Knowledge of unlawfulness is one of the issues that Judge John Robert Blakey expects to clarify when he prepares jury instructions at the bribery and racketeering trial of former Illinois House Speaker Micheal Madigan and codefendant Michael McClain.
Madigan attorney Lari Dierks took issue with the court’s view that the U.S. Supreme Court decision last June to overturn the bribery conviction of former Portage, Indiana, Mayor James Snyder did not impact the definition of “corruptly.”
Dierks suggested that the high court’s ruling required the government to prove that the individual had a corrupt state of mind.
Assistant U.S. Attorney Amar Bhachu argued that “corruptly” did not mean “willfully” and said the government should not be required to prove that the defendant knew his conduct was unlawful.
Blakey said he would not define “corruptly” but suggested that the requirement to prove an unlawful state of mind did not equate with “willfully.”
The judge suggested that he would write about his findings but said the important thing Monday was that the Snyder case did not overrule ignorance of law.
The judge said he would finish jury instructions next weekend and would hold a charge conference with attorneys next Tuesday afternoon, Jan. 21. Closing arguments would follow Wednesday through Friday, Jan. 22-24, but could extend to Monday, Jan. 27.
Blakey did allow Madigan’s attorneys to introduce former Chicago alderman and cooperating witness Daniel Solis’ tax filings. Madigan attorney Dan Collins cited bias and said Solis was cooperating with the government while also lying to the government on his tax returns.
Assistant U.S. Attorney Diane MacArthur said Solis’ deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) was signed in 2018 while all but one of the tax returns were signed and filed before the DPA. MacArthur said introducing the returns would be cumulative and confusing to the jury.
Collins sought to revisit the judge’s decision to allow prosecutors to play a recording from 2018 in which Madigan and McClain were laughing and talking about people “making out like bandits” and not doing any work. The conversation was believed to be in reference to a former union executive, Dennis Gannon. Collins argued that Gannon was not a Madigan recommendation., while Bhachu said the government would demonstrate that Madigan and McClain were talking about multiple people getting paid for little or no work.
Madigan attorney Todd Pugh argued against the admissibility of clips from a 2009 interview in which the former speaker discussed political patronage.
“We do not suggest that it has any relevance at all,” Pugh said.
“The entire interview is about the dedication of a library to [former Chicago Mayor] Richard J. Daley,” Pugh argued.
Bhachu said Madigan repeatedly talked about his motives in direct testimony last week. Bhachu said Madigan suggested that he made job recommendations solely for altruistic purposes. Bhachu said it is only fair that the government be able to show the jury that that is “totally untrue.”
Bhachu said Madigan and his allies would get people a job if they agreed to work for the Democratic Party.
“Political-based job recommendations are still lawful,” Pugh said, suggesting that the defense would ask for legal instructions to the jury.
Blakey said the interview clips were admissible and that the prior ruling against admissibility was reconsidered.
Bhachu asked the judge about the possibility of bringing former Metropolitan Pier and Exposition (McPier) CEO Juan Ochoa back to demonstrate that the speaker essentially blocked legislation in retaliation for Ochoa firing Madigan ally Jack Johnson. McPier is a municipal corporation, created by the Illinois General Assembly in 1989, which owns Chicago’s Navy Pier and McCormick Place convention center. Ochoa testified in November about his appointment to ComEd’s board of directors.
Blakey said Ochoa could be admitted but hearsay would be prohibited.
Blakey ruled that prosecutors could ask Madigan questions about the hiring of Jeffrey Rush, the son of former U.S. Representative Bobby Rush, D-Chicago. In a recording previously introduced by the government, Madigan explained to McClain that Jeffrey Rush needed a job after being fired by the Illinois Department of Corrections over a sexual relationship with an inmate. McClain subsequently asked then-ComEd executive Fidel Marquez if ComEd would hire the congressman’s son for a few months.
Bhachu also asked the judge for permission to ask questions regarding former Madigan aide Kevin Quinn’s firing over a sexual misconduct allegation and McClain’s subsequent move to ask Madigan allies to make monthly payments to Quinn. Blakey sustained the objection by Madigan’s attorneys over expanding the admissibility of issues related to Quinn, who is also the brother of 13th Ward Chicago Alderman Marty Quinn.
Prosecutors allege that ComEd and AT&T Illinois gave out no-work or little-work jobs and contract work to those loyal to Madigan to get legislation passed that would benefit them in Springfield. Four ComEd executives and lobbyists were convicted in 2023 in a related trial, and ComEd itself agreed to pay $200 million in fines as part of a deferred prosecution agreement with prosecutors.
Madigan served in the Illinois House from 1971 to 2021. He was speaker for all but two years between 1983 and 2021. Madigan also chaired the Democratic Party of Illinois from 1998 to 2021.
McClain was a longtime lobbyist who previously served as a state representative in Illinois’ 48th district from 1973 to 1982.
Attorneys also discussed a lawsuit regarding fair maps. Prosecutors asked about a lawsuit brought by the Democratic Party of Illinois, in which former ComEd lobbyist John Hooker was one of the plaintiffs.
“I don’t want a mini-trial on fair maps,” Blakey said.
Regarding arguments over the defendant’s understanding of the law, Pugh said it would be “incredibly improper” for the government to argue that the former speaker should have expert knowledge of every aspect of the law.
Government attorneys were expected to begin cross-examining Madigan Monday afternoon.
