Witnesses in the perjury trial of Michael Madigan’s longtime chief of staff have said they found his forced resignation in June 2018 to be surprising, unexpected and even traumatic.
But Tuesday, jurors heard Tim Mapes’ wife describe how he handled being essentially fired amid a #MeToo wave at the Capitol after two decades of service to Madigan.
Bronwyn Rains said her husband “became very sullen. Very depressed. Isolative. Appeared as if he was lost. He spent much time in our — in fact, he spent all of his time — in our furnished basement, sitting in the dark.”
Rains said Mapes’ energy level went from “high” before he quit over bullying and harassment claims to “low-to-non-existent” afterward. She said his lethargy continued for months. After she encouraged him to find work, she said he wound up with a part-time job servicing trucks for UPS.
But Rains’ description of her husband’s depression is sure to be challenged by prosecutors Wednesday when lawyers are set to give closing arguments in Mapes’ trial. A jury of six men and six women could then begin deliberating as soon as Wednesday afternoon.
The jury has heard from 18 witnesses over two weeks, including three current or former elected officials: state Rep. Robert “Bob” Rita, former state Rep. Greg Harris and former state Rep. Lou Lang.
Mapes’ defense attorneys called four witnesses Tuesday. However, Mapes confirmed for U.S. District Judge John Kness that he would not testify in his own defense.
Mapes is charged with perjury and attempted obstruction of justice. He is accused in the perjury count of lying on seven specific occasions about work done for Madigan by another Springfield insider, Michael McClain.
McClain was convicted along with three others earlier this year for conspiring to bribe Madigan. He also faces trial with Madigan in April in a separate case in which they are each charged with a racketeering conspiracy.
In addition to Rains, Mapes’ defense attorneys called human memory expert Dawn McBride, private investigator David Hodapp, and former Democratic Party of Illinois staffer Emily Wurth.
During Wurth’s testimony, defense attorneys played a recording in which McClain told her, “I can’t tell you how important you are to the speaker.” Wurth told jurors that she took it as a compliment but “I did not need McClain to validate my relationship with the speaker.”
Rather, she testified that she had direct access to Madigan, much like Mapes once did. In opening statements, Mapes defense attorney Katie Hill argued that people in such a position did not need to rely on the Springfield “folklore” that McClain carried messages and performed tasks for Madigan.
Hill’s co-counsel, Andrew Porter, asked Wurth whether she was “aware of whether Mr. McClain did any tasks or assignments for Mr. Madigan?”
“I don’t remember that he did tasks or assignments for the speaker,” Wurth testified.
But the testimony from Rains and Wurth seems to run contrary to the numerous recordings jurors have heard during Mapes’ trial. In those calls, McClain discussed with Mapes “assignments” — apparently from Madigan — that involved a piece of property in Chinatown and Madigan’s desire to have Lang resign from office.
Their conversations continued well after Mapes’ resignation in June 2018. In late October 2018, Mapes was on the phone with McClain talking about the Lang assignment.
Laughter could be heard on that call after Mapes asked, “Will you be wearing your big boy pants that day?”
