In a pivotal moment in the double-murder trial against Alex Murdoff, a South Carolina judge ruled Monday that he will allow the jury to hear evidence of financial crimes committed by the once-powerful attorney.

Circuit Court Judge Clifton Newman made the ruling after several witnesses, including Murdoff’s former law firm colleagues and banking associates, testified without a jury present so he could rule on the relevance of the allegations.

Murdaugh, 54, is accused of fatally shooting his wife Margaret, 52, and their youngest son, Paul, 22, on the evening of June 7, 2021. Prosecutors say the killing was a cover-up for several financial misdeeds. Murdoff, who they say stole about $8.5 million from more than a dozen victims and tried to gain sympathy before going public.

“I find that Mr. Murdoff’s dire financial situation and the threat of exposure for the crimes for which he was later charged entitled the jury to consider that he was convicted of the alleged crimes,” Newman said. “Although intent is not a necessary element, the State must prove malice, and evidence of intent may be used to prove it.”

Murdaugh’s defense team contested the judge’s decision. His lawyers have previously said in court that his financial support is being used only to defame him, and that the state has provided no evidence that Murdoch suffered financial losses from the deaths of his wife and child, such as life insurance payouts, or that they were aware of any alleged impropriety. Which he tried to hide by killing them.

“They’ve got more evidence of financial abuse than evidence of guilt in the murder case. And that’s about it,” defense attorney Jim Griffin said Friday.

Newman said last week that he “opened the door” to a review of Murdoff’s finances when he asked witnesses about his character and if there was any reason they thought Murdoff would kill. His wife and son.

“Evidence of other crimes or wrongdoing is required if it is an essential part of the crimes on trial,” Newman said.

The trial, now in its third week, has drawn attention as a sprawling saga that began as an unsolved double murder in 2021 but eventually revived questions of financial fraud, a hitman-for-hire plot and drug addiction, among other deaths. A prominent legal family in South Carolina’s Lowcountry is connected to the Murdoughs.

At the time of his death, Paul Murdoff was awaiting trial on three felony counts of boating under the influence in a 2019 boating accident that killed a 19-year-old passenger. Attorneys say the case only brought more scrutiny to Murdoff and caused Murdoff a financial strain as the family faced a wrongful-death lawsuit.

Dennis Bolt, a retired attorney from Columbia, South Carolina, who is not involved in this case but has worked with members of Murdoff’s defense team on previous cases, said the judge’s decision gives the prosecution a clear advantage “because it allows the state to try. If you’re a thief So to prove you are a murderer.

But Bolt said he did not believe the forensic evidence presented so far was evidence Murdaugh committed the murder.

If Murdoff is found guilty, however, the defense could cite the judge’s decision as grounds for an appeal.

“It’s interesting to me to think how the prosecution will use it in their closing argument,” Bolt said of the financial crime charges. “They can’t argue anything that isn’t evidence or law. What are they going to say to the jury when there’s no evidence linking the financial misappropriation to the murder?”

Lead prosecutor Creighton Waters said he expects to introduce the alleged financial misconduct to a jury beginning Tuesday.

Among those who testified on Monday was Murdaugh’s mother Elizabeth’s carer, Mushel Smith. Murdoch has stated that he visited his sick mother on the night of the murder as part of his alibi.

Smith testified that it was unusual for Murdoff to visit his mother late at night, and that in the days after the murder, he told her “I’ve been here for 30 to 40 minutes if somebody asks you.” But she remembered he was only there for 20 minutes.

On cross-examination, Griffin testified to the defense that Smith had seen no evidence of blood when he visited his mother.

Also at the center of Smith’s testimony was a blue tarp that she said she saw Murdough carry into the house within days of the murder.

Early in the trial, prosecutors suggested they found a blue raincoat in a closet in the house and that it tested positive for gunshot residue.

Griffin laid out a blue tarp for Smith to explain what she saw. “The kind of tarp that would probably hide a car, right?” he asked her. “Any way to mess with a rain jacket?”

Smith replied “no” and the tarp “balled up”.

A state law enforcement agent later testified that Raincoat’s blood was tested, but nothing was found.