Murdaugh Comparison

The cases are not identical. The constitutional principle still matters.

This page compares the constitutional treatment of outside jury influence in two South Carolina matters. It does not equate the underlying charges or the facts.

Two matters, one constitutional principle

South Carolina Supreme Court, May 13, 2026

Murdaugh — Opinion No. 28329

Allegations of improper external jury influence were investigated.
Factual proceedings were conducted.
Appellate review occurred.
On May 13, 2026, the South Carolina Supreme Court unanimously ordered a new trial after finding improper external influence on the jury.

South Carolina — 2005 conviction

Christopher Woody

A sworn affidavit alleges unauthorized jury-room intrusion by a person described as having official courtroom access.
A second juror corroborates the unauthorized entry.
The family maintains the central allegation has not received a complete, conflict-free merits examination.
Independent legal review, factual investigation, and habeas relief are requested.

Constitutional takeaway

The cases are not factually identical. The constitutional principle is the same.

The Murdaugh decision demonstrates that South Carolina recognizes improper external jury influence as a matter capable of undermining the constitutional integrity of a conviction. Christopher Woody asks that sworn evidence alleging jury-room intrusion receive the same constitutional seriousness.

Read the Official Murdaugh Opinion ↗See the Woody Evidence Read the Legal Issues