Tim Mapes perjury trial opens in earnest with clash over alleged lies in sprawling federal probe
Tim Mapes, the ousted “gatekeeper” and longtime chief of staff of former Democratic House Speaker Michael Madigan, deliberately lied and misled a federal grand jury because he wanted to “protect the boss,” a federal prosecutor charged Wednesday.
“Truth matters,” Assistant U.S. Attorney Diane MacArthur said.
The Mapes defense team countered with a far different picture: Mapes “did his level best” in giving answers during an intimidating grand jury process but simply could not remember details about key questions prosecutors asked about Madigan’s political association with a top confidant.
Besides, a Mapes attorney argued, Madigan jettisoned Mapes in 2018 from the longtime speaker’s government and political operations, a move that froze him out following a scandal at the height of the national #MeToo movement.
The opening statements launched in earnest the closely watched Mapes jury trial, which carries high political stakes. Mapes is the second major Madigan insider to go to trial in the sweeping corruption scandal that led last year to Madigan’s indictment.
Madigan’s confidant for decades, Michael McClain, already was convicted in the ComEd Four trial this year and is Madigan’s co-defendant in next year’s racketeering trial on charges that the once-powerful speaker ran a criminal enterprise.
Mapes is accused of lying before a March 2021 federal grand jury investigating the far-reaching Madigan corruption case. Prosecutors allege Mapes lied in response to questions about the tight alliance between Madigan and McClain, a lobbyist and former lawmaker.
Mapes’ sudden exit from the Madigan team shocked Springfield, prompting one Madigan loyalist to testify Wednesday that Mapes’ departure left him “devastated.”
In presenting the government case, MacArthur contended Mapes “perverted” the grand jury process and “jeopardized” the corruption investigation against Madigan with “false testimony.”
“The defendant lied. Not just once but again and again and again, to prevent the grand jury from finding out” about Madigan’s actions, she said.
Mapes and McClain were in deep with Madigan, prosecutors said, indicating it would be implausible to think Mapes wasn’t looped in on their plans — even after Mapes was unceremoniously cast aside.
”This was a tight inner circle, including and surrounding Michael Madigan,” MacArthur said. “Madigan, McClain and Mapes. They shared communications, they relied on each other and they performed tasks for each other over the years.”
Katie Hill, Mapes’ attorney, countered that the government “has it wrong,” saying Mapes “did not lie.”
Jurors likely would not be able to remember, for example, the color of their prom corsage or who won a specific high school ballgame, Hill contended, just like Mapes could not remember details of what happened in conversations a few years ago.
Hill said Mapes listened and answered “very carefully,” saying it was “not the time to speculate. This is not the time to guess.”
But MacArthur contended a series of answers Mapes gave to the grand jury clearly showed he was protecting his longtime “boss.” That included, MacArthur said, whether McClain had passed along “any insight” about private meetings with Madigan — even after Madigan ousted Mapes in a 2018 scandal.
Mapes said “that wouldn’t happen,” which MacArthur told jurors was a lie.
And when Mapes was asked if he knew whether McClain performed “any sort of tasks or assignments” for Madigan in 2017 and 2018, Mapes said, “I don’t recall.” MacArthur contended that was another lie.
“The defendant, through his answer, falsely stated under oath that he did not remember any anything,” MacArthur said. “Any. Anything.”
Hill disputed the allegations, saying prosecutors chose to charge Mapes over a few statements cherry-picked from the grand jury session. Only once during his testimony was Mapes provided with a document or recording that could have refreshed his memory, she said.
“He’s a 60-something-year-old man, he’s being given what’s basically a test of memory, he’s scared, the environment is terrifying, and he’s aware the government has all of this on tape,” Hill said.
Hill maintained Mapes was “limited to what he actually knows” and an appearance before a grand jury “is not the time to start making assumptions, not the time to start guessing.”
And while McClain might have told Mapes directly at times about “assignments” discussed with Madigan, Mapes knew that McClain was prone to exaggerating, Hill said.
“Someone in Tim’s position would not have considered what McClain said to be the gospel truth about what Madigan actually said or wanted,” Hill said. “Tim knew better than to presume he knew anything about those private conversations.”
Further, Hill maintained Mapes did not always know what Madigan was up to because the then-speaker played his cards “close to his vest.”
But MacArthur countered with Mapes’ own words. She used a comment that Mapes had made previously to underscore how he viewed his role with Madigan: “I always try to protect him, I mean, that’s my goal. It’s like in marriage.”
Despite the decades of Mapes and Madigan working closely together, though, Hill maintained the two men “were not close friends and confidants.” She sought to buttress her point by saying that, once Madigan made Mapes “walk the plank” in 2018, Madigan “ices him out.”
In 2018, Madigan ousted Mapes within hours of a downstate staffer accusing him of sexual harassment and fostering a “culture of sexism, harassment and bullying.”
Mapes disputed the allegations, but Madigan forced him to leave the prominent roles as chief of staff, House clerk and executive director of the Democratic Party of Illinois — a trio of powerful positions all aimed at supporting Madigan, the longest-serving lawmaker to run a legislative chamber in American history.
Madigan has testified during a deposition in a separate civil case that he told Mapes to resign.
The details of the allegations that prompted Mapes’ departure were not presented to the jury Wednesday. Instead, a prosecutor read a stipulation that Mapes left following “allegations of inappropriate workplace professionalism.”
When Mapes testified before the grand jury in 2021, he was granted immunity on the condition that he would tell the truth, but prosecutors alleged he lied anyway.
Prosecutors’ first witness was former House Majority Leader Greg Harris, a Chicago Democrat, who took the stand in part to give jurors a civics lesson about how state government is structured and run.
In addition, Harris testified that Madigan and McClain worked closely together — and Madigan’s position as House speaker gave him immense power in the legislative process.
But it was Tom Cullen, the prosecution’s second witness, who drew the most attention. Cullen served as a top political guru on Madigan’s government staff in the 1990s and stayed involved in House Democratic campaigns for years after he began working as a lobbyist.
Cullen also acknowledged the close working relationship Mapes had with McClain and Madigan through a variety of government and political duties.
Mapes was known to strike fear into staffers, but Cullen testified under prosecution questioning that Mapes was “fair but tough.”
Andrew Porter, a second Mapes attorney, sought to polish Mapes’ image by asking Cullen if he found Mapes to be a “man of integrity.”
“I do,” Cullen responded.
Moments later, Assistant U.S. Attorney Julia Schwartz noted that Cullen was a die-hard supporter of Madigan, too.
“Your loyalty to Speaker Madigan ran deep, ran for decades,” she said. “You were willing to protect Speaker Madigan even at times when it led to great personal cost to yourself, isn’t that right?”
“Correct,” Cullen responded.
And, referencing Cullen’s high opinion of Mapes’ integrity, Schwartz asked: “Were you there in the grand jury when Mr. Mapes testified?”
”I was not,” Cullen said.
Cullen testified that he received a “nontarget” letter, meaning he would not be prosecuted in the Mapes case.
Sitting quietly at the defense table, Mapes, 68, looked a little grayer and a little balder than in the days when he used to charge through the Illinois House, barking orders at lawmakers and staffers.
He faces single counts of perjury and attempted obstruction of justice, the latter charge worth a maximum of 20 years in prison.
mcrepeau@chicagotribune.com
