§ 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.

§ 1· Two matters, one constitutional principle

South Carolina Supreme Court, May 2026

Murdaugh — Opinion No. 28329

Improper external jury influence was investigated.
An evidentiary hearing occurred.
Appellate review occurred.
The South Carolina Supreme Court reversed and remanded for a new trial.

South Carolina — 2005 conviction

Christopher Woody

A sworn affidavit alleges unauthorized jury-room intrusion.
A second juror corroborates the unauthorized entry.
The family maintains the central allegation has not received a complete, conflict-free merits hearing.
Independent legal review, factual investigation, and habeas relief are requested.

§ 2· Constitutional takeaway

Different cases do not require identical facts before the Constitution requires serious examination of outside influence on a jury.

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