9:22-cr-00658-RMG Date Filed 03/09/23 Entry Number 274 Page 1 of 7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

RUSSELL LUCIUS LAFFITTE,

Defendant.

DEFENDANT RUSSELL LUCIUS LAFFITTE’S

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 33, Defendant Russell Lucius Laffitte

(“Mr. Laffitte”), by and through undersigned counsel, respectfully moves for a new trial based on

newly discovered evidence of Mr. Laffitte’s innocence.

INTRODUCTION

Richard Alexander Murdaugh (“Mr. Murdaugh”) recently stood trial in Colleton County,

South Carolina for murder and related crimes. See State of South Carolina v. Richard Alexander

Murdaugh, Indictment Nos. 2022-GS-15-00592, -593, -594, and -595. On February 23, 2023,

Mr. Murdaugh testified in his own defense, waiving his Fifth Amendment rights. In his testimony,

Mr. Murdaugh admitted to his own role in certain financial crimes for which he has been indicted

by the South Carolina State Grand Jury, along with Mr. Laffitte. See State of South Carolina v.

Richard Alexander Murdaugh and Russell Lucius Laffitte, Case Nos. 2022-GS-47-01, -02, -03.1

On February 23, 2023, Mr. Murdaugh explicitly stated, for the first time in sworn

testimony, 2 that he did not participate in a conspiracy with Mr. Laffitte because Mr. Laffitte did

1
As of the date of this filing, Mr. Murdaugh has not been charged with any federal crimes.
2
Mr. Murdaugh asserted his Fifth Amendment rights in Mr. Laffitte’s federal case and did not
testify. See ECF No. 173.
 9:22-cr-00658-RMG Date Filed 03/09/23 Entry Number 274 Page 2 of 7

not participate in the financial crimes. Mr. Murdaugh took full responsibility for his own actions

and testified that Mr. Laffitte did nothing wrong and did not have any knowledge of

Mr. Murdaugh’s criminal activity. 3

Specifically, Mr. Murdaugh testified, “I don’t dispute any of this, that I took money that

didn’t belong to me, that I misled people… that trusted me to do that and that what I did was

terrible. I don’t dispute that.” See Video starting at 7:55:15. Mr. Murdaugh further testified,

“Russell Laffitte never conspired with me to do anything, whatever was done was done by

me.” See id. (starting at 7:57:02) (emphasis added). “This is stuff that I did. I did these things

wrong. Russell Laffitte didn’t do anything… You keep talking about stuff I did with Russell

Laffitte, but what I want to let you know is that I did this and I am the one that took people’s

money that I shouldn’t have taken and that Russell Laffitte was not involved in helping me do

that knowingly… If he did it, he did it without knowing it.” See id. (starting at 8:00:05)

(emphasis added).

LEGAL STANDARD

Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 33, which governs motions for new trials, authorizes

the Court to “vacate any judgment and grant a new trial if the interest of justice so requires.”

Fed. R. Crim. P. 33(a). Whether to grant a motion for a new trial is within the district court’s broad

discretion. See United States v. Tucker, 376 F.3d 236, 238 (4th Cir. 2004); see also United States v.

Smith, 62 F.3d 641, 651 (4th Cir. 1995). The district court may grant a new trial based on grounds

3
An official transcript of Mr. Murdaugh’s testimony is not yet available. However, a video
recording of Mr. Murdaugh’s testimony from February 23, 2023 is available at
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L49TchwK9N0. Counsel has prepared a partial transcript of
Mr. Murdaugh’s testimony specifically referencing Mr. Laffitte starting at 7:52:54 and that
unofficial transcript is attached as an exhibit to this Motion. Once official transcripts are available,
Mr. Laffitte can supplement this filing with the official transcript of this testimony should the
Court request.

2
 9:22-cr-00658-RMG Date Filed 03/09/23 Entry Number 274 Page 3 of 7

presented in a defendant’s Rule 33 motion. See United States v. Rafiekian, 991 F.3d 529, 551 (4th

Cir. 2021). A new trial may be granted when there is newly discovered evidence. See Fed. R. Crim.

