U.S. v. Murphy

Citation768 F.2d 1518
Decision Date27 September 1985
Docket NumberNos. 84-2398,85-1401,s. 84-2398
Parties18 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 981 UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. John M. MURPHY, Defendant-Appellant.
CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit)

Anna R. Lavin, Edward V. Hanrahan, Chicago, Ill., for defendant-appellant.

Daniel C. Murray, Asst. U.S. Atty., Chicago, Ill., for plaintiff-appellee.

Before CUDAHY and EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judges, and SWYGERT, Senior Circuit Judge.

EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge.

John M. Murphy was an Associate Judge of the Circuit Court of Cook County from 1972 until 1984. He was indicted in 1983 and charged with accepting bribes to fix the outcome of hundreds of cases, from drunk driving to battery to felony theft. Some of the counts on which he was convicted grew out of contrived cases staged by the FBI and federal prosecutors as part of Operation Greylord, an investigation of the Cook County courts.

The charges spanned many years and many statutes. Part I of this opinion sets out the background. Part II addresses Murphy's challenge to Operation Greylord. Part III looks at Murphy's arguments under particular statutes, Part IV at the conduct of the trial, and Part V at the decision of the district judge not to recuse himself.

I

The evidence at trial, which we now view in the light most favorable to the prosecution, showed several categories of cases in which Murphy took bribes. We separate the evidence into several groups: traffic court, "hustling," fixed felony offenses, and the cases that were contrived as part of the investigation. We omit a great deal of the evidence and describe only enough to give the general picture. Some of the events we recount are pertinent to other Greylord cases still in litigation. Our statement of the evidence and the inferences the jury could draw about Murphy's conduct is not meant to prejudge those cases.

Traffic court. The Cook County courts are organized into divisions, and supervisory judges assign other judges to particular divisions or courtrooms. From 1972 to early 1981 Murphy was assigned to traffic court, which has courtrooms for major offenses (driving while intoxicated, leaving the scene of an accident, and so on) and minor offenses (such as running a red light). Judge Richard LeFevour was the Supervising Judge of traffic court; he had the authority to decide whether Murphy and other judges would hear major or minor cases.

Officer James LeFevour of the Chicago police, Richard LeFevour's cousin, was assigned to traffic court from 1969 through 1980. James LeFevour testified for the prosecution as part of an agreement under which the Government limited its charges against him to three tax offenses. He testified that beginning in 1975 he met regularly with Melvin Cantor, who would give him a list of his cases that day. James LeFevour would take the list to Judge Richard LeFevour; Judge LeFevour would assign Murphy to hear some of Cantor's cases. James LeFevour would present Murphy the list of Cantor's cases. Murphy then would find the defendants not guilty or sentence them to "supervision," an outcome defendants favored. Later in each day Cantor would give James LeFevour money to pass to Judge LeFevour and some for James to keep for a "tip."

Although Richard LeFevour kept the bribes for these cases, he put Murphy in a position to "earn" his own bribes. Richard LeFevour would assign to major cases, on a regular basis, only those judges who would "see" James LeFevour. Lawyers then would bribe some of the judges assigned to the major courtrooms. Murphy was in a major courtroom more often than most other judges.

Lawyers known as "miracle workers" occasionally met with James LeFevour and with Joseph Trunzo, another police officer assigned to traffic court. The lawyers would tell Officer LeFevour or Officer Trunzo which defendants they represented; the officers would pass the information to Murphy; after the defendant had prevailed, the lawyer would hand an envelope to the officer with $100 per case for Murphy and another $10 or so for the officer; the officer would pass the envelope to Murphy. Prosecutors testified that although they won as many as 90% of their major traffic cases against public defenders, they almost never won a case in which the defendant was represented by one of the "miracle workers."

