* WTTW…

Federal prosecutors say Michael Madigan’s former chief of staff Tim Mapes chose to “willfully obstruct” the government’s sprawling investigation into the former Illinois house speaker when he repeatedly lied to a grand jury and should be sentenced to as much as five years in prison.

In a sentencing memo filed Monday, the government asked a federal judge to sentence Mapes to between 51 and 63 months in prison following his conviction last August on charges of making false declarations and attempted obstruction of justice.

“Even now, after a jury convicted Mapes of both perjury and obstruction of justice, and of every single false statement listed in the indictment, Mapes still refuses to accept responsibility for his actions,” Assistant U.S. Attorney Julia Schwartz wrote in the memo. “He instead blames the government for not presenting him with more information when he repeatedly (and falsely) asserted a lack of memory before the grand jury.”

* There’s no doubt in my mind that Mapes lied under oath. The feds had him, he undoubtedly knew they had him, and yet he still lied. Why? The prosecutors’ theory…

Mapes’ motive for lying was obvious. Mapes wanted to protect his long-time boss, Madigan, as well as his friend McClain, and ensure that he could never become a witness at a criminal trial. After having been compelled to testify despite his assertion of his Fifth Amendment privilege, Mapes relied on “I don’t remember” or “I don’t recall” responses in an effort to make it appear he was fulfilling the immunity order when, in fact, Mapes knew the answers and refused to provide them. Below are just some of the lies Mapes told in the grand jury. Throughout his testimony, Mapes’ goal was to ensure that the government did not learn any useful or new information involving Madigan, McClain, and their relationship to one another.

* From the defense…

Tim’s counsel insisted on immunity—Tim himself did not. Counsel requested immunity solely because the government flatly refused to engage at all in a discussion with counsel about the topics they wanted to discuss with Tim, what if any concerns they had about him, and whether they would provide any documents and other information in order to help him best prepare himself to talk about events that had occurred many years ago.

Meh. From the prosecutors…

On February 11, 2021, the government questioned Mapes during a proffer-protected interview, with two defense attorneys present. During the interview, Mapes was asked numerous questions about Madigan’s relationship with McClain. Thus, prior to his appearance in front of the grand jury, Mapes was not only fully aware that a major indictment had been returned against his friend, McClain, alleging that he had been acting on behalf of Madigan, but he also knew from the questions that were posed during his interview that the government was keenly interested in the nature of that relationship.

Also, the prosecution has a different version of Mapes’ immunity…

On February 12, 2021, after that interview, Mapes was served a subpoena to testify in the grand jury. Tr. 615. Through his defense attorney, he refused to testify by asserting his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. Owing to his assertion of his Fifth Amendment privilege, before Mapes’ grand jury appearance, Chief Judge Rebecca Pallmeyer entered an order granting Mapes derivative use immunity pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 6002. On the morning of his grand jury testimony, March 31, 2021, Mapes appeared before Chief Judge Pallmeyer in person, and Chief Judge Pallmeyer admonished Mapes that the order required him to testify truthfully before the grand jury and that, if he failed to do so, he could face prosecution.

* Back to the defense…

When considering the nature and circumstances of the offense, accepting the jury’s verdict, we ask the Court to consider that (a) Tim’s allegedly perjurious and obstructive testimony solely concerned legal matters; (b) Tim did not profit from this activity; (c) Tim did not interfere with the investigation; (d) Tim was treated differently than others who appeared before the grand jury (and, in some cases, who testified similarly about a lack of knowledge of criminal conversations between McClain and Madigan); and (e) the underlying bribery offense may actually not be a crime, pending the Supreme Court’s decision in Snyder.

Prosecutors…

Mapes claims there is no evidence that he was involved in any of the underlying bribery conduct. Of course, Mapes’ false testimony made it impossible to ever know the full extent of his knowledge of or involvement in the underlying bribery activity that was under investigation. The immunity bestowed on Mapes protected Mapes from any truthful disclosures he made but he chose to provide no information of substance at all. […]

The government is not required to prove that the defendant was actually an accessory to the underlying offense.

* More coverage…

* Tribune | Prosecutors want up to 5 years in prison for former Madigan aide Tim Mapes, while defense asks for community service: Mapes’ attorneys, meanwhile, asked in a filing of their own for a sentence of probation and community service, arguing he never stood to personally benefit from any of his alleged misstatements and that while he accepts the jury’s verdict he “disagrees with it and continues to maintain his innocence.” “Tim Mapes is a good man,” defense attorneys Andrew Porter and Katie Hill wrote in their 47-page filing. “…He has spent decades working very hard (and expecting it of others) trying to make the State of Illinois better, fairer, and more compassionate to its citizens.” U.S. District Judge John Kness is scheduled to sentence Mapes on Feb. 12.

* Sun-Times | Madigan’s ex-chief of staff should get up to 5 years in prison for lies ‘calculated to thwart’ probe into former boss, feds say: Defense attorneys Andrew Porter and Katie Hill argued that, between Mapes’ prosecution and his 2018 dismissal by Madigan, “the last five years have constituted a half decade of misery for Tim and his family.” They pointed to more than 130 letters of support and insisted that “sending this nearly 70-year-old man to prison would achieve nothing more than to inflict undue additional suffering and hardship on Tim, his family, and his community.”