P. 33(b)(1). “Any motion for a new trial grounded on newly discovered evidence must be filed

within 3 years after the verdict...” Id. To be considered new evidence, the Fourth Circuit requires

that:

(1) the evidence must be, in fact, newly discovered, i.e., discovered since the trial;

(2) facts must be alleged from which the Court may infer diligence on the part of
the movant;

(3) the evidence relied on must not be merely cumulative or impeaching;

(4) the evidence must be material to the issues involved; and

(5) the evidence must be such, and of such nature, as that, on a new trial, the newly
discovered evidence would probably produce an acquittal.

See United States v. Christy, 3 F.3d 765, 768 (4th Cir. 1993); United States v. Chavis, 880 F.2d

788, 793 (4th Cir. 1989); United States v. Bales, 813 F.2d 1289, 1295 (4th Cir. 1987) (citing

Mills v. United States, 281 F.2d 736, 738 (4th Cir. 1960)).

ARGUMENT

Mr. Murdaugh’s testimony regarding Mr. Laffitte, as detailed above, is newly discovered

evidence as it has been discovered since the end of Mr. Laffitte’s trial. The evidence is not merely

cumulative and it is material to the elements of the charges against Mr. Laffitte. Indeed, such

evidence, if introduced at a new trial, would likely produce an acquittal because it goes directly to

the elements of the offenses of which Mr. Laffitte was charged.

In Count One of the Second Superseding Indictment, Mr. Laffitte is charged with

Conspiracy to Commit Wire and Bank Fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1349. See ECF No. 61 at

10-11. In this Count, Mr. Laffitte is charged with “knowingly and intentionally” conspiring with

others to commit wire and bank fraud. Id. at 10.

3
 9:22-cr-00658-RMG Date Filed 03/09/23 Entry Number 274 Page 4 of 7

It is well settled in the Fourth Circuit that “[c]onspiracy to commit wire fraud under

18 U.S.C. § 1349 requires a jury to find that (1) two or more persons agreed to commit wire fraud

and (2) the defendant willfully joined the conspiracy with the intent to further its unlawful

purpose.” United States v. Burfoot, 899 F.3d 326, 335 (4th Cir. 2018). Both elements are

undermined by Mr. Murdaugh’s testimony. First, Mr. Murdaugh testified that he, and he alone,

committed the financial crimes and explicitly admitted under oath that he did not conspire with

Mr. Laffitte saying “Russell Laffitte never conspired with me to do anything.” Second,

Mr. Murdaugh testified that, even if Mr. Laffitte had participated in these criminal acts, that he

was not a knowing and willful participant in a criminal conspiracy. “To sustain its burden, the

Government must show that a conspiracy existed, that [the defendant] knew it existed, and that

they knowingly entered into it.” United States v. Burton, 11 F. App’x 328, 329–30 (4th Cir. 2001).

The government cannot sustain this burden given the new evidence of Mr. Murdaugh’s testimony.

In Count 2 of the Second Superseding Indictment, Mr. Laffitte was charged with Bank

Fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1344(2). See ECF No. 61 at 12. In this Count, Mr. Laffitte is

charged with “knowingly” executing or attempting to execute a scheme and artifice to obtain

money under the custody and control of Palmetto State Bank with Mr. Murdaugh and “aided and

abetted” Mr. Murdaugh in that effort. Id. at 12.

“The requirements for a § 1344(2) conviction” are (1) “the defendant knowingly

execute[d] a scheme to obtain property held by a financial institution through false or fraudulent

pretenses,” “(2) he did so with intent to defraud, and (3) the institution was a federally insured or

chartered bank.” United States v. Adepoju, 756 F.3d 250, 255 (4th Cir. 2014). Mr. Murdaugh’s

new testimony clearly undercuts the government’s burden on the first two elements. As

Mr. Murdaugh testified, Mr. Laffitte did not knowingly execute a scheme and did not have the

4
 9:22-cr-00658-RMG Date Filed 03/09/23 Entry Number 274 Page 5 of 7

intent to defraud Palmetto State Bank. Further, Mr. Laffitte did not knowingly aid and abet

Mr. Murdaugh in any scheme to defraud Palmetto State Bank.

Similarly, in Count 3 of the Second Superseding Indictment, Mr. Laffitte was charged with

Wire Fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343. See ECF No. 61 at 13. In this Count, Mr. Laffitte is

charged with “having devised a scheme and artifice to defraud and to obtain money and property

by means of false and fraudulent pretenses, representations, and promises, transmitted and caused

to be transmitted by means of wire in interstate commerce, writings, signs, and signals, for the

purpose of executing such a scheme and artifice,” with Mr. Murdaugh. Id. at 13.

