputed the claims Friday on “CUOMO.”
“I don’t believe anybody has said to date, even those jurors that gave affidavits, that they were coerced. I don’t think anybody said that their jury verdict was the product of coercion or duress,” Bland said. “I believe that my clients, when the time comes for them to be under oath, if they’re going to be under oath, I think they’re going to tell a different story than what was told (at) the microphone by Dick Harpootlian.”
In March, Murdaugh was convicted of the murders of his wife and son, Maggie and Paul Murdaugh. Alex Murdaugh was sentenced to life in prison for the crimes. He is currently awaiting trial on multiple counts of financial crimes, cases that were postponed until after the murder trial.
Harpootlian and Griffin held a news conference Tuesday outside the South Carolina Court of Appeals in Columbia to announcing the appeal and allegations. They’ve called on the U.S. attorney for the District of South Carolina to investigate the clerk and her alleged actions.
During jury deliberations, defense lawyers claim Hill urged jurors to come back with a quick verdict, indicating they would have to stay in a hotel overnight if they took too long, although none of the jurors were prepared for such a stay, and telling smokers they could not have any smoke breaks until deliberations ended.
“That’s a privilege. That’s not a right. Nobody has a right to a cigarette break during deliberation,” Bland said of that specific allegation. “It’s a common courtesy that some courts do. In New York, they don’t do it, in Philadelphia they don’t do it, but maybe once a day. You don’t have a right during deliberation to get a cigarette break, and Dick made a big issue of that.”
Murdaugh’s team claims Hill’s actions pressured the jury into returning a guilty verdict and deprived Murdaugh of his right to a fair trial and impartial jury. They have requested an evidentiary hearing to present their evidence to a judge and have asked for a new trial.
“If these jurors are to be believed, it is an impossible burden by the state, and we will get a new trial. We’re confident,” Griffin told NewsNation earlier this week.
The state attorney general’s office said it is reviewing the motion.
Bland rejected the notion that the two jurors who signed the affidavits could have been separated from the other 10 for an extended period of time that would have allowed Hill to approach them individually.
“There’s a number of things that Dick said that troubled me and I don’t think at this time that there is a situation where we have jurors that are in agreement. We have jurors that are in disagreement,” Bland said. “I do agree it needs to be looked into, but what do we do if 10 jurors say it didn’t happen and two say it did? I don’t think that’s enough to overturn it.”
However, he welcomed an investigation into the matter in the interest of transparency and maintaining judicial standards.
“I don’t want to have a system where jurors make a decision, then are individually polled and say that they have given a true and just verdict, and then three months later they start to say, ‘Well maybe I have second thoughts’ or something happens and then all the sudden, they flip,” Bland said. “We can’t have a system like that.”
NewsNation digital producer Stephanie Whiteside contributed to this report.