It’s been more than six years since Alaina Hampton’s claims of sexual harassment by an aide to then-Illinois House Speaker Michael J. Madigan rocked Springfield and threatened Madigan’s grip on power .
Now the political consultant may turn out to be one of the first witnesses called by prosecutors in Madigan’s racketeering conspiracy trial — meaning she continues to haunt Madigan and his allies while they face seemingly unrelated criminal charges in federal court.
Still, Hampton’s testimony will be limited. U.S. District Judge John Blakey told attorneys Tuesday they should work out an agreement that would help them avoid getting into the details of her sexual harassment allegations in front of the jury.
He did so after arguments about her testimony broke out on the first official day of Madigan’s trial. Attorneys met with the judge in the afternoon after potential jurors reported to the Dirksen Federal Courthouse to fill out written questionnaires.
In-court interviews of the potential jurors are expected to begin at 9 a.m. Wednesday.
Madigan is accused of leading a criminal enterprise for nearly a decade, designed to enhance his political power and generate income for his allies and associates. Michael McClain, his longtime friend and confidant, is accused of acting as an agent of that enterprise.
Hampton went public early in 2018 with her claims that she’d been harassed by Madigan political aide Kevin Quinn, the brother of 13th Ward Ald. Marty Quinn. Neither Madigan nor McClain are accused of any such conduct.
But Hampton’s allegations, made amid the burgeoning #MeToo movement, prompted serious concern within Madigan’s inner-circle that the Southwest Side Democrat could finally be forced from power.
McClain even sent a fiery email telling Madigan’s team it was time to “play hardball and quit doing this nicey/nicey stuff.”
“We cannot lose him,” McClain wrote of Madigan. “We cannot give Illinois to these guys.”
The controversy also became a key part of the backstory during last year’s perjury trial of the now-imprisoned Madigan aide Tim Mapes.
Kevin Quinn lost his job over the allegations. But McClain later arranged for various people to send him monthly payments to help him out. Then, on Aug. 29, 2018, McClain filled Madigan in on the plan.
During that call, Madigan told McClain, “I think I ought to stay out of it,” records show.
Defense attorneys made clear Tuesday they disagree with the feds’ interpretation of that comment.
Prosecutors have said the arrangement speaks to the alleged racketeering enterprise, and efforts to arrange payments for “Madigan’s loyal soldiers.” Meanwhile, Blakey has ruled that it’s not necessary for prosecutors to get into the nature of the misconduct at issue.
Assistant U.S. Attorney Julia Schwartz told the judge Tuesday that Hampton’s testimony is still important because she’d explain to jurors that she reported Kevin Quinn’s harassment directly to Madigan. That means Madigan knew what had happened when McClain told him about the payment plan.
Assistant U.S. Attorney Amarjeet Bhachu also said prosecutors don’t intend to make clear that Hampton was the victim of the misconduct at issue — only that she had reported an employee’s misconduct to Madigan.
Still, defense attorney Daniel Collins warned Blakey that Hampton’s testimony came with the potential for “tremendous prejudice” against Madigan. Collins repeatedly said a “mini-trial” over Hampton’s allegations could result.
“It’s going to smear Mr. Madigan when there was very little involvement, whatsoever, on his part,” Collins said.
Blakey eventually told the two sides to work out a stipulation, in which each side would agree to certain relevant facts without requiring Hampton to testify to them.