Alex Murdaugh continues to insist he didn't kill wife and son as he gets another day in court

"Murdaugh's attorneys argued Wednesday before the South Carolina Supreme Court, asking the justices to overturn the two murder convictions and life sentence Murdaugh is serving for the shooting deaths of his wife, Maggie, and younger son, Paul, outside their home in June 2021. The defense argues the trial judge made rulings that prevented a fair trial, such as allowing in evidence of Murdaugh stealing from clients that had nothing to do with the killings but biased jurors against him."

"They detail the lack of physical evidence - no DNA or blood was found splattered on Murdaugh or any of his clothes, even though the killings were at close range with powerful weapons that were never found. And they said the court clerk assigned to oversee the evidence and the jury during the trial influenced jurors to find Murdaugh guilty, hoping to improve sales of a book she was writing about the case."

"Prosecutors argued that the clerk's comments were fleeting and the evidence against Murdaugh was overwhelming. His lawyer said that didn't matter because the comments a juror said she made - urging jurors to watch Murdaugh's body language and listen to his testimony carefully - removed his presumption of innocence before the jury ever deliberated. "If only the people who may be innocent get a fair trial, then our Constitution isn't working," Murdaugh's lawyer Dick Harpootlian told the justices."

Alex Murdaugh has admitted to theft, lying, insurance fraud, drug addiction and legal misconduct but continues to deny killing his wife and younger son. His attorneys asked the South Carolina Supreme Court to overturn two murder convictions and a life sentence, arguing trial rulings prevented a fair trial. The defense pointed to prejudicial evidence of client theft, an absence of DNA or blood on Murdaugh or his clothes, and the lack of recovered weapons. They alleged a court clerk influenced jurors to find him guilty to boost book sales; she later pleaded guilty to lying to another judge. Prosecutors said the clerk's comments were fleeting and the evidence was overwhelming, while defense counsel argued juror comments erased the presumption of innocence. The case remains a major public fascination across miniseries, best-selling books and podcasts.

Read at ABC7 Los Angeles