Michael Madigan trial: Whistleblower to testify

The woman whose sexual harassment allegations against a Democratic political operative sent shockwaves through Springfield in 2018 will testify for the prosecution in the trial of ex-House speaker Michael Madigan — though details about the alleged misconduct will be kept from the jury.

Alaina Hampton’s participation as a government witness was revealed Tuesday as jury selection in Madigan’s racketeering trial finally got underway.

The Tribune broke the story in February 2018 of Hampton’s #MeToo-era accusations against 13th Ward Democratic insider Kevin Quinn, the brother of Madigan’s handpicked alderman, which led to Quinn’s high-profile ouster. But she likely will testify mainly about her experiences working in the ward, Madigan’s base of power.

Prosecutors had hoped she could also testify about reporting the harassment directly to Madigan, though she would have been instructed not to say she was the alleged victim or that the misconduct was sexual in nature.

But after strong objections Tuesday from Madigan’s defense, U.S. District Judge John Robert Blakey agreed that to avoid a diversion into irrelevant and “emotionally inflammatory” testimony, the attorneys will instead read a stipulation to jurors saying Hampton reported “misconduct” to Madigan and when.

“The point is not the underlying facts of an employment dispute,” Blakey said.

Still, Hampton’s testimony is expected to lend context to wiretapped recordings the jury will hear later in the trial where Madigan’s longtime confidant and co-defendant, Michael McClain, allegedly filled him in on a plan to funnel payments to Quinn to provide a financial “bridge” until he could find another job.

Madigan allegedly told McClain on the call it would be better if he was kept out of the loop, according to prosecutors.

The dispute over Hampton’s testimony came on the first day of jury selection in Madigan’s trial, after roughly 180 people had come to Chicago’s federal courthouse to complete a written questionnaire. In-person questioning is expected to begin Wednesday morning.

Madigan, the Southwest Side Democrat known as “The Velvet Hammer” who reigned over state politics for decades, is charged along with lobbyist McClain in a wide-ranging racketeering indictment

More Top Picks Return Policy

Attorneys wanted clarity on the contours of Hampton’s testimony before jury selection began in earnest so they could tailor their strategy accordingly, Madigan attorney Daniel Collins said in court.

Hampton is expected to be one of the prosecution’s first witnesses, attorneys said.

In February 2017, when she was working for 13th Ward Ald. Marty Quinn, she told the alderman that his brother Kevin was persistently harassing her via text, asking her out on dates. Marty Quinn told his brother to stop, but did not fire him; Hampton in November 2017 wrote a letter directly to Madigan explaining she was no longer working for the ward because of the harassment.

After Quinn was forced out, prosecutors claim that McClain took part in a secret plan to funnel money to him, a plan that the Tribune first reported in July 2019 had become a subject of the burgeoning federal investigation.

“She reported her accusations to Mr. Madigan,” Assistant U.S. Attorney Julia Schwartz said in court. “Then six months later, when Mr. Madigan becomes aware payments are being made … (this) shows he knows there had been some misconduct in the background and knows the need to conceal it.”

But putting Hampton on the stand to talk about her accusations could be “scarily prejudicial,” Collins said. Nobody has accused Madigan of harassment, he noted, saying that despite whatever guardrails were put on her testimony, jurors could easily infer Quinn’s behavior was sexual or worse.

Jurors will hear a recorded call from Aug. 29, 2018, in which McClain reported to Madigan that he had “put four or five people together that are willing to contribute” to Quinn over the next six months, according to prosecution filings.

McClain asked if Madigan wanted to mention it to Marty Quinn, or “stay out of it.”

“I think I oughta stay out of it,” Madigan allegedly replied.

About five minutes later, McClain called Ald. Quinn and asked if he wanted to know about the details or whether he too would “like to stay in the dark on that.”

The alderman told McClain he would “rather stay in the dark,” according to the prosecution filing.

Hampton later sued Madigan’s political operations alleging she was blackballed from his political organization once she made her allegations public. The case settled with no admission of wrongdoing from Madigan’s camp.

Jury selection is expected to begin in earnest first thing Wednesday with attorneys and the judge questioning panels of prospective jurors in an attempt to weed out those with strong opinions about Madigan or politics.

Defense attorneys, citing enormous pretrial publicity, wanted to hire a company to research jurors’ internet presences so lawyers could screen for signs of bias. Blakey rejected that request. However, during the jury selection period, attorneys will be allowed to do basic internet searches about the prospective jurors.

If the full panel of 12 jurors and six alternates is selected in time, they will hear opening statements Oct. 15.

Among the allegations against Madigan and McClain: The men schemed to have a parcel of state-owned land in Chinatown transferred to the city for development; Madigan allegedly expected the developers of a hotel project to hire his law firm.

The indictment also accuses Madigan and McClain of conspiring to have utility giants Commonwealth Edison and AT&T Illinois put the speaker’s associates on contracts requiring little or no work in exchange for Madigan’s assistance on key legislation in Springfield.

ComEd allegedly also heaped legal work onto a Madigan ally, granted his request to put a political associate on the state-regulated utility’s board and distributed bundles of summer internships to college students living in his Southwest Side legislative district, according to the charges.

McClain was convicted last year in the Madigan-adjacent “ComEd Four” bribery trial. He has not been sentenced; he and his co-defendants are aiming to get their convictions thrown out.

[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]

Breaking down the charges in the Michael Madigan indictment

More Top Picks Best Outdoor Beverage Coolers