CHARLESTON, S.C. — Convicted murderer Alex Murdaugh did something Thursday he hasn't done in the two years since his life of privilege and power started to unravel — plead guilty to a crime. Murdaugh admitted in federal court to 22 counts of financial fraud and money laundering. Murdaugh, 55, is serving life without parole in a South Carolina prison for shooting his wife, Maggie, and younger son Paul. He has denied any role in the killings since their deaths in June 2021 and insisted he was innocent in two days of testimony earlier this year before he was convicted of two counts of murder. "There's two things Alex will tell you. One, he stole the money. Two, he did not kill Maggie and Paul," defense attorney Dick Harpootlian said after the hearing. The federal guilty plea likely locks in years if not decades in prison for the disbarred lawyer, even if his murder conviction and sentence in state court are overturned on appeal. Murdaugh told the judge he wanted to be held accountable for stealing from his clients and do right by his surviving son. "I want to take responsibility. I want my son to see me take responsibility. It's my hope that by taking responsibility that the people I've hurt can begin to heal," said Murdaugh, standing in his orange South Carolina prison jumpsuit. He will be sentenced at a later date. Federal prosecutor Emily Limehouse suggested at a news conference after the hearing that prosecutors will ask for a lengthy term. "Our goal in holding him accountable for the financial crimes in federal court is to ensure that he's never a free man again," Limehouse said. Investigators think Murdaugh started stealing from his family law firm by keeping fees meant to be shared by everyone and inflating his expenses as early as 2005, Limehouse said. The deal for pleading guilty in federal court is straightforward. Prosecutors will ask that the federal sentence Murdaugh gets run at the same time as any prison term he serves from a state court. They won't give him credit defendants typically receive for pleading guilty. In exchange, authorities get a requirement placed in almost every plea deal, which is especially significant in this case: "The Defendant agrees to be fully truthful and forthright with federal, state and local law enforcement agencies by providing full, complete and truthful information about all criminal activities about which he/she has knowledge," reads the standard language included in Murdaugh's deal. That could be a broad range of wrongdoing. The federal charges against the disgraced attorney, whose family were both prosecutors and founders of a heavy-hitting law firm that no longer carries the Murdaugh name in tiny Hampton County, deal with stealing money from at least five clients and creating fraudulent bank accounts. Murdaugh admitted Thursday to stealing from money meant to provide care for a man paralyzed from the neck down in a wreck, from two sisters who were children when they lost their mother and brother in a crash, the estate of his longtime maid who died in a fall at the family home and from others. Murdaugh still faces about 100 different charges in state court. Authorities said he committed insurance fraud by trying to have someone kill him so his surviving son could get $10 million in life insurance, but the shot only grazed Murdaugh's head. Investigators said Murdaugh also failed to pay taxes on the money he stole, took settlement money from several clients and his family's law firm, and ran a drug and money laundering ring. He is scheduled to face trial on at least some of those charges at the end of November. State prosecutors have insisted they want him to face justice for each one. Murdaugh's lawyers suggested Thursday there are serious questions if that trial will happen, but didn't specify why. As Limehouse gave the judge details in federal court about each scheme to steal money, Murdaugh rocked back and forth. Judge Richard Gergel asked Murdaugh if he disagreed with any of the prosecution's description and the former attorney, whose law license is now revoked, referred to his lawyer Jim Griffin. When Murdaugh represented a woman who died in a wreck, he didn't steal from her estate — just her surviving husband's money, Griffin said. "Doesn't make it any better, but that's just one fine point of clarification," he added. Murdaugh's previous job was also mentioned a few times during the hearing. As it started, Gergel said he knew Murdaugh was familiar with the standard questions that defendants get asked as they plead guilty and mostly struck to the script. But when Gergel asked if Murdaugh was sober, the former lawyer — who blames decades of painkiller and other drug abuse for his crimes — said he has been "proudly clean" for 744 days. That would be Sept. 7, 2021, three days after police said he asked a friend to kill him on the side of that lonely Lowcountry two-lane road. Griffin said Murdaugh's drug use will likely play a big part in the sentencing report that will be written before his next hearing. Neither side would commit to a specific amount of time they hope Murdaugh spends behind bars until that report is completed. Murdaugh pleaded guilty to 14 counts of money laundering, five counts of wire fraud, one count of bank fraud, one count of conspiracy to commit wire and bank fraud, and one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud. The click of his pen as he signed the documents reverberated around the quiet courtroom. Each charge carries a maximum of at least 20 years in prison. Some have a maximum 30-year sentence. Other requirements of the plea deal include Murdaugh taking a lie detector test if asked and that he pay back the $9 million he is accused of stealing. That money must be turned over to federal authorities immediately, which could create friction because what assets Murdaugh still has are currently controlled by the state.