The two substantive elements of wire fraud are “(1) the defendant devised, or intended to

devise, a scheme or artifice to defraud; and (2) the defendant used a wire to transmit any signal to

execute the scheme or artifice.” United States v. Elbaz, 52 F.4th 593, 603 (4th Cir. 2022) (citing

United States v. Taylor, 942 F.3d 205, 213–14 (4th Cir. 2019)). The devisal of a scheme relates

“to establishing the mens rea element of the wire fraud offense.” Id. at 604. “It suffices for the

defendant to ‘intend’ to devise a scheme.” Id. (citing 18 U.S.C. § 1343). Therefore, the “scheme

to defraud (or at least the intention to devise a scheme) remains a necessary element” of

Section 1343. Id. Here, Mr. Laffitte neither devised a scheme nor had the intention to devise a

scheme as evidenced by Mr. Murdaugh’s testimony. Mr. Murdaugh testified under oath that he

alone stole funds and that Mr. Laffitte had no knowledge of Mr. Murdaugh’s scheme. Therefore,

the government cannot sustain its burden on this “necessary element” of a wire fraud conviction.

In Counts 4, 5, and 6 of the Second Superseding Indictment, Mr. Laffitte was charged with

Misapplication of Bank Funds in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 656. See ECF No. 61 at 14-16. In these

Counts, Mr. Laffitte is charged with having “willfully misapplied, abstracted, and purloined

5
 9:22-cr-00658-RMG Date Filed 03/09/23 Entry Number 274 Page 6 of 7

moneys, funds, and credits entrusted to the custody and care” of Palmetto State Bank, “with the

intent to injure and defraud” Palmetto State Bank. Id.

Again, the Fourth Circuit recognizes that “intent is an element” of the Counts under

Section 656. United States v. Scheper, 520 F.2d 1355, 1357 (4th Cir. 1975). “Were it not necessary

to prove such an intent, a bank employee could be convicted of embezzlement when he

inadvertently made errors to the bank’s disadvantage.” Id. “The purpose of the rule that the

government must prove intent to injure or defraud is … to assure that only those who consciously

do wrong are convicted of the crime.” Id. Mr. Laffitte had no such intent, as evidenced by the

testimony of Mr. Murdaugh.

As discussed above, the charges Mr. Laffitte faces all require an element of knowledge,

intent, and willful participation. The Supreme Court of the United States has made clear that these

elements are required for conviction of such criminal offenses, stating:

The unanimity with which [courts] have adhered to the central thought that
wrongdoing must be conscious to be criminal is emphasized by the variety,
disparity and confusion of their definitions of the requisite but elusive mental
element. However, courts of various jurisdictions, and for the purposes of different
offenses, have devised working formulae, if not scientific ones, for the instruction
of juries around such terms as ‘felonious intent,’ ‘criminal intent,’ ‘malice
aforethought,’ ‘guilty knowledge,’ ‘fraudulent intent,’ ‘[willfulness],’ ‘scienter,’ to
denote guilty knowledge, or ‘mens rea,’ to signify an evil purpose or mental
culpability. By use or combination of these various tokens, they have sought to
protect those who were not blameworthy in mind from conviction of infamous
common-law crimes.

Morissette v. United States, 342 U.S. 246, 252 (1952). Because Mr. Murdaugh’s undisputed

testimony, given under oath, provides new evidence that Mr. Laffitte did not enter into a criminal

conspiracy and had no such knowledge or mens rea to commit any of the Counts with which he is

charged, Mr. Laffitte is entitled to a new trial.

6
 9:22-cr-00658-RMG Date Filed 03/09/23 Entry Number 274 Page 7 of 7

CONCLUSION

In light of Mr. Murdaugh’s undisputed sworn testimony that Mr. Laffitte did not participate

in a conspiracy and was not knowingly involved in any criminal activity, Mr. Laffitte respectfully

requests a new trial. Mr. Laffitte also respectfully requests a hearing on this Motion for a New

Trial and further requests leave to supplement this Motion with new information/evidence in

support of same as soon as it becomes available.

