On June 18, 1996, an Illinois appellate court affirmed the circuit court, holding that: (1) the circuit court had jurisdiction to conduct an evidentiary hearing on the judicial bribe, and (2) the 1977 acquittal procured by bribery did not place Aleman in jeopardy. People v. Aleman, (Aleman I), 281 Ill. App.3d 991, 217 Ill.Dec. 526, 667 N.E.2d 615 (1996). The court also issued a Rule 23 order in support of its decision.

Where there has been no “ ‘risk of a determination of guilt,’ ” jeopardy has not truly attached. Id. at 390, 43 Ill.Dec. 8, 410 N.E.2d 8 (quoting Serfass v. United States, 420 U.S. 377, 391, 95 S.Ct. 1055, 43 L.Ed.2d 265 (1975)); see also People v. Aleman, 281 Ill.App.3d 991, 1008, 217 Ill.Dec. 526, 667 N.E.2d 615 (1996) (jeopardy did not attach, because the defendant's acquittal was procured through bribery of the trial judge, which meant that the defendant was never “subject to the risk normally associated with a criminal prosecution”). According to Deems, the traditional rule that double jeopardy attaches in a bench trial when the first witness is sworn and the court begins to hear evidence was “predicated upon the fact that the first witness is normally an individual whose testimony is part of the State's case—a prosecution witness whose appearance is part of the incriminating presentation jeopardizing defendant.”

Where there has been no "`risk of a determination of guilt,'" jeopardy has not truly attached. Id. at 390 (quoting Serfass v. United States, 420 U.S. 377, 391 (1975)); see also People v. Aleman, 281 Ill. App. 3d 991, 1008 (1996) (jeopardy did not attach, because the defendant's acquittal was procured through bribery of the trial judge, which meant that the defendant was never "subject to the risk normally associated with a criminal prosecution"). According to Deems, the traditional rule that double jeopardy attaches in a bench trial when the first witness is sworn and the court begins to hear evidence was "predicated upon the fact that the first witness is normally an individual whose testimony is part of the State's case — a prosecution witness whose appearance is part of the incriminating presentation jeopardizing defendant."

Even defendants who managed to initially escape conviction by successfully bribing Maloney are being given exactly what Bracy and Collins seek today — a fair trial before an honest and impartial judge. People v. Aleman, 1994 WL 684499 (Ill. Cir. Oct. 12, 1994), aff'd, 281 Ill.App.3d 991, 217 Ill.Dec. 526, 667 N.E.2d 615 (1996), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 1128, 117 S.Ct. 986, 136 L.Ed.2d 868 (1997); see also Aleman v. Honorable Judges of Circuit Court of Cook County, 138 F.3d 302 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 868, 119 S.Ct. 162, 142 L.Ed.2d 132 (1998). But these two petitioners, sentenced to death before a judge whose career as an attorney and judge was corrupt from beginning to end, are told that the judgment of a racketeer is perfectly satisfactory.

Based on this factual finding, the Circuit Court held that there was no double jeopardy bar to reprosecuting Aleman for the Logan murder because there was never any jeopardy at the first trial. Furthermore, because crucial witnesses were not available at an earlier time, the court denied Aleman's claims of unconstitutional pre-indictment delay. These rulings were upheld on appeal. See People v. Aleman, 667 N.E.2d 615 (Ill.App.Ct.), review denied, 671 N.E.2d 734 (Ill. 1996), and cert. denied, 117 S. Ct. 986 (1997). The district court below also rejected these contentions in Aleman's petition for a writ of habeas corpus.

The Circuit Court of Cook County held double jeopardy did not bar Aleman's prosecution. The ruling was affirmed, People v. Aleman, 281 Ill. App.3d 991, 667 N.E.2d 615 (1996), and the Illinois Supreme Court denied Aleman's petition for leave to appeal. People v. Aleman, 168 Ill.2d 600, 671 N.E.2d 734 (1996).

In a bench trial before Wilson, Aleman was acquitted. See People v. Aleman, 281 Ill. App.3d 991, 217 Ill.Dec. 526, 667 N.E.2d 615 (1996), appeal denied, 168 Ill.2d 600, 219 Ill.Dec. 567, 671 N.E.2d 734 (1996), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 1128, 117 S.Ct. 986, 136 L.Ed.2d 868 (1997), habeas corpus denied sub nom., United States ex rel. Aleman v. Circuit Court of Cook County, 967 F. Supp. 1022 (N.D.Ill. 1997), aff'd sub nom., Aleman v. Honorable Judges of Circuit Court of Cook County, 138 F.3d 302 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 119 S.Ct. 162, 142 L.Ed.2d 132 (1998). Before he was appointed to the bench, Maloney had the reputation of being a "fixer" among criminal circles.

Although the Commonwealth acknowledges that it could not “unilaterally resurrect an implied acquittal for de novo review” and that “courts have used strong language against retrials following an acquittal,” Commonwealth Br. at 18, it argues that limited exceptions to this rule exist. See Commonwealth v. Gibbons, 567 Pa. 24 , 784 A.2d 776 (2001) (Saylor, J., concurring) (emphasizing that “there is no absolute double jeopardy bar to appellate review of judgements of acquittal,” and explaining that appeal is allowed for pure issues of law); see also People v. Aleman, 281 Ill.App.3d 991 , 217 Ill.Dec. 526 , 667 N.E.2d 615 , 625 (1996) (recognizing an exception to double jeopardy bar of appellate review of acquittal where trial proceedings are a “sham” or otherwise infected with fraud or collusion). Specifically, the Commonwealth stresses that the *110 Superior Court has held that waiver of double jeopardy protections is possible.

Because the circuit court did not enter an order on August 20, 2021, and did not even have an opportunity to consider Mokkapat's motion before he filed his notice of appeal on August 24, 2021, Mokkapat's appeal was "essentially a nullity and did not deprive the trial court of its jurisdiction to proceed." Id. See also People v. Aleman, 281 Ill.App.3d 991, 1001 (1996) (finding that the notice of appeal did not divest the trial court of jurisdiction because the court's ruling "was not a final order from which a proper notice of appeal could be filed, but a court order which contemplated further proceedings" and therefore an appeal was "not proper at this stage of the proceedings"). We note that Mokkapat's counsel made this same argument in an appeal of another case, and it was similarly rejected by another division of this court.

¶ 21 We also note that "[t]he filing of a notice of appeal from an order or judgment which the supreme court rules do not make appealable neither deprives the trial court of jurisdiction to proceed with the case nor vests the appellate court with jurisdiction to consider it." North Community Bank v. 17011 South Park Ave., LLC, 2015 IL App (1st) 133672, ¶ 24; see also People v. Aleman, 281 Ill.App.3d 991 (1996) (notice of appeal was not proper at a particular stage of the proceedings, so it did not divest the trial court of jurisdiction).