Aleman v. Honorable Judges of the Circuit Court of Cook County
138 F.3d 302, 1998 WL 97254 (1998)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An acquittal procured by a defendant's bribery of the judge does not constitute a valid judgment for purposes of the Double Jeopardy Clause, as the defendant was never truly at risk of conviction.
Facts:
- In 1972, Harry Aleman shot and killed William Logan.
- In 1975, Aleman also killed Anthony Reitinger.
- Prior to his 1977 bench trial for the Logan murder, Aleman arranged through an intermediary, Robert Cooley, to pay Judge Frank Wilson a $10,000 bribe to secure an acquittal.
- Cooley paid Judge Wilson an initial $2,500, with the remaining $7,500 to be paid after the acquittal.
- During the trial, Judge Wilson became upset that the prosecution's case was stronger than represented but still fulfilled his end of the bargain.
- On May 24, 1977, Judge Wilson acquitted Aleman of the Logan murder.
- Shortly after the acquittal, Cooley met Judge Wilson in a restaurant men's room and paid him the remaining $7,500.
- Years later, while in prison on other charges, Aleman admitted to a fellow inmate that he had 'fixed' the Logan trial by bribing the judge.
Procedural Posture:
- In May 1977, Harry Aleman was acquitted of murder in a bench trial before a Cook County Circuit Court judge.
- In December 1993, after new evidence of bribery surfaced, a Cook County grand jury returned a new indictment against Aleman for the same murder.
- Aleman filed a motion to dismiss the new indictment in the Cook County Circuit Court, arguing it violated the Double Jeopardy Clause.
- The Circuit Court, acting as the trial court, held an evidentiary hearing, found that Aleman had bribed the judge in the 1977 trial, and denied the motion to dismiss.
- Aleman, as appellant, appealed the trial court's ruling to the Illinois Appellate Court, which affirmed the trial court's decision.
- The Illinois Supreme Court and the U.S. Supreme Court both declined to hear the case.
- Aleman then filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, which denied the petition.
- Aleman, as appellant, appealed the district court's denial of his habeas petition to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment bar a second prosecution for murder when the defendant's acquittal in the first trial was procured by bribing the presiding judge?
Opinions:
Majority - Flaum, Circuit Judge.
No. The Double Jeopardy Clause does not bar a second prosecution because an acquittal obtained by bribing the judge is a nullity, meaning jeopardy never truly attached. The core principle of the Double Jeopardy Clause is to protect a defendant from the risk and hazard associated with a criminal prosecution. The Supreme Court has consistently defined jeopardy in terms of this risk. In this case, Aleman was never subjected to the 'risk traditionally associated with criminal prosecution' because he had 'fixed' the outcome by bribing Judge Wilson. The court found overwhelming evidence of the bribe, rendering the first trial a sham. Allowing Aleman to benefit from his own fraud on the court would be a 'perversion of justice' and create a dangerous incentive for other defendants. Therefore, because the first proceeding did not place Aleman in genuine jeopardy, the state was not barred from re-prosecuting him for the Logan murder once the bribery was discovered.
Analysis:
This decision establishes a significant fraud exception to the otherwise absolute finality of an acquittal under the Double Jeopardy Clause. By holding that jeopardy does not attach when a defendant corrupts the tribunal itself, the court prevents the clause from being used as a shield for those who subvert the judicial process. This creates a narrow but important precedent allowing for re-prosecution in rare cases where an acquittal is later found to be the product of the defendant's own illegal actions, such as bribery. It prioritizes the integrity of the justice system over a defendant's claim to finality when that finality was obtained through corruption.
