Journalists who cover organized crime should be feeling a bit of a chill from an Illinois Supreme Court decision that reinstates a defamation suit against the authors of a book about the Chicago mob.

“Double Deal,” co-written by former wiseguy Michael Corbitt, allegedly defamed the attorney who represented Chicago mafia boss Joey Aiuppa and others in a 1985 criminal trial. Patrick Tuite, a prominent Chicago defense lawyer, claimed the book falsely implied that he would use bribery to secure an acquittal.

“After Tuite was on the case,” Corbitt and co-author Sam Giancana wrote,

Everybody figured Tuite had it all handled. To Aiuppa and his codefendants, it was like it was a done deal, like they were all going to be acquitted.

As it turned out, all the defendants were convicted. And according to the Supreme Court, the allegedly defamatory statements about Tuite -– in the context of a book “about crime and widespread corruption -– are not capable of a “reasonable innocent construction.”

“Although the book does not explicitly describe bribery ... it also does not mention or describe Tuite’s trial skills as the basis for the criminal defendants’ confidence in their acquittals,” the opinion said, going on to find that

[A] reasonable reader would most likely conclude this passage was intended to allude to bribery and corruption of the judicial system.

But just about any book about organized crime has “an overwhelming focus” on corruption and, if it faithfully describes the thoughts and comments of mobsters, will be full of implication and innuendo.

The Illinois court should at least have considered that context before allowing Tuite's case to proceed and scolding the authors of “Double Deal” for omitting mention of his trial skills.

By Matthew Heller
1/16/07