MONTGOMERY, Ala. — The U.S. Supreme Court is expected to soon rule on Alabama's request to let it keep new GOP-drawn congressional lines in place as it fights a three-judge panel's plan to create a second majority-Black district, or something close to it. The state attorney general and lawyers representing Black voters who challenged the map gave different interpretations in court fillings this week of whether Alabama blatantly defied justices' June decision in the case. The outcome could determine what map the state uses in the 2024 elections and whether the high court will revisit arguments over the role of race in redistricting. A three-judge panel is drawing new congressional lines in Alabama after lawmakers refused their directive to create a second district where Black voters would at least come close to comprising a majority. The Alabama secretary of state last week asked justices to put the redrawing process on hold as the state appeals. Lawyers representing plaintiffs in the case said Alabama "knowingly and intentionally" defied court orders and passed a map that continued to dilute the influence of Black voters in congressional elections. Plaintiffs have likened the state's action to how Alabama leaders fought court-ordered integration in the 1960s. A decision to review the case — even if Alabama ultimately loses — could keep GOP-drawn lines in place for another election cycle. "There is too much at stake. The government is supposed to represent the people. Yet we are being robbed of representation at the highest level," Evan Milligan, the lead plaintiff in the lawsuit, said Thursday. The issue is back before the Supreme Court just three months after justices ruled against the state in a 5-4 decision and upheld the three-judge panel's finding that the state's 2021 map — which had one majority-Black district out of seven in a state where more than one in four residents is Black — likely violated the Voting Rights Act. The three-judge panel said any new map should include a second majority-Black district or "something quite close to it" so that Black voters "have an opportunity to elect a representative of their choice." The Republican-controlled Alabama Legislature in July adopted a plan that maintained a single Black district, but boosted the percentage of Black voters in another to about 39%. The three-judge panel wrote that they were "deeply troubled" by the state's defiance, blocked use of the new map and directed a special master to submit proposed new maps by Monday. Alabama maintains that the June Supreme Court ruling in the case did not necessarily require a remedy of a second minority district. Alabama contends that its new map fixes the problems identified by the court such as how the state's Black Belt region was split into multiple districts. "The 2023 map cures those defects, but because it doesn't guarantee a second safe seat for Democrats, Plaintiffs now demand racial discrimination. ... The VRA does not require this sort of racial sorting of voters, and the Constitution does not allow it," the Alabama attorney general's office said in a statement. Alabama, in seeking a reversal of fortune, cited the recent Supreme Court ruling striking down affirmative action in college admissions, writing "just as this Court held that race-based affirmative action in education at some point had to end, the same principle applies to affirmative action in districting." Kareem Crayton, a redistricting expert with the Brennan Institute for Justice, which earlier filed a brief supporting plaintiffs in the case, said Alabama appears to be attempting to get the court to revisit what is required of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. "They have made the argument — and it really is nonsensical — that we don't want to think about race (in) the matter of drawing districts. That's not even consistent with their own practice," Crayton said. The three-judge panel said Alabama should have a second district that provides Black voters with a reasonable "opportunity" to elect their preferred candidates. Alabama's plan boosts the percentage of Black voters in the 2nd District, an area with deep ties to agriculture and home to a military base, from about 30% to almost 40%. But Crayton said an analysis of recent elections shows that a candidate preferred by Black voters would still lose almost every election in that district. "It's an opportunity for Republicans to keep control," Crayton said.