South Carolina jurors will be allowed to hear about Alex Murdoff’s alleged financial crimes in his murder trial – a stunning victory for prosecutors who argued that the ex-lawyer fatally shot his wife and son in a twisted cover-up scheme for his crimes.

Circuit Court Judge Clifton Newman on Monday granted the state’s request to present evidence related to allegations that Murdoch stole $8 million from his former law firm and client in an effort to maintain a public position as a member of a cabal. Legal family in the Lowcountry.

“I have found that Mr. A jury is entitled to consider whether Murdoff’s dire financial situation, the threat of exposure to the crimes for which he was later charged, was recorded. ” Newman said Monday.

The evidence is central to prosecutors’ argument that Murdoch killed his 52-year-old wife, Maggie, and his 22-year-old son, Paul, in June 2021 in an effort to gain sympathy and divert the public narrative away from him. Financial crimes.

The verdict came after two days of hearings outside the presence of a 12-person jury, where prosecutors presented several witnesses who described how Murdoff allegedly stole money under the guise of legal aid, forcing him to reveal his financial statements. A civil lawsuit related to a 2019 boat accident, and how he faced nearly $800,000 in missing legal funds Co-workers on the day of the murder.

“The state’s argument is that the logical connection between the murders and other crimes is that the increased exposure to financial crimes led to the murders and is evidence of malice, which is an essential element of the crime of murder,” Newman added.

Murdaugh, 54, has pleaded not guilty to two counts of murder and two counts of possession of a weapon during the commission of a violent crime in connection with the double murder.

Prosecutors allege Murdoch killed his family out of fear that a years-long scheme to extort money from those around him would be exposed.

Over the past two weeks, prosecutors have called dozens of witnesses to the stand to describe how Paul and Maggie were brutally murdered near the Murdough family estate’s dog kennel. Defense attorneys say there is no hard evidence or motive to prove Murdoff killed his family.

Law enforcement officials have described several pieces of evidence prosecutors say prove Murdaugh was the sole perpetrator, including cell phone data and his initial interviews with law enforcement.

So far, the only real evidence that has undermined the defense’s argument is a video made in the dog kennels five minutes before Paul Murdoff was killed—in which prosecutors allege Alex and Maggie’s voices can be heard in the background. Two of Paul’s friends also testified last week that they were “100 percent” sure that Alex Murdoff could be heard on the video, which would undermine his alibi that he was asleep in the main house at the time of the murder.

On Monday, jurors also heard from the carer of Murdoff’s mother, who said the former lawyer was “freaking out” when he came to visit on the night of his murder.

Mushel “Shelly” Smith testified that it was “unusual” for Murdoff to visit late at night and that he stayed about 20 minutes. Later, she said Murdoff told her he had been home for “30 or 40 minutes.”

In another conversation after the murder, Smith said Murdoff offered to help her with her wedding expenses – although she said they had never previously discussed her upcoming wedding. She also said Murdoff offered to pull strings to help her get another job.

However, prosecutors have yet to explain to the jury why they believe Murdoch killed his family out of fear of exposure – and how his alleged financial crimes were involved. Prosecutors also failed to explain to the jury that Murdoch could have fatally shot his son and wife with two different guns before quickly visiting his ailing mother.

But Newman’s decision will finally give prosecutors a chance to clear up some confusion about their case for the jury. It will also provide jurors with insight into the final few days of Murdoff’s murder.

Jurors are expected to hear testimony about how Murdoff was more than $4.2 million in debt and how thousands of dollars were withdrawn from his account that summer.

The CEO of Murdoff’s former law firm, Jeanine Seckinger, told Newman last week that she confronted Murdoff about missing the firm’s money on the day of the murder. She said Murdoff insisted he was preparing his “financials” for an upcoming hearing in a civil case involving the death of 19-year-old Mallory Beach in a 2019 boat accident. At the time of his murder, he was facing charges of drunkenly crashing a boat that killed his friend.

Jurors are also expected to hear from attorney Mark Tinsley, who is representing the Beach family. Tinsley told a judge Monday that he is pressing to see Murdoff’s finances after claiming he will be unable to pay the settlement amount the civil suit is seeking.

“He doesn’t want me to have access to his account, to see how much money he’s making and how much he actually has, so let’s make a deal and settle the case,” Tinsley said. “If you’re a good plaintiff’s lawyer, everything you do in a case is to put pressure on the other side.”

After the murder, however, Tinsley said Murdoff’s financial hearing was postponed to June 10, 2021 — and considered dropping the case if the crimes were likely to be connected to his client’s death.

“If it looks like it’s retaliation, the jury won’t return a verdict against Alex,” Tinsley said. “I would have lost my hair.”

Seckinger also noted that after the murder, Murdoch was “distraught and didn’t want anyone to bother him about the missing legal fees”, which prosecutors allege was his main target. Three months later, however, Seckinger said her team pressed Murdoff again about the missing funds — leading to his eventual resignation.

For Robert MacDonald, a criminal justice lecturer at the University of New Haven, a prosecutorial victory does not necessarily mean a slam dunk conviction. He noted that it would be “difficult to say how the jury will accept” the prosecution’s contention that Murdoff was motivated to kill his family based on fear of being exposed for his other crimes, and that the success of the state’s case “would have to be presented if allowed to go to trial.” will be done and how the defense will rebut that issue.

He also added that the defense “will continue to try to poke holes in the testimony of investigators and witnesses to counter the prosecution’s case.”

Murdoff’s lawyers “need to craft a strategy that presents some explanation to the jury as to why he engaged in that immoral behavior and tries to separate the financial issues from the murders of his wife and son,” added MacDonald, who is not connected to the case.