Opening statements Wednesday in the trial of Michael Madigan’s former chief of staff will be prosecutors’ first opportunity to outline their perjury case to a newly seated jury.
But it will also give defense attorneys a chance to finally tell Tim Mapes’ side of the story, as they try to convince jurors he did not purposely give false testimony or try to block the feds’ aggressive investigation of Madigan, Illinois’ once-powerful House speaker.
Mapes’ attorneys chose not to comment publicly ahead of his trial this month. But when he was indicted on perjury and attempted obstruction of justice charges in 2021, they insisted he “testified truthfully in the grand jury.”
“His honest recollections — in response to vague and imprecise questions about events that allegedly took place many years ago — simply do not constitute perjury,” defense attorneys Andrew Porter and Katie Hill said in a statement.
They’ve since made similar arguments in court. They’ve said his answers to some questions — like “I don’t recall” — were “literally true.” And they’ve suggested they might tell jurors Mapes was caught off guard by the questions he was asked in the grand jury.
Porter told U.S. District Judge John Kness on Tuesday that he expects it’ll take 30 minutes to lay out the defense to jurors during opening statements. Prosecutors will go first, and they’ve predicted their commentary will last about 25 minutes.
Afterward, prosecutors will begin to call witnesses in their bid to prove Mapes was not telling the truth when he told a grand jury on March 31, 2021, that he didn’t know about work being done by another Madigan ally, Michael McClain, on Madigan’s behalf.
McClain was convicted with three others earlier this year for a conspiracy to bribe Madigan. He also faces trial with Madigan in April in a second case, in which both men are charged with a racketeering conspiracy.
Prosecutors in Mapes’ case plan to call several witnesses and play dozens of secret FBI recordings as they make their case.
Once defense attorneys get their turn, they’ve disclosed that they plan to call an expert to testify about human memories. That expert, Dawn McBride, might also testify about factors that can prevent memories from being stored, and common errors in memory recall.
Kness said he’d allow it despite objections from prosecutors.
However, prosecutors have also warned the judge they suspect Mapes’ lawyers will claim he was “somehow threatened” during the Madigan investigation, or when he was brought to the grand jury.
Mapes testified to grand jurors after U.S. District Chief Judge Rebecca Pallmeyer handed down an immunity order. That meant Mapes couldn’t be prosecuted for his testimony unless he lied or otherwise failed to do what the judge told him.
“The government feels strongly that there were no threats,” Assistant U.S. Attorney Diane MacArthur told the judge earlier this week.
Porter responded by telling the judge “there can certainly be argument around how a reasonable person might respond to some of the statements made by the prosecutor … and just the intimidating setting of the grand jury.”
He said that is “plainly something … we will inquire about and pursue in this case.”
But Porter also said “it is not, at all, an ‘outrageous government conduct’ kind of argument. We will not make that argument.”