Download the Case Packet

1. Case summary

2. Current status

Petition filed

July 20, 2026

Court

South Carolina Supreme Court

Case number

Awaiting entry — to be added when confirmed

Filing status

Filed. Docket status not independently confirmed.

Representation

Pro se; qualified counsel sought

Primary request

Immediate, independent, conflict-free review

3. The core request

We ask qualified institutions to examine the sworn jury-influence evidence in Christopher Woody's case and help ensure that his pending habeas petition receives prompt, meaningful, independent, and conflict-free constitutional review.

Where appropriate, we ask for:

• legal representation or referral
• amicus consideration
• factual investigation
• preservation of relevant records
• constitutional analysis
• lawful institutional oversight
• responsible public scrutiny

We do not ask anyone to predetermine Christopher's entitlement to relief. We ask that the evidence be examined and the Constitution applied consistently.

4. Evidence cards

5. Document index

• Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

  Filed. Available for independent review. · Publicly redacted.

  https://woodycasereview.com/__l5e/assets-v1/24e75dc5-9154-4ed2-a290-ff3f0f8360f2/woody-home.pdf

• Juror Affidavits — Publicly Redacted

  Available for independent review. · Publicly redacted — juror identifiers removed.

  https://woodycasereview.com/__l5e/assets-v1/f849375e-2b92-434d-92a4-6a13745404aa/affidavits.pdf

• South Carolina Supreme Court — Opinion No. 28329 (Murdaugh, jury-influence remand)

  Official — link to court record.

  https://www.sccourts.org/opinions-orders/opinions/

6. Procedural timeline

• 2004 (approximate period) — Original police investigation

  Requires Verification

  The police investigation preceding Christopher Woody's arrest and prosecution occurred during this period. The family maintains that portions of the original investigation require independent review.

• 2005 — Trial and conviction

  Confirmed by Court Record

  Christopher Woody was tried and convicted in South Carolina.

• 2005 — during jury deliberations — Alleged unauthorized entry into the jury room

  Sworn Statement

  A trial juror later alleges by sworn affidavit that a person with official courtroom access entered the jury room during deliberations and communicated a statement favoring conviction. A second juror corroborates that an unauthorized person entered the jury room during deliberations. Because the jury room is a secure deliberative space, the family maintains that the person described must have been a state employee or official with courthouse access.

• Following trial — Direct appeal

  Requires Verification

  Direct appellate proceedings followed the 2005 conviction. Details pending administrator verification against the court record.

• Post-conviction — first proceedings — First post-conviction proceedings

  Requires Verification

  Initial post-conviction relief proceedings occurred. The family maintains that the outside-influence allegation has not received a complete, conflict-free merits hearing.

• Later period — Discovery of juror evidence

  Family Account

  Evidence supporting the allegation that a person with courtroom access entered the jury room during deliberations came to the family's attention.

• Date not publicly displayed — Main juror affidavit — sworn

  Sworn Statement

  A trial juror executes a sworn affidavit describing a person with official courtroom access entering the jury room during 2005 deliberations and communicating a statement favoring conviction.

• Date not publicly displayed — Second juror corroborates unauthorized entry

  Sworn Statement

  A second juror executes a sworn statement corroborating that an unauthorized person entered the jury room during deliberations.

• May 13, 2026 — South Carolina Supreme Court remands Murdaugh for a new trial (Opinion No. 28329)

  Confirmed by Public Document

  The South Carolina Supreme Court reverses the convictions in the Murdaugh matter after finding improper external jury influence, and remands for a new trial. Cited on this site as constitutional context.

• July 20, 2026 — Habeas Corpus petition filed

  Family Account

  A petition for writ of habeas corpus was filed on behalf of Christopher Woody in the South Carolina Supreme Court. The family says the petition is now pending and requires immediate public scrutiny so the Court cannot delay or avoid review of the sworn jury-room intrusion allegation.

• Current period — Public advocacy and investigation underway

  Family Account

  The family and volunteers are contacting appellate defenders, innocence organizations, attorneys, public officials, faith and civil-rights leaders, journalists, and investigators. The family is urging immediate public support because the petition is now pending before the South Carolina Supreme Court.

7. Responsible advocacy

This project supports factual, lawful, persistent, and constitutionally protected advocacy.

• Use official professional channels.
• Make one clear request.
• Provide the public case archive when additional information is requested.
• Do not threaten.
• Do not harass.
• Do not repeatedly contact the same person after a clear refusal.
• Do not impersonate another person.
• Do not publish private information.
• Do not contact judges through improper channels.
• Do not characterize allegations as established facts.
• Do not falsely claim that an organization or official supports Christopher.
• Do not speculate publicly about the identity of the alleged jury-room intruder as though identity has been conclusively established.
• Do not exaggerate the status of the Supreme Court filing, any investigation, any attorney involvement, or any institutional response.

The objective is credibility, accountability, preservation of evidence, meaningful review, and equal constitutional treatment.