>> first time we went out no I did not kill Maggie did not kill Paul. >> Did you lot of them. But telling them that you are not down the kennels on that night. >> Yes, the ones that led to continue to live here. Sir. >> Well, you know oh what a tangled Web we weave. ♪ >> Welcome back to opening statements this morning we are turning the spot lead on Alec Murdock the convicted killer will now get his day before the South Carolina Supreme Court as the court has agreed to hear his appeal of his murder convictions for the killings of his wife Maggie and his youngest son Paul. It was a lawyer say that he deserves a new trial after ♪ jury tampering happened by the clerk of court Becky Hill who has denied the allegations. >> We all do you ever instruct the jury to watch him closely immediately before he testified looking at his actions looking as movements. Did you ever tell a jury to do that. Yeah if you ever tell the jury to pay attention to Mister Murdoch's testimony. >> To pay attention not specifically to his testimony I did tell the jury to pay attention just generally in the hallway without the speaking to him. >> Our next defense. He has 30 days to file their brief hearing date for arguments has not yet been set we have a great guest I want to bring in now he has represented 4 of the jurors in this case and some of Alec Murdoch's victims from the Court TV network attorney Eric bland he's with us good morning, Eric great to see you can we start please with your reaction to the news of the high court granting his appeal. >> Well you know Alex and his attorneys always viewed themselves as the organ grinder in the courts as the monkey but in this case, it's just an ordinary appeal that anybody would do once convicted of me murder by a jury. So I'm not surprised that the appeal was it's a little bit of a surprise that it didn't go through the end intermediate Court of Appeals first to get to the Supreme Court but it's it it's an important issue the issue of juror interfere and and it's going to come down to whether the South Carolina's cream court believes the Justice told the former chief Justice who heard the motion for new trial was correct when she ruled that not only do you have to show that there was a potential inappropriate comment or inappropriate conduct by the former clerk of court but did it influence their jury verdicts. The defense says that they should have applied the federal standard which is all you have to show is the inappropriate communication or inappropriate conduct by Becky Hill and you do not have to show the corresponding effect it would have on the jury. There's also other up a key appellate issues are going to hear which is the evident re issues on the financial crimes being admitted and he claimed that the trial should have never taken place in walterboro he should have gotten a change of venue but the the clear constitutional issues going to be on the standard applied by former chief Justice and if he loses in our Supreme Court. He's taking this all the way up Alex has nothing but time he'll be in jail for a prison for the rest of his life for the financial crimes that he played get that he pled guilty to so he has nothing but time and this is going to be is a recreation witch's brew earning the legal system with continuing appeals. >> Eric curious what you think I feel like the million dollar question so many people who follow this case all around the world, I'm sure listeners to your podcast company justice a basket. Do you really think it's likely that the court could overturn his convictions I mean your legal opinion on how likely it is that that could happen. >> It's probably a very you know I believe he's guilty I believe that there was overwhelming evidence irrespective of the financial I think the the his behavior his lies. This circumstantial evidence was strong that of killed but for our system to work it's got to work for the worst of this not just the best of us and Alex, even though he is the worst of us is entitled to a fair and impartial trial and if it is show that clerk of court tried to influence the jury for whatever reason whether was for or book or other reasons too see that he was guilty. And the Justice told should have applied the Supreme Court standard than I would support. The reversal I I think she did a apply a correct standard but you know in my career there's the United States Supreme Court on point. And somebody has a constitutional right to a fair and impartial jury under Constitution. He may end up getting a new trial. >> Eric and just to think about another child We know some of the biggest pieces of evidence would be introduced >> The cell phone video from Paul cell phone arguably the key to the case. Let's look back at that clip together now. And Eric as we know this video blew up his alibi you know unbeknownst to him he was on that recording. I mean this did it if he were to get another Trump do you think we would see him still going with that I was at mom's House and I didn't do this. >> He even if he doesn't it will be used against them there's or prior you know whether he goes forward with there was a different Pierre and continues to go with the 2 shooter theory look they've seen how the prosecution is trying their case they will modified a little bit maybe he won't go on the witness stand he obviously did that at the advice given to him by his attorneys. So we would see possibly a different defense I don't think we're going to see much of a different prosecution now whether judge Newman is the trial judge coming back if there's a new trial I doubt he would be. Another judge may not lead in all the financial crimes, but that video and his behavior after he called the police at 10 oh 07:00PM and having totally clean clothes after claiming hugging and grabbing his son who was full of blood and and all the admissions he made to the police officers during his first interview. I think he's going to get convicted again, but it again Julie we need to have a system that care for the worst and if justice tow applied the wrong standard and it's proving it, I'm Becky Hill mate statements went beyond minutes cereal statements of what you want for launch had to get to and fro court. Then he would get a new trial but remember there's only one witness it's who said that she said those statements the 6 jurors I represent not just for they testified and said they never heard her say anything other than menace to roll calm and so. >> Will will the court of the Supreme Court believe one person over the other 11 who testified and said nothing on toward was set. >> Oh wow that's a great point Eric that's a really great And of course I'm in agreement with you if if his constitutional rights were violated his right to a fair trial was about the violated absolutely he deserves a fair trial as you the system has to work for all of us even the worst of us and he is arguably the worst of us here in America. >> Eric a last question for you police, we know that he's appealing his federal role. Financial crimes case after he pleaded and I think that puzzled a lot of people you know he pleaded he got a 40 year sentence there, stealing from millions of his client. Some of those clients who you >> he's saying that he's he's said. >> Tons was 10 years more than the statutory. harsh under the Constitution that's his defense team's legal argument what do you say to that. >> I think it's just not a good argument, he pled guilty he knew what he was pleading into his attorney waived. Any arguments that we're going to be made to judge agape 45 days advance notice of an upward enhancement was going to be done. And his crime was so unique. I think not cruel and unusual under the 8th amendment I think the 4th Circuit's going to reject it outright. >> Eric bland always great having your legal expertise