GREENVILLE, S.C. − More than a year after Richard "Alex" Murdaugh's historic double murder trial captivated the country's attention, the disbarred lawyer serving two life sentences for slaying his wife and son has a chance at getting a new trial.

Last year Murdaugh, who wrecked a South Carolina legal dynasty, was convicted of the killings and pleaded guilty to state and federal charges related to a sweeping decade-plus, multimillion-dollar financial fraud crime spree that engulfed a range of victims in multiple South Carolina counties. Murdaugh continues to deny he killed his family. His request for a new trial, accusing a court official of jury tampering, was initially denied.

Then on Tuesday, the South Carolina Supreme Court granted Murdaugh's request, saying they'd hear his appeal, which means he can skip the lengthy appeals court process. At the heart of the appeal and review is not Murdaugh's guilt or innocence, but whether he was fairly denied a new murder trial by former South Carolina Chief Justice Jean Toal earlier this year. The Supreme Court could reverse or overturn that ruling – and could order the court to give him a new trial.

It's not impossible that Murdaugh would get a new case, according to Christopher Adams, a Charleston attorney and former president of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers.

"The findings of fact by former Chief Justice Toal at the evidentiary hearing were significant, significant findings of misconduct by the clerk of court as it relates to her interactions with the jury," Adams said. "So it's going to be very interesting to see how this plays out. This is not – this is definitely not – a frivolous appeal. This has a lot of substance with it."

How did Murdaugh's case get to the Supreme Court's ears?

Days after Murdaugh was handed double life sentences for the murders of his wife, Maggie Murdaugh, 52, and son Paul Murdaugh, 22, his attorneys pledged to appeal. They later accused Colleton County Clerk of Court Rebecca Hill, who read the verdict and later published a tell-all book about the historic murder case, of jury tampering and sought a new trial. 

In January, Toal held a hearing on the allegations. A woman identified as juror Z said that Hill told jurors to watch Murdaugh "closely" and "made it seem like he was already guilty." When asked if this influenced her vote to find Murdaugh guilty, the juror said “Yes, ma’am.”

Hill has resigned from her position, admitted to plagiarizing her book and faces multiple ethics complaints.

Toal said Hill's behavior was inappropriate and she was not a credible witness but denied Murdaugh a new trial. Toal's ruling was based on South Carolina legal precedent, which required the defendant to prove that not only did Hill act improperly but that her actions prejudiced the jurors and influenced their verdict.

Murdaugh then appealed that ruling to the South Carolina Court of Appeals, where it has yet to be heard, arguing that his case should be considered using a different, less stringent legal standard typically used by federal courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court. The federal standard presumes a jury has been prejudiced if the defendant can prove there was any improper communication whatsoever, according to John Mobley, a longtime South Carolina personal injury attorney and former prosecutor.

In July, Murdaugh's attorneys filed a motion asking the state Supreme Court to review the case before the appeals court hears it. This can happen if a case meets certain legal standards, such as "significant public interest or a legal principle of major importance." Murdaugh's attorneys argued his case fits both criteria.

Murdaugh's motion demands that the court review Toal's ruling, calling Hill, a "wart" on the South Carolina legal system. The motion describes Hill as an "elected state official in charge of managing juries engaging in deliberate jury tampering in a murder trial to secure a guilty verdict so she can make money selling books about it."

Could Alex Murdaugh get a new murder trial?

Mobley, the former South Carolina prosecutor, said he's not surprised the state Supreme Court decided to take up Murdaugh's case given that it was likely headed there eventually. Mobley, who has worked with one of Murdaugh's attorneys, said the defense clearly met its burden to prove a juror's decision had been influenced by Hill. He said it is "more than likely" the Supreme Court will reverse Toal's decision.

"The trial was tainted and the jury panel was poisoned," he said. "So I didn't understand why ... from a legal standpoint ... that wasn't enough for the judge."

Mobley said the court probably wouldn't agree that Murdaugh's case should be judged by the federal standard, but that's not necessary for them to grant him a new trial. If they do, he said, a retrial could ultimately benefit the defense.

In other words, getting a second bite at the apple could help Murdaugh attain a better outcome at trial.

"I think there is a higher chance, a greater chance, of a better outcome ... Once you try the case, you see what was not effective, not just based on what you did as a defense attorney, but you see what was effective and with the state presentation," he said.

Larry Cunningham, dean of the Charleston School of Law, said he doesn't have an opinion on whether Toal was justified in denying Murdaugh a new trial. But Cunningham, a former state prosecutor in Virginia and New York who has handled similar matters, also said that the defense faces an "uphill battle" to get the court to apply the federal standard, and the burden on the defense to prove that improper conduct impacted the outcome of the trial is intentionally set very high.

Cunningham acknowledged that prosecutors probably don't want to retry the case, but disagreed that a retrial would favor the defense. He also said the courts must balance the defendant's right to a fair trial with the potential for retraumatizing the victim's families, the possibility that witnesses may not be available or that their memories may fade as well as the cost and time of holding another trial.

"These motions are very rarely granted because one of the things the legal system values is finality," he said. "If we have to redo a trial every time there's a mistake, we would be constantly redoing trials."

Could Alex Murdaugh be released?

If Murdaugh were granted a new trial and acquitted it's unlikely he would be released immediately. He is not only serving the pair of life sentences for the murders of his wife and son but also 27 years on state fraud charges concurrent with a 40-year federal sentence for financial crimes.

Murdaugh is also appealing his federal sentencing, arguing the punishment is "grossly disproportionate to the crimes committed." In that appeal, Murdaugh's attorneys claim that Judge Richard Gergel and federal prosecutors sought such a lengthy sentence to provide a backstop and ensure that, regardless of any successful state appeals or alternative verdicts during potential state retrials, Murdaugh would spend the rest of his life behind bars.

Murdaugh's legal team has less than 30 days to file their initial brief and legal arguments with the Supreme Court in the jury tampering appeal. The Supreme Court order did not set a date for the review hearing.

For the time being, those tracking the case and Murdaugh himself will have to wait and see.