JUDGE NEWMAN TELLS CRIMINAL LAW SECTION SYMPOSIUM THAT ‘WINNING WITH INTEGRITY IS WHAT MATTERS’

In high-profile trials, it’s better to work with the media than fight a losing battle, modern jurors have shorter attention spans, and too many attorneys are willing to cut corners.

Those are just some observations retired South Carolina Circuit Judge Clifton Newman shared during a June 19 Criminal Law Section Symposium at the Bar Convention in Orlando.

Newman, 75, gained acclaim for his calm demeanor while presiding over the 2023 murder trial of South Carolina attorney Alex Murdaugh, the scion of a Low Country legal dynasty who was convicted of killing his wife, Maggie, and their 22-year-old son, Paul.

After 23 years on the bench, Newman said his “pet peeve” is lawyers who ignore their duty of candor to the court.

“I see that as a troubling trend in the law,” he said. “We all want to win, but winning with integrity is what matters.”

For more than an hour, Fourth Circuit Judge Tatiana Salvador, the Criminal Law Section chair, led Newman in a discussion about ethics, high-profile trials, and his long and distinguished career. A 1976 graduate of Cleveland-Marshall College of Law, Newman spent decades as an assistant county solicitor and in private practice before the South Carolina General Assembly elected him to the circuit bench in 2000. He retired in 2023.

Born in Kingstree, S.C., the first in his family to be delivered in a hospital, and raised in Greeleyville, Newman excelled in his segregated high school, Salvador noted.

After spending the first part of his career in Ohio, Newman returned to his hometown, expressing a desire “to help my people.”

“I was a prosecutor in the small, rural county in which I was born,” Newman said.

One of Newman’s four children, daughter Jocelyn, is a South Carolina circuit judge, “and to the confusion of many,” once shared chambers with her father, Salvador quipped.

South Carolina is one of only two states where judges are elected by the Legislature and the judges serve “at large,” Salvador said.

Newman said it helps that South Carolina is relatively small – “you can get just about anywhere in two hours,” and that he eventually presided in each of the state’s 46 counties.

“Constitutionally, we’re required to rotate statewide, and I’m comfortable presiding anywhere,” Newman said.

Salvador asked Newman to describe “the qualities that distinguish” the most effective trial lawyers.

Preparation is essential, but integrity matters most, Newman said.

“The thing I see in effective lawyers is the lawyer who is candid with the court, who builds credibility by giving recommendations the court can rely on,” he said.

Salvador turned next to the evolution of jurors.

“Have you observed changes in jurors’ expectations or attention spans, quite frankly, and how should trial lawyers adapt to that?”

Absolutely, Newman said.

“Jurors expect you to have a good story, and they expect you to present it in a succinct manner,” he said.

They’re also observant, Newman warned.

He recalled a civil case in which a jury awarded a substantial sum to the client of a wealthy plaintiff’s attorney who projected an everyman image by wearing tattered shoes. The defense attorney “had a nice pair of Pradas,” Newman said.

“Jurors notice everything,” he said, especially “when a lawyer is being disrespectful to the court, and court personnel.”

Turning next to the branch, Salvador asked Newman how judges and lawyers can work together to “strengthen public trust and confidence” in the judicial system.

“A general lack of respect for the courts,” is a growing challenge, Newman agreed.

“It’s just my personal perspective,” he said. “But it starts all the way at the top of government, where the integrity of the court and judges are being attacked, and all of that has a negative impact on our court system.”

The Murdaugh family’s dominance over the Low Country community is a good example, Newman said.

“Murdaugh’s case came at a time when everybody believed that he was just invincible, that he and his family could do anything they wanted without consequences.”

Alex Murdaugh’s grandfather and father served as elected prosecutors for more than 80 years, and “indeed, their portraits were displayed” in the Colleton County Courthouse, Salvador noted.

However, Salvador was quick to add that Newman had the portraits removed during the six-week trial.

On May 13, the South Carolina Supreme Court reversed the verdict, citing “breathtaking” jury interference by the court clerk. The state intends to retry the case.

Salvador asked Newman how he maintained decorum and ensured a fair trial under such an intense spotlight.

Experience helped, Newman said.

When he presided over the trial of a police officer accused of shooting a fleeing suspect in the back, Newman said he suffered withering criticism for excluding the press from jury selection.

“I fought that battle and lost,” he said. “And it gave me an appreciation for having the press in the courtroom, and the openness of the process.”

Newman said he appointed the attorney who represented the media in the police officer’s trial as a media liaison in the Murdaugh trial.

As if global media attention wasn’t a big enough challenge, Newman said, Murdaugh’s defense attorney was the state Democratic Party chair, and a skilled media operator.

The prosecutor, Newman said, was a leading candidate for South Carolina governor.

“I could not control media leaks, so I denied gag orders,” he said. “I instructed the lawyers that the rules of professional responsibility are adequate, particularly for prosecutors making extra-judicial statements, and for defense lawyers as well.”

Court administrators reserved 40 hotel rooms, but neither the state nor the defense wanted the jury sequestered, Newman said.

Leaks were still “problematic” Newman said.

Newman said he was waiting in his chambers, watching TV, when he heard NBC Nightly News anchor Lester Holt announce that the jury had reached a verdict --- several minutes before a court clerk’s assistant arrived with the jury’s note.

Newman said he was unaware of the court clerk’s interference, despite admonishing jurors every day to avoid discussing the trial and to report any attempts to do so.

“Not one peep out of the jury until after the trial,” he said. “My own view is that nothing that the clerk did really impacted the verdict, but that was beside the point,” he said. “Any time somebody’s right to fair trial is impacted, they are entitled to another trial, and I accept that as being a sound ruling and good judgment.”