Judge Rejects Alex Murdaugh’s Appeal

The appeal of Alex Murdaugh’s 40-year sentence for financial crimes has been denied by a judge, sealing one chapter in a saga of legal troubles.

At a Glance

A federal court in South Carolina denied Murdaugh’s appeal of his 40-year sentence.
Convicted of stealing millions from clients and law firms, Murdaugh received a harsher sentence for targeting vulnerable clients.
Fourth Circuit Court dismissed the appeal; Murdaugh waived rights by pleading guilty.
Murdaugh maintains his innocence in a separate murder conviction, facing life imprisonment.

Judicial Decision: An Unyielding Stance

South Carolina’s federal court rejected Alex Murdaugh’s request to overturn his 40-year sentence for financial crimes. The U.S. District Judge Richard Gergel passed a verdict that deemed Murdaugh’s actions warranted a significantly harsh penalty due to his exploitation of vulnerable clients. Murdaugh’s conviction includes stealing substantial funds from his law firm and clients—particularly affecting those in desperate situations who completely relied on his expertise.

U.S. Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed Murdaugh’s appeal, citing his waiver of rights to appeal upon a guilty plea unless specific misconduct occurred. This stance preserved Murdaugh’s 40-year sentence, surpassing the prosecution’s recommendation by a decade. In addition, Murdaugh is required to pay nearly $9 million in restitution, further cementing the court’s firm position against his appeal.

#Murdaugh update: A U.S. fourth circuit court of appeals panel has REJECTED confessed fraudster/convicted killer Alex Murdaugh's appeal of his 40-year federal sentence for financial crimes. Our @TheWillFolks reports… https://t.co/RHPZEu9SwR

— FITSNews (@fitsnews) October 1, 2024

A Saga of Financial Misdeeds

Financial crimes for which Murdaugh was sentenced included misappropriating funds meant for wrongful death and injury settlements. One case involved a state trooper; another misused a trust fund designated for the deceased. Judge Gergel emphasized the gravity of these offenses, given their impact on the financially vulnerable, highlighting that these individuals trusted Murdaugh for their financial resolutions.

Though Murdaugh’s defense argued the sentence violated his Eighth Amendment rights, the court found the argument unpersuasive. His attorneys compared the sentence to those of high-profile financial criminals like Sam Bankman-Fried and Elizabeth Holmes, underscoring the victims’ dissimilarity without tangible effect on the judge’s ruling.

The Broader Legal Context

Aside from financial crimes, Murdaugh is infamous for his conviction for the murder of his wife and son, resulting in a life sentence. He maintains his innocence in the murder case, seeking a retrial based on claims of jury tampering—a matter the South Carolina Supreme Court has agreed to review.

Prosecutors noted the stipulated waiver with Murdaugh, allowing appeals only under claims of prosecutorial misconduct or ineffective counsel. Despite the life sentence for the murders, the 40-year term acts as a judicial safeguard. Murdaugh’s legal entanglements remain in higher courts with ongoing debates over trial irregularities and evidence issues.