Respectfully submitted,

s/Mark C. Moore
Mark C. Moore (Fed. ID No. 4956)
Michael A. Parente (Fed. ID No. 13358)
Nexsen Pruet, LLC
1230 Main Street, Suite 700 (29201)
Post Office Drawer 2426
Columbia, SC 29202
Phone: 803.771.8900
Fax: 803.727.1458
MMoore@nexsenpruet.com
MParente@nexsenpruet.com

Attorneys for Defendant Russell Lucius Laffitte

7
9:22-cr-00658-RMG Date Filed 03/09/23 Entry Number 274-1 Page 1 of 10

EXHIBIT A
(Unofficial partial transcript of Mr. Murdaugh’s testimony
specifically referencing Mr. Laffitte)
 9:22-cr-00658-RMG Date Filed 03/09/23 Entry Number 274-1 Page 2 of 10

Transcript of Alex Murdaugh Trial Testimony

Mr. Waters: Was there a conservatorship for them because they were underage?

Mr. Murdaugh: There was a conservatorship for them, but I don’t think the fact that they

were underage is why there was a conservatorship.

Mr. Waters: You don’t think it was because, at least in part, they were underage when

the settlement was received?

Mr. Murdaugh: No. That’s not what I remember, but for purposes of your… I think,

Mr. Waters, I agree there was a conservator appointed.

Mr. Waters: What is your memory of why the conservator was appointed?

Mr. Murdaugh: My memory is that the father in this case, who was the beneficiary or a big

beneficiary in this, and who was the PR of the mother’s case, was an

undesirable witness and there was testimony that he had… There was

testimony that he had hit his wife and it was clear we felt like we didn’t

want him to be the face of the lawsuit. So, we appointed a conservator

Mr. Waters: Who was that?

Mr. Murdaugh: For that purpose. That is why I believe we appointed a conservator.

Mr. Waters: And who was that?

Mr. Murdaugh: That was Russell Laffitte.

Mr. Waters: At Palmetto State Bank?

Mr. Murdaugh: Yes sir.

Mr. Waters: And after that, did you get Russell Laffitte to start loaning you money from

the Plyler girls’ account that he was conservator for?

Mr. Murdaugh: He loaned me money from the Plyler account. I don’t know if I got him

to do that.

Mr. Waters: Oh, you didn’t talk to him about it. Y’all didn’t talk about that at all?

Mr. Murdaugh: No. We did talk about it. I mean

Mr. Waters: There’s emails to that effect. Are you disputing that to this jury?

Mr. Murdaugh: Mr. Waters, I’m not disputing. I’m just telling you that Russell Laffitte

gave me a loan from the Plyers. Your question was, Did I get him to do

that? And, I don’t necessarily believe that to be accurate.

Mr. Waters: Who came up with the idea?

Mr. Murdaugh: I don’t know that it was come up with an idea. That was um I think that

Russell felt like that it was a sound investment for those girls to charge me

a higher interest rate when they weren’t getting but so much interest

somewhere else so

Mr. Waters: What was that interest rate that y’all thought was such a good idea for

these girls? Do you recall what it was?

Mr. Murdaugh: I can’t remember.

Mr. Waters: The reality is that you needed the money and this was a convenient source

to keep your massive cash flow going as early as 2011, 2012, isn’t that

correct?

2
 9:22-cr-00658-RMG Date Filed 03/09/23 Entry Number 274-1 Page 4 of 10

Mr. Murdaugh: Well this was a loan. Yes sir, but exactly why it came from them versus

the bank, I can’t, I don’t, I can’t tell you the details without looking at all

that. I can’t tell you that off the top of my head.

Mr. Waters: Despite all you were earning, you would even send Russell emails saying,

“Hey, transfer over $75,000 from the Plyler account into my account,”

correct? Do you remember emails to that effect that you [put] out to him?

Mr. Murdaugh: Do I remember an email to that effect? No. I don’t remember that, but

I…

Mr. Waters: Do you dispute that there are emails to that effect?

Mr. Murdaugh: Not if you say there were, Mr. Waters. I don’t dispute that. I don’t dispute

any of this that I took money that didn’t belong to me, that I misled people

that were…

Mr. Waters: I know that you want the answer to be that simple. That’s not what I’m

asking. We agree on that. We’ve agreed on that.

Mr. Murdaugh: No sir. I don’t necessarily want the answer to be simple. I just want

everybody to understand I do not dispute that I stole money that was not

my money. That I misled people to do that. That I misled people that

trusted me to do that and that what I did was terrible. I don’t dispute that.

