I'm Chanley Painter and this is the Fox True Crime podcast.

For over three years, the Murdoch murders have captivated the country.

A powerful South Carolina legal dynasty was brought to its knees after Alec Murdoch's wife and son,

Maggie and Paul Murdoch, were found gunned down at the family's hunting estate.

Alec Murdoch was convicted and sentenced to life in prison, but now South Carolina's Supreme Court

has overturned his double murder conviction and ordered a new trial.

The court ruling that former court clerk Rebecca Hill improperly influenced jurors during the trial,

stating that every defendant is entitled to an impartial jury unaffected by external forces.

Prosecutors still insist Murdoch killed his wife and son, and vow they will

retry him as soon as possible. But after a Snapchat video, missing money, allegations of jury

tampering, and a family legacy filled with power, privilege, and scandal, the question now

isn't just whether Alec Murdoch is guilty. It's whether the most watched

true crime case in America was decided fairly the first time around. Joining me to discuss the

case is criminal defense attorney and host of the courtroom confidential podcast. Joshua Ritter.

Josh, thank you for joining me to talk about this.

Really surprising twist in a saga that has been ongoing since 2021. First of all, your reaction when

you heard the news that the South Carolina Supreme Court decided just to do away with the two

double murder convictions. It was shocking. I mean, even though I understand the law, and I think you and I are probably

both going to agree that this was the right decision, it still is shocking because these types

of things really don't happen often at all, where an appellate court will entirely overturn

a murder conviction and remand it back for a new trial.

So that in and of itself is shocking.

...