The testimony at the trial of this case concerned unidentified cases in traffic court. But some plays stood out, even though the players were anonymous. A prosecutor recalled one drunk driving case in which the defendant was represented by Harry Kleper, a miracle worker. The arresting police officer testified that the defendant failed the usual roadside tests of drunkenness and admitted drinking beer before driving. The defendant took the stand and did not deny imbibing; she said only that the liquor did not affect her ability to drive. Under cross-examination she admitted "feeling" the beer; the prosecutor then asked: "And don't you think it is fair to say that you were under the influence of intoxicating liquor?", to which she replied, "Yes, I guess that is a fair thing to say." Judge Murphy threw up his hands and called a recess, turning to Kleper with the remark: "Counselor, I suggest you talk to your client." As Murphy left the bench, the prosecutor heard Murphy yell down the hall to the judges' chambers: "You won't believe this. The State's Attorney just got the defendant to admit she was drunk." A few minutes later Murphy reconvened the court. Kleper asked the defendant whether she was drunk; she said no. In closing argument the prosecutor stressed the defendant's admission. Kleper did not give a closing argument. Murphy ruled: "I still have a reasonable doubt. Not guilty."

Hustlers. In 1981 Judge LeFevour became Presiding Judge for Cook County's First Municipal District court, which has a general jurisdiction. Many of the branch courts had been frequented by "hustlers." "Hustlers" are lawyers who stand outside the courtroom and solicit business from the people about to enter. Ethical rules long have prohibited such solicitation, and every appearance form in Circuit Court contains a representation that solicitation did not occur. Hustling is a profitable business nonetheless, and people find ways to pursue the profits of illegitimate enterprise with the same vigor they devote to lawful activities.

The profit in hustling comes from the bail system in Illinois. A defendant required to post bail may do so by depositing 10% of the bail in cash. If the defendant is discharged, the cash deposit (less the clerk's handling fee) is returned. This payment, called the cash bond refund (CBR), also may be assigned to the defendant's lawyer as compensation for legal services. Assignment requires the approval of the court. Hustlers make their money by persuading defendants to hire them and assign the CBR, then persuading the judge to release the CBR to them.

Judge Thaddeus L. Kowalski, who presided over the court known as Branch 29 from June 1980 to March 1981, believed that hustlers cheated their clients at the same time as they violated ethical rules. Often the hustlers appeared as counsel only when the case was bound to be dismissed anyway, as they well knew. Their "representation" of the defendants simply diverted the CBRs from the defendants to the lawyers. Judge Kowalski addressed hustling in the most effective way--by eliminating its profitability. He refused to permit the hustlers to collect the CBRs. They soon deserted Branch 29. When Richard LeFevour became the presiding judge of the first district, Judge Kowalski explained to Judge LeFevour how he had cut down on hustling. Judge LeFevour praised Judge Kowalski and promptly transferred him from Branch 29 to the East Chicago Avenue Police Court, which handles criminal cases originating in the Cabrini Green housing project. Judge LeFevour replaced Kowalski with Murphy.

Hustlers flourished under Murphy, who routinely permitted them to collect the CBRs. The hustlers showed appropriate gratitude. Every month the lawyers, collectively known as the Hustlers Club, paid James LeFevour $2500. James kept $500 and gave the rest to Richard. (The sums were reduced for some months when the hustlers' take fell. Murphy was incapacited by a broken ankle, and his replacement was apparently less compliant.) After a hustler made a certain amount, he paid an additional sum to the judge of the particular court. James LeFevour told Murphy of the Hustlers Club and Richard LeFevour's approval. Murphy told James LeFevour that he approved too.

Although Richard LeFevour kept the principal bribe, there were still rewards for Murphy. As at traffic court, Murphy was free to establish his own stable of bribe-givers. The Chicago Bar Association (CBA) maintains a Lawyer Referral Service. This service screens lawyers and assigns them to branch courtrooms to be of service to unrepresented defendants. These lawyers are potential competitors of the hustlers, and Murphy apparently cultivated them as independent sources of revenue.

Arthur Cirignani participated in the CBA's program. (The evidence at trial casts no shadows on the integrity of the CBA itself.) From June 1980 through the end of 1983 he was assigned to a courtroom three to four times a month. Whenever he was assigned to Branch 29, he paid Judge Murphy to assign cases to him rather than to continue the proceedings and allow the hustlers to claim the CBRs. For example, on June 21, 1982, Cirignani visited Murphy first thing in the morning and informed Murphy that he was there as the bar's lawyer. Murphy referred thirteen cases to Cirignani that day and allowed Cirignani to collect CBRs totalling $1,010, a return Cirignani called "excellent." On June 22 Cirignani took $200 in cash to Murphy, who accepted the money without comment. Cirignani testified that he paid Murphy then and on other...