It’s just the way you’re asking these questions and, you know, I mean

there’s some things in there that I do take issue with.

Mr. Waters: Ok. Which part of what I just asked you about the Plylers did you take

issue with? Do you take issue that y’all didn’t conspire to do that, you and

Russell?

3
 9:22-cr-00658-RMG Date Filed 03/09/23 Entry Number 274-1 Page 5 of 10

Mr. Murdaugh: Yes.

Mr. Waters: Do you take issue with that? You take issue with that. Ok.

Mr. Murdaugh: I can tell you that Russell Lassitte, Russell Laffitte never conspired with

me to do anything. Whatever was done was done by me.

Mr. Waters: Ok. So you told the Plyler girls that you were borrowing money from their

account?

Mr. Murdaugh: No. I don’t know, I don’t know that I, that I told them.

Mr. Waters: Did you tell Russell to tell them?

Mr. Murdaugh: I, I don’t, I don’t recall. I don’t believe so, but I don’t, I can’t sit here and

tell you what I him however many years ago.

Mr. Waters: Did you tell Russell he could borrow money from that account too?

Mr. Murdaugh: I don’t remember having any discussion with him about him borrowing

money.

Mr. Waters: Was this supposed interest rate you were paying far lower than anything

you could have gotten anywhere else?

Mr. Murdaugh: I don’t even know what interest rate I was paying.

Mr. Waters: Ok. One thing’s clear, you never told this to the Plyler girls did you?

Mr. Murdaugh: I would have thought the interest rate that I was paying was a little bit

more than what a bank loan would have been, but I don’t know that. I

don’t know that to be, I don’t know what the interest rate was so I don’t

know that for sure.

Mr. Waters: When you stole the Badger money, how much did you steal from Arthur

Badger that we talked about before in the UPS case.

4
 9:22-cr-00658-RMG Date Filed 03/09/23 Entry Number 274-1 Page 6 of 10

Mr. Murdaugh: I don’t remember the exact amount.

Mr. Waters: Over $1.3 million dollars. Would you dispute that?

Mr. Murdaugh: I don’t dispute.

Mr. Waters: And that was in addition to the $1.2 million dollars in attorney’s fees for

his case alone that would have been attributed to you through the firm?

Mr. Murdaugh: What I stole from Arthur Badger

Mr. Waters: Let me ask you this

Mr. Murdaugh: Inappropriately was in addition to any fees that I legitimately earned. I

shouldn’t have stole the money from Arthur Badger. I misled him and I

was wrong.

Mr. Waters: Did you speak with Russell Laffitte once you stole this money from Arthur

Badger about structuring that $1.3 million dollars that you stole in a

manner so it appeared to be payments to the Plyler account? Do you

understand the question?

Mr. Murdaugh: No sir. Say that again.

Mr. Waters: Did you have any conversations with Russell Laffitte about structuring

this $1.3 million dollars into multiple payments and then applying it to the

Plyler account?

Mr. Murdaugh: I’ve heard the testimony and I’ve seen some of those records.

Mr. Waters: I’m asking you if you did. Did you have any conversations with Russell

about that?

Mr. Murdaugh: I had to. I had to.

5
 9:22-cr-00658-RMG Date Filed 03/09/23 Entry Number 274-1 Page 7 of 10

Mr. Waters: Ok. All right. You even asked him to recut the check, correct? To have

Genie recut the check.

Mr. Murdaugh: I’ve seen, I’ve seen uh, I believe an email or a text to that effect.

Mr. Waters: So you don’t dispute that?

Mr. Murdaugh: No. I don’t dispute that. What I dispute is if you’re insinuating in any

way, this was stuff that I did.

Mr. Waters: Ok.

Mr. Murdaugh: I mean this stuff, I did these things wrong. Russell Laffitte didn’t do

anything.

Mr. Waters: I’m not here to talk about that. I’m just talking about what went on.

Mr. Murdaugh: And I know, but you keep talking about what I did with Russell Laffitte

and what I want to let you know is that I did this and I’m the one that took

people’s money that I shouldn’t have taken and that Russell Laffitte was

not involved in helping me do that knowingly.

Mr. Waters: I just asked you a simple question.

Mr. Murdaugh: If he did it, he did it without knowing it.

Mr. Waters: All right. So you sent him an email and then asked him to recut the check

and have the check made out to various amounts short of that and then

applied those over time give the illusion of payments to the Plyler account,

is that correct?

Mr. Murdaugh: Mr. Waters.

Mr. Waters: Is that correct?

6
 9:22-cr-00658-RMG Date Filed 03/09/23 Entry Number 274-1 Page 8 of 10

Mr. Murdaugh: I don’t know, but I’ll tell you this, I don’t dispute, I don’t dispute what’s

in those, uh, emails as far as or text as far as what I told Russell and as far

as what I did, uh, to again take money that didn’t belong to me, that wasn’t

mine and that I was wrong for taking. It’s just the specifics of what you

want me to give you details on and I can’t do that. I do not dispute what’s

in those texts or emails.

Mr. Waters: Ok. And did you steal that Badger money because you had to pay back

the Plyler girls’ money before they turned 18 and reached the age of

majority and Russell would then have to be held to account for that money

that he had loaned himself to you?

Mr. Murdaugh: First off, I don’t know anything about any money that Russell loaned to

himself. I only know about what he loaned to me and I don’t specifically.

I don’t believe that me stealing Arthur Badger’s money and taking that

money that did not belong to me that I wrongly took had anything to do, I

don’t remember it having a relationship with having to pay back a loan or

that being some time pressure to pay back a loan that he gave me on the

Plyler conservatorship.

Mr. Waters: You don’t remember that?

Mr. Murdaugh: No. And, I’m not saying that that didn’t happen. I’m saying that I don’t

remember. That’s not the way I remember it and I don’t remember it.

Mr. Waters: Did you ultimately borrow a million dollars roughly from the Plyler girls

without their knowledge, does that sound right? About a million dollars

in total?

7
 9:22-cr-00658-RMG Date Filed 03/09/23 Entry Number 274-1 Page 9 of 10

Mr. Murdaugh: Um. If you tell me that’s the number, I mean that surprises me, but I don’t

dispute what’s in the records, but I didn’t believe I had a loan for, are you

saying a million dollars? I didn’t believe that I had a loan.

Mr. Waters: You took.

Mr. Murdaugh: Mr. Waters, if that’s what the records say, I don’t dispute it, but that’s not

what I thought. I didn’t think I had a million dollar loan from them, but if

that’s what the records say, I don’t dispute that, but I can tell you this, if I

had a million dollar loan from them, um, I don’t remember that and I may

have, I may be confusing it with what a loan from the bank, um, but again,

if that’s what’s in the records, I don’t dispute it.

Mr. Waters: All right. So you have no memory whatsoever and so for all you know

it’s just a coincidence that the Plylers were about to turn 18 when you stole

this Badger money and you applied a significant amount of it to pay that

off before they turned 18? You don’t have any memory of that?

Mr. Murdaugh: No. I can tell you that that was never, that that was never an issue or

motivation for me again taking Arthur Badger’s money that I shouldn’t

have taken, that didn’t belong to me and that I was wrong for, um, I don’t

remember a loan from the Plyler conservatorship as being a motivation for

that.

Mr. Waters: So, for all you can remember, it’s just a coincidence?

Mr. Murdaugh: Why I stole Arthur Badger’s money just being a coincidence?

Mr. Waters: Why you applied it to the Plyler loans right before they turned 18.

8
 9:22-cr-00658-RMG Date Filed 03/09/23 Entry Number 274-1 Page 10 of 10

Mr. Murdaugh: No. I’m not saying it’s a coincidence or not a coincidence. What I’m

saying is that I don’t remember that.

Mr. Waters: Ok.

Mr. Murdaugh: And so I don’t remember that being a motivation. If it was, I just, I didn’t

know I had a million dollar loan from the Plyler conservatorship. Um, at

least as I sit here today, but you know I would have known I had a loan

from somewhere. And, if I took Arthur Badger’s money and applied it to

that, I mean again, I stole money that didn’t belong to me. I misled Arthur

Badger to take that money and I was wrong.

Mr. Waters: How many times have you practiced that answer before your testimony

today?

Mr. Murdaugh: I’ve never.

Mr. Waters: Because you’re using the same one over and over again.

Mr. Murdaugh: I’ve never practiced that answer, but you keep asking me these questions

and I keep using that answer.