Saying Mob Figures Gave Attorney $1 Million Cannot Be Innocently Constructed

Writing in a book that two reputed mob figures were “semijubilant” after paying a Chicago attorney $1 million in cash skimmed from a casino to represent them in a criminal case cannot be innocently constructed but rather is libel per se, the Illinois Supreme Court found.

In the book, Double Deal, the authors discussed the involvement of attorney Patrick Tuite in defending alleged mob boss Joey Aiuppa against criminal charges in 1985. Both the trial court and the appellate court dismissed the case based upon a finding that the language in the book could be innocently constructed and therefore was not libel per se. The Illinois Supreme Court reversed.

While finding that the attorney was not explicitly accused of bribing officials in the book, it does state that “Aiuppa and his codefendants were facing virtually insurmountable evidence in their pending criminal trial. Nevertheless, after allegedly paying Tuite $1 million in case from their illegal ‘skim,’ the criminal defendants considered their acquittals to be a ‘done deal.'” Rather than being innocently constructed to mean that the defendants merely were complimenting the attorney for his skills, as the appellate court found, “it is far more reasonable to believe defendants intended to convey a story about corruption,” the court said.

“Based on the wording of the excerpt along with the context of the book as a whole, we believe that a reasonable reader would most likely conclude this passage as intended to allude to bribery and corruption of the judicial system. A reasonable reader would likely conclude that the delivery of $1 million in cash in illegally obtained funds was not solely for legitimate legal fees, but was, at least in part, to be used for bribes and payoffs to ensure the acquittals,” the opinion said. “There is simply no basis for a reasonable reader to believe that defendants implicitly intended to compliment Tuite’s trial skills in the middle of a book about organized crime and corruption.”

In addition, Tuite claims that he was not retained by Aiuppa, nor was he the attorney of record. He did not file an appearance nor participate in the trial. Rather he served as a consultant to Aiuppa’s attorneys. He also denies receiving a retainer of $1 million.

The court rejected Tuite’s request that Illinois abandon the “innocent construction rule” that requires a court to determine if a statement can be reasonably constructed to find an innocent meaning to the language rather than a defamatory meaning. The court said that, while the state is in the minority in using the rule, it was reluctant to change its longstanding policy. One justice dissented, arguing that the rule should be changed to a “reasonable construction” rule.

Tuite v. Corbitt, Ill. Sup. No. 101054, issued Dec. 21, 2007.