Attorneys for Alex Murdaugh Argue Financial Crime Sentence Violates 'Cruel and Unusual' Clause

In a recent court filing, attorneys for convicted murderer and fraudster Alex Murdaugh argue that his 40-year sentence for financial crimes constitutes cruel and unusual punishment, violating his Eighth Amendment rights. Murdaugh, who pled guilty to 22 counts of fraud and other financial crimes in April, received a 40-year sentence despite both his and prosecutors' request for a 30-year sentence.

Murdaugh’s legal team contends that this extended sentence is effectively a life sentence for the 55-year-old, who is required to serve at least 85% of his term — equating to 34 years. With a life expectancy of only another 24 years, according to the Social Security Administration, Murdaugh’s attorneys argue that the sentence is disproportionate.

• The plea agreement initially suggested a 30-year sentence to run concurrently with his 27-year sentence for state financial crimes and his consecutive life sentences for the murders of his wife Maggie and youngest son, Paul.

• Judge Richard Gergel justified the longer sentence by highlighting the severity of Murdaugh's actions, which included stealing from highly vulnerable clients.

• Victims included a client left paralyzed from a crash and a trust fund for orphaned children.

Murdaugh’s attorneys emphasize that state guidelines recommended a sentence of 17 to 22 years for similar crimes. They also cite three comparable cases where the median sentence was 17.5 years.

Beyond the financial crimes, Murdaugh admitted to stealing millions from his former law firm and its clients. In addition to his prison sentence, he was ordered to pay over $8 million in restitution.

U.S. Attorney Adair F. Boroughs underscored the gravity of Murdaugh’s betrayal of public trust, stating, “South Carolinians turn to lawyers when they are at their most vulnerable, and in our state, those who abuse the public’s trust and enrich themselves by fraud, theft, and self-dealing will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.”

Complicating matters further, prosecutors recently attempted to retract their plea agreement with Murdaugh, citing a failed polygraph test. They alleged that Murdaugh lied about the disposition of the stolen funds. However, Murdaugh’s attorneys challenged this move, arguing that polygraph tests are inadmissible in court due to their unreliability. They accused the government of manipulating test results to void the plea agreement and ensure Murdaugh remains incarcerated for life.

The failed polygraph test was administered by an individual who had just tested Joran van der Sloot, the convicted murderer of Natalee Holloway. Murdaugh’s attorneys argue this context raises questions about the reliability of the polygraph results.

“There are legitimate questions as to whether the Government intentionally manipulated the results to void the plea agreement and achieve the prosecutors’ stated desire to ‘ensure that he’s never a free man again,’” the attorneys wrote.

As the legal battles continue, Murdaugh's case remains a focal point of discussions about the fairness and consistency of the American legal system.

Share this article or subscribe to our newsletter for ongoing coverage of this case and other legal developments.