Deutsch, Levy & Engel

SUPREME COURT REINSTATES DEFAMATION CLAIM AGAINST HARPERCOLLINS AND AUTHORS OF "TRUE CRIME" BOOK

DLE is pleased to announce that on December 21, 2006, the Illinois Supreme Court reinstated the libel claim of Chicago attorney, Patrick Tuite. Mr. Tuite sued the authors of "Double Deal" and publisher HarperCollins for false statements contained in the mafia tell-all book. DLE attorneys Paul M. Levy, Phillip J. Zisook and Brian D. Saucier represent Mr. Tuite.

The book proclaims on its cover and throughout its text that it is "the inside story of murder, unbridled corruption and the cop who was a mobster." The authors wrote that Mr. Tuite represented notorious mafia leader Joey Aiuppa and his cronies in a 1985 federal criminal case in Kansas City. The book claims that the FBI was "had uncovered tons of evidence" and was "on a roll" in heir prosecution of members of the Chicago Outfit. The books went on to recount that "witnesses start[ed] lining up" against Aiuppa, that the witness "knew just about everybody who was anybody in the Outfit" and that "guys were flipping left and right to such and extent that "[i] was pretty clear the Chicago Outfit was going to take a major hit."

According to the book, the mob gathered $1,000,000 cash, made up of hundred dollar bills of illegal Las Vegas "skim," and delivered the money to Tuite in duffel bags one night. After that, the attitude of the mob bosses changed because "Tuite had it all handled." The bosses were confident that that not-guilty verdicts were "a done deal" and "they were all going to be acquitted." When the verdicts came back guilty, the books questions why Mr. Tuite was not "whacked" for his failure.

Tuite sued for defamation and false light in Illinois state court against the authors and publisher. Tuite's Complaint alleged that he did not represent Auippa or his co-defendants at the trial, never received $1,000,000 from the mob (in hundred dollar bills or otherwise). Most importantly, Tuite claimed that the implication that he used the money to commit bribery to transform a case everyone believed would result in a "major hit" against the mob into a "done deal" was false and defamatory.

The lower court dismissed the case, holding that the Illinois innocent construction rule permitted a non-defamatory interpretation that the true-crime book was merely complimenting Mr. Tuite's skills as a lawyer. By a 2-1 vote, the Illinois Appellate Court affirmed the dismissal.

The Illinois Supreme Court then took the case, and unanimously found that there was no reasonable innocent construction of the passages concerning Mr. Tuite. Writing for the Court, Justice Kilbride held that "Given the overwhelming focus on corruption in this book, these statements cannot reasonable be given an innocent construction . . . these statements naturally indicate that Tuite was expected to engage in bribery or payoffs to secure the acquittal . . . the clear message is that Tuite was ready and able to fix the case, that he was paid to fix it, and that he did not deliver, something that should have caused a premature end to his life." The Supreme Court rejected the notion that purpose was to convey a story about Mr. Tuite's trial skills, but instead was included in the book as another example of corruption.

The case now returns to the trial court for further proceedings and eventual trial. The case is one of many high-profile matters handled by DLE in the area of speech and First Amendment law. For more information, contact DLE attorneys Paul M. Levy, Phillip J. Zisook and Brian D. Saucier.