Jury Reaches Guilty Verdict In High-Profile Case 

(RoyalPatriot.com )- Last Thursday, the jury in the murder trial of prominent South Carolina attorney Alex Murdaugh deliberated for less than three hours before delivering a guilty verdict, the Associated Press reported. 

Murdaugh was convicted of murder in the shooting deaths of his wife Maggie, 52, who was shot multiple times with a rifle, and their 22-year-old son Paul, who was shot twice with a shotgun, at the family’s Culleton County home on June 7, 2021. 

While prosecutors did not have the weapons used or direct evidence like blood spatter or a confession, they did have significant circumstantial evidence, including a video on Paul’s phone that was filmed just minutes before the shootings that, according to witnesses, featured the voices of all three of the Murdaughs. 

Throughout the 6-week trial, jurors heard from over 75 witnesses and received almost 800 pieces of evidence. 

The trial culminated with Murdaugh taking the stand in his defense where he admitted to stealing from his clients and lying to investigators about being present at the dog kennels where the killings took place. However, Murdaugh maintained his innocence, saying he would never “under any circumstances” harm his wife and son. 

The following day, Murdaugh appeared again before Circuit Court Judge Clifton Newman where he was sentenced to two consecutive life terms. 

During sentencing, Judge Newman asked Murdaugh if he sees the bodies of his wife and son while he sleeps or thought of how he disgraced his prominent legal family’s reputation by lying, stealing, and committing murder. 

Murdaugh maintained that he was innocent, saying again that he would never hurt his wife or son “under any circumstances.” 

Judge Newman, however, told him that the murderer might not have been Murdaugh but the “monster” Murdaugh had become, the Associated Press reported. 

Murdaugh’s attorneys will likely appeal his conviction after the judge permitted evidence of financial crimes unrelated to the shootings, which the defense argued was an attempt to smear their client’s reputation.