US Criminal Trials

News from the Murdaugh Trial

Der Supreme Court des US Bundesstaates South Carolina hat per Entscheidung vom 13. Mai 2026 die Verurteilung des (vormaligen) Rechtsanwalts Richard Alexander Murdaugh wegen Doppelmordes aufgehoben, der durch den in erster Instanz zuständigen Circuit Court in South Carolina (Colleton County) zu zwei Mal lebenslänglicher Haft verurteilt worden war. Alec Murdaugh wurde vorgeworfen, seine Ehefrau und einen seiner Söhne erschossen zu haben, wobei das Motiv eine Ablenkung von einer massiven Verschuldung und einer Veruntreuung von Mandantengeldern gewesen sei.

Der Verfahrensgang nach Verurteilung ist für nicht in South Carolina praktizierende Rechtsanwälte durchaus verworren: Die Verteidigung hat die Verurteilung insbesondere mit dem Argument angegriffen, eine Gerichtsmitarbeiterin (Court Clerk) habe unlauteren Einfluss auf die Mitglieder der Jury genommen, um auf eine Verurteilung hinzuwirken (improper influence on the Jury). Sie habe auf diese Weise ein von ihr zu dem Verfahren verfasstes Buch erfolgreich kommerzialisieren wollen, das sich im Falle einer Verurteilung besser verkaufen sollte.

Der Sache nach hat die Verteidigung somit einen Verfahrensmangel geltend gemacht, was nach dem örtlichen Strafprozessrecht zunächst in einem gesonderten Nach-Verfahren vor dem örtlich zuständigen Gericht überprüft wird (post-trial) und erst danach vor dem höherrangigen Rechtsmittelgericht (Court of Appeals) landet. In diesem Fall ist die endgültige Aufhebungsentscheidung im Ergebnis sogar vom Supreme Court des Bundesstaates South Carolina getroffen worden.

Anders als in Deutschland wird im US-amerikanischen Strafprozess - jedenfalls soweit es sich um State Cases und nicht Federal Cases handelt - ein Höchstmaß an Transparenz gegenüber der Öffentlichkeit praktiziert. Wer sich dafür interessiert: Die Anhörung der Verfahrensbeteiligten im Murdaugh-Fall vor dem Supreme Court von South Carolina ist auf Youtube abrufbar: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5IkZ2WO1e-o Die Aufhebungsentscheidung des Gerichts ist - wenig überraschend - ebenfalls allgemein zugänglich: https://www.sccourts.org/media/opinions/HTMLFiles/SC/28329.pdf

Das neue Tatsachenverfahren gegen Alec Murdaugh soll am 5. April 2027 beginnen.

Lindsay Clancy Trial

On September 4, 2026, the murder trial against Lindsay Clancy, a mother of three charged with the murder of her children, came to an end with a mistrial in the Plymouth County Superior Court. Plymouth County is located in the U.S. state of Massachusetts, between Boston and Cape Cod.

A mistrial means that the proceedings are terminated without a verdict being reached. In most cases, this occurs because of a procedural problem that prevents the trial from being concluded properly. From a German criminal procedure perspective, the situation is broadly comparable to a court order suspending proceedings. However, a mistrial has the additional consequence that the prosecution regains discretion to decide whether to pursue a new trial or to dismiss the case altogether.

In Lindsay Clancy's case, the mistrial resulted from the jury's inability to reach a unanimous verdict. Even after being granted additional time for deliberations, the twelve jurors remained deadlocked. It later emerged that one juror refused to join the majority position. According to subsequent reports, that juror was the only member of the jury who voted in favor of conviction.

Clancy was accused of strangling her three children, who ranged in age from eight months to five years old. She did not dispute that she had caused their deaths. Instead, the defense relied primarily on an insanity defense, arguing that she committed the acts while legally insane and therefore could not be held criminally responsible.

Specifically, the defense maintained that Clancy had been suffering from a severe episode of postpartum depression and postpartum psychosis. Immediately after the killings, she inflicted lacerations on her wrists and jumped from a second-floor window of the family home. What appeared to be a suicide attempt resulted instead in permanent paralysis of her lower body. As a consequence, the defendant attended the trial in a wheelchair.

Accordingly, the central issue at trial was not whether Clancy had committed the acts in question, but whether she was criminally responsible at the time. Numerous psychiatrists and mental health professionals testified during the proceedings, including several who had treated the defendant before the incident. Under Massachusetts law, the prosecution bore the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that Clancy was criminally responsible when the offenses were committed.

Viewed through the lens of German criminal law, the defense is comparable to arguing that a defendant lacked criminal responsibility under Section 20 of the German Criminal Code (Strafgesetzbuch). The provision covers various forms of severe mental disorder that may render a person incapable of appreciating the wrongfulness of an act or acting in accordance with such appreciation. Psychiatric conditions associated with childbirth can, in principle, fall within the scope of Section 20.

The threshold, however, is exceptionally high. Mild or moderate depressive disorders are generally insufficient to establish a complete lack of criminal responsibility. Nor does a mother's sense of hopelessness arising from an unwanted pregnancy or childbirth automatically exclude guilt. Rather, the law ordinarily requires proof of a severe psychiatric illness, often involving psychotic symptoms.

The legal standard applied in Massachusetts is broadly similar. The defense therefore argued that Clancy's postpartum psychosis manifested itself in hallucinations and command auditory hallucinations. According to the defense, voices in her head instructed her to carry out the killings. That explanation appears to have persuaded eleven of the twelve jurors, but not the twelfth.

Whether prosecutors will seek a retrial, negotiate a consensual resolution, or abandon the case altogether remains uncertain. The defense has argued that any retrial would, in this exceptional circumstance, violate constitutional protections against double jeopardy and therefore be impermissible. That argument faces significant legal hurdles, since a mistrial caused by a deadlocked jury will ordinarily permit a retrial under established U.S. law.