To continue reading

Request your trial
245 cases
  • U.S. v. Morgano
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit
    • December 20, 1994
    ...commerce requirement because depleted money otherwise available to purchase law supplies from outside state); United States v. Murphy, 768 F.2d 1518, 1530-31 (7th Cir.1985), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1012, 106 S.Ct. 1188, 89 L.Ed.2d 304 (1986) Defendants disagree that the evidence proved Gerod......
  • Evanston Bank v. Conticommodity Services, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois
    • December 10, 1985
    ...to an essential part of the scheme." United States v. Wormick, 709 F.2d 454, 462 (7th Cir.1983); see also United States v. Murphy, 768 F.2d 1518, 1530 (7th Cir.1985). Mailings which conflict with the purposes of the scheme do not meet this test. Wormick, 709 F.2d at 462; United States v. St......
  • Ainsworth v. Combined Ins. Co. of America
    • United States
    • Nevada Supreme Court
    • May 19, 1989
    ...pose a particularly onerous potential for impeding the dispensation of justice. Id. 769 P.2d at 1275; cf. United States v. Murphy, 768 F.2d 1518, 1537-38 (7th Cir.1985), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1012, 106 S.Ct. 1188, 89 L.Ed.2d 304 (1986). Moreover, as we noted above, an allegation of bias in......
  • US v. Finley
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois
    • November 29, 1988
    ...of the scheme by preventing the agent from going to the court to inquire about his money. 809 F.2d at 1287. In United States v. Murphy, 768 F.2d 1518 (7th Cir.1985), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1012, 106 S.Ct. 1188, 89 L.Ed.2d 304 (1986), a judge was convicted of mail fraud in connection with a ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
6 books & journal articles
  • Trials
    • United States
    • Georgetown Law Journal No. 110-Annual Review, August 2022
    • August 1, 2022
    ...F.3d 476, 484-85 (5th Cir. 2003) (same); Union Planters Bank v. L & J Dev. Co., 115 F.3d 378, 383 (6th Cir. 1997) (same); U.S. v. Murphy, 768 F.2d 1518, 1539-40 (7th Cir. 1985) (same); Hurles v. Ryan, 752 F.3d 768, 788-92 (9th Cir. 2014) (judicial impartiality not presumed without evidentia......
  • Deception in Undercover Investigations: Conduct-based vs. Status-based Ethical Analysis
    • United States
    • Seattle University School of Law Seattle University Law Review No. 32-01, September 2008
    • Invalid date
    ...categories of cases it is necessary for the agents to commit acts that, standing by themselves, are criminal. United States v. Murphy, 768 F.2d 1518, 1528 (7th Cir. 1985); see also Robert Blecker, Beyond 1984: Undercover in America-Serpico to Abscam, 28 N.Y.L. SCH. L. REV. 823 108. 8 P.3d 9......
  • Breaking the law to enforce it: undercover police participation in crime.
    • United States
    • Stanford Law Review Vol. 62 No. 1, December 2009
    • December 1, 2009
    ...the outer limits of permissible undercover behaviour."). (202.) See discussion supra Part II.A & B. (203.) United States v. Murphy, 768 F.2d 1518, 1528 (7th Cir. (204.) See United States v. Kaminski, 703 F.2d 1004, 1010 (7th Cir. 1983). (205.) Murphy, 768 F.2d at 1528. (206.) Id. at 152......
  • Regulating Federal Prosecutors: Why Mcdade Should Be Repealed
    • United States
    • Georgia State University College of Law Georgia State Law Reviews No. 19-2, December 2002
    • Invalid date
    ...when prosecutor issued a sham grand jury subpoena to an undercover agent to protect an ongoing investigation); United States v. Murphy, 768 F.2d 1518 (7th Cir. 1985), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1012 (1986) (upholding conviction where federal agents and prosecutors participated in undercover ope......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT