How blurred can the lines of justice become when personal interests, pride, and professional ethics collide?
 
 In a recent episode of the "Hidden Killers" podcast, Tony Brueski delves into the intricate legal web surrounding Alex Murdaugh with attorney and former Federal prosecutor, Neama Rahmani. The two discussed the much-awaited trial of Murdaugh set for November 27th, focusing on the financial malfeasance involving millions stolen from the family of his deceased housekeeper, Gloria Statterfield.
 
 Rahmani, addressing Brueski's speculations about the November trial date, stated, "Normally I would have said no, but I think they got a decent shot of getting this murder conviction." The stakes are high, especially if allegations of witness tampering involving the court clerk hold water. Such allegations would ideally favor the defense, potentially granting a mistrial. Rahmani emphasized that if these allegations are true, the prosecution should proceed with the fraud case, given Murdaugh's potential risk of acquittal from the murder charges.
 
 But what about the testimony from the previous murder trial where Murdaugh confessed to these financial crimes? Brueski questioned its admissibility. Rahmani clarified, "I think the taint has to do with the jurors and the deliberation process, not with Murdoch's testimony himself." Essentially, regardless of issues surrounding jury deliberations, Murdaugh's admissions are valid evidence in the fraud case.
 
 Another puzzling aspect is Murdaugh's decision to stand trial. He's already admitted to multiple crimes informally. Rahmani pondered this, recalling Murdaugh's testimony, "He gets up there and he says he wants to clear his name and his family name and his son." The former prosecutor highlighted the gravity of Murdaugh's actions, saying, "It's really the worst thing you can do as a lawyer - steal money from your clients." Regardless of Murdaugh's personal distinction between being labeled a thief or a killer, his legal fate seems sealed.
 
 The conversation turned to Corey Fleming, Murdaugh's co-conspirator in the fraud case. Sentenced to ten years, with four of those in federal court, Rahmani expressed the sentence was lenient, especially when considering the magnitude of the crime. "You're revictimizing these victims all over again," Rahmani articulated, emphasizing the severe ethical breach when attorneys take advantage of those they pledge to serve. He cited other lawyers, like Michael Avenatti and Tom Girardi, equating their actions with Murdaugh's, stressing the egregiousness of such crimes in the legal world.
 
 As Brueski and Rahmani unraveled the complexities of the Murdaugh case, it became clear that beyond the court hearings, the central question revolves around the moral fiber of those in the legal profession. Rahmani's poignant assertion towards the end resonates deeply, "I really think they should lose their license and spend a lot of time in prison."
 
 In a world where trust is a currency and legal ethics the gold standard, how many more cases like Murdaugh's lurk in the shadows, waiting for their day in the spotlight?
Want to listen to ALL of our podcasts AD-FREE? Subscribe through APPLE PODCASTS, and try it for three days free: https://tinyurl.com/ycw626tj
Follow Our Other Cases: https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com
The latest on Catching the Long Island Serial Killer, Awaiting Admission: BTK’s Unconfessed Crimes, Chad & Lori Daybell, The Murder of Ana Walshe, Alex Murdaugh, Bryan Kohberger, Lucy Letby, Kouri Richins, Justice for Harmony Montgomery, The Murder of Stephen Smith, The Murder of Madeline Kingsbury, and much more! Listen at https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com