Facebook icon Twitter icon Instagram icon YouTube icon

Judge Refuses to Toss Michael Madigan Bribery Charges as Ex-House Speaker Heads to Trial

Michael Madigan file photo (WTTW News)Michael Madigan file photo (WTTW News)

The federal judge overseeing Michael Madigan’s racketeering case has refused to toss out several charges, just days before the trial is set to begin in a Chicago courtroom.

Thanks to our sponsors:

View all sponsors

District Judge John Blakey on Wednesday denied a defense motion seeking to toss out a handful of charges, including bribery counts, after a U.S. Supreme Court ruling narrowed the federal bribery statute — known as “section 666” — in a ruling earlier this year.

“On a motion to dismiss, the Defendant’s ‘constitutional right is to know the offense with which he is charged, not to know the details of how it will be proved,’” Blakey wrote in his ruling. “Under this standard, the Government has sufficiently alleged a claim for bribery under § 666.9.”

Madigan — who is facing charges of racketeering conspiracy, using interstate facilities in aid of bribery, wire fraud and attempted extortion — had already seen his upcoming trial delayed from April 1 until next week.

Blakey made that decision so the high court could first rule on the separate bribery case, which involved a former Indiana mayor, James Snyder, who had been convicted of accepting $13,000 from a local towing company after steering a city garbage truck contract to that business.

But the Supreme Court ruled that because there was no quid pro quo agreement that connected the trucking contract and the subsequent payment, this did not constitute a bribe.

Four former ComEd officials — including Madigan’s longtime confidant and current co-defendant Michael McClain — were convicted last year of conspiring to bribe Madigan. Prosecutors have alleged ComEd hired and paid subcontractors who did little or no work in order to corruptly influence and reward Madigan.

But Madigan’s attorneys argued that prosecutors failed to identify any particular official acts their client took in response to hiring decisions made by ComEd and claimed Madigan did nothing more than make job recommendations to the utility giant.

“Rather,” Blakey wrote as he summarized the defense’s argument in his ruling, “the Government describes a series of job recommendations over the course of eight years and describes various legislative actions but fails to draw any connection between the two. This, Defendants argue, fails to constitute a quid pro quo.”

Blakey, however, said the indictment does include sufficient information to inform the defense of what prosecutors plan to argue at trial and pushed back the notion that Madigan is only accused of recommending people for jobs.

“Further, Defendants’ attempt to characterize the allegations in the indictment as mere job recommendations falls short,” he wrote. “The indictment alleges that Defendants conspired to utilize Madigan’s role to affect legislation in exchange for certain entities’ hiring his associates to private sector roles. These allegations remain a far cry from Defendants’ examples of politicians who simply made job recommendations while in office.”

Blakey on Wednesday also rejected a motion from McClain seeking to sever his trial from Madigan’s. McClain’s attorneys had argued that because he and Madigan could present antagonistic defense theories, a jury hearing a joint trial would be forced to “reject one or the other to find either Defendant not guilty.”

But the judge ruled the case “presents no serious risks of unfair prejudice.”

McClain and the other three ComEd officials convicted last year are expected to push for a new trial following the Supreme Court’s Snyder ruling.

Madigan and McClain are scheduled to go to trial beginning Oct. 8.

Contact Matt Masterson: @ByMattMasterson[email protected] | (773) 509-5431


Thanks to our sponsors:

View all sponsors

Thanks to our sponsors:

View all sponsors