Advertisement

Dennis Hastert case: Both sides agree to keep judge

Share
Chicago Tribune

U.S. District Judge Thomas Durkin will remain in charge of the criminal case against former U.S. House Speaker Dennis Hastert in spite of the judge’s ties to Hastert, which include campaign contributions and a onetime business relationship with Hastert’s son.

The decision came two days after Durkin disclosed at Hastert’s arraignment that he would disqualify himself from the case because of the potential conflict-of-interest issues. After Hastert entered a plea of not guilty, Durkin said he had “no doubt” he could be impartial in the case, but federal statute called for him to step aside if his impartiality “might reasonably be questioned.”

His decision could be waived if both sides agreed to do so, however. On Thursday, both Hastert and prosecutors signed letters to the court clerk stating they were “willing to proceed forward with Judge Durkin presiding.”

Advertisement

Jeffrey Cramer, a former federal prosecutor, said the decision to remain in front of Durkin was not surprising.

“In the scheme of things, the theoretical conflicts were not that big a deal,” said Cramer. “Judge Durkin has a reputation for being fair. He’s worn both hats as both a prosecutor and defense attorney … so it makes sense for both sides.”

Hastert, 73, was charged in an indictment unsealed May 28 that accused him of agreeing to pay $3.5 million to a longtime acquaintance to conceal wrongdoing from Hastert’s days as a high school teacher and wrestling coach in Yorkville, Ill. According to the charges, Hastert had already paid $1.7 million to the acquaintance, identified only as Individual A, then lied about it when the FBI questioned him in December.

While the carefully worded, seven-page indictment only hinted at Hastert’s past, federal law enforcement sources have said Hastert was making the payments to conceal sexual abuse of a Yorkville High School student. The FBI also interviewed a second person who raised similar allegations of sexual abuse against Hastert, corroborating the account of Individual A, sources said.

Given the sensational nature of the charges, Cramer said, he wouldn’t be surprised if Durkin’s role in the case turns out to be minimal. The reason: Cramer thinks it’s likely that Hastert, who was allegedly willing to pay millions of dollars to keep a secret from coming to light, will reach a deal with prosecutors to plead guilty in order to keep the details from coming out at trial.

If an agreement is reached and prosecutors agree on a recommended sentence, Durkin could have very little to do with the case.

Advertisement

“All he would have to do is decide whether to go along with the agreement,” Cramer said.

For a judge to reject such an agreement would be rare, he said.

After the bombshell case was randomly assigned to Durkin, it came to light that he had made two donations totaling $1,500 to Hastert’s campaign more than a decade ago while he was a private attorney at the Mayer Brown law firm in Chicago.

The Chicago Tribune also reported that the judge’s brother is Jim Durkin, the current Republican leader of the Illinois House, and that Hastert’s son is an attorney at Durkin’s old law firm.

At the arraignment Tuesday, Durkin took the issues head on, saying he did not personally know Hastert and that none of the connections would affect his ability to be fair.

The judge disclosed he had written an email in the mid-1990s to a Hastert staffer as part of his effort at the time to be appointed to the federal bench.

“But nothing came of it,” said Durkin, who was appointed to the bench by President Obama in 2012.

In addition, the judge said he had worked at the same law firm as Hastert’s son Ethan, including working closely on one matter together in 2011.

Advertisement

“We were friendly business colleagues, but I do not consider him a personal friend,” Durkin said.

Whatever their decision was on whether to keep him, “I will not be offended whatever the result, I assure you,” Durkin told the lawyers.

If Durkin had been disqualified, it would have been a rare step in federal court. Neither prosecutors nor Hastert’s attorneys had indicated in court what their decision might be, but there were clearly good reasons for each side to want to keep Durkin, a respected judge who as a former federal prosecutor helped win several key convictions in the Operation Gambat public corruption probe in the 1990s.

jmeisner@tribpub.com

Twitter @jmetr22b

Advertisement