Crime & Law
Madigan Defense Team Argues Government Can’t Prove Conspiracy in One Alleged Bribery Scheme
Former Illinois House Speaker Michael Madigan exits the Dirksen Federal Courthouse on Oct. 31, 2024. (Andrew Adams / Capitol News Illinois)
A judge has rejected a request from defense attorneys in the corruption trial of ex-Illinois House Speaker Michael Madigan after they claimed federal prosecutors could not prove their case in one of the alleged bribery conspiracy schemes after opting not to call a key witness to testify.
The issues were discussed Tuesday morning at the Dirksen Federal Building, where the trial of Madigan and his right-hand man Michael McClain has entered its second month.
Madigan, who served as Illinois House speaker for 36 years, is alleged to have orchestrated multiple corruption schemes, wielding his political power to reward loyal allies and enrich himself. He and McClain are each charged with racketeering, bribery and wire fraud.
They have each pleaded not guilty.
The issues that arose Tuesday involved one of those alleged schemes, in which Madigan and McClain are accused of working with the president of AT&T Illinois, Paul La Schiazza, to solicit bribes from the phone company beginning in 2017
They allegedly did so by arranging for AT&T to indirectly pay ex-state Rep. Eddie Acevedo, another Madigan ally, $22,500 over nine months though Acevedo did no actual work for the company.
Prosecutors had planned to call retired AT&T Illinois lobbyist Steve Selcke as a witness, but have since opted not to. He testified earlier this year in the trial of AT&T Illinois president Paul La Schiazza — who was accused of bribing Madigan — and defense attorneys claimed he stated the Acevedo contract was not a bribe.
A jury deadlocked in La Schiazza’s trial and a mistrial was declared.
Prosecutors plan to admit emails spanning from February to April 2017, when AT&T’s top legislative priority bill was pending in the Illinois House.
In one of those emails from Feb. 14, 2017, McClain asked an AT&T official whether there was “even a small contract” for Acevedo. Two days later, McClain told La Schiazza that Madigan had assigned him to work on the AT&T legislation as a “Special Project.”
On March 28, 2017, La Schiazza allegedly confirmed that AT&T had gotten the “GO order” to hire Acevedo — which prosecutors claimed was a directive from Madigan, given through McClain — and directed his employees to “move quickly to get this done.”
“McClain’s simultaneous work on AT&T’s legislation while pushing the company to pay (Acevedo) illustrates how the hiring of (Acevedo) was connected to AT&T’s legislation,” prosecutors wrote in a pretrial motion
Prosecutors argued they don’t need a live witness to explain the meaning of those emails to jurors because they “speak for themselves.” Assistant U.S. Attorney Amarjeet Bhachu on Tuesday explained that in the emails, AT&T officials discussed awarding a contract to Acevedo and whether doing so would help them to meet their “objectives.”
“Those emails are damning by themselves,” Bhachu told the court. “It doesn’t require a rocket scientist to figure out what they’re saying.
But defense attorneys for both Madigan and McClain countered that there is an available witness — Selcke — who can tell jurors that the government’s reading of those emails is wrong.
It’s “not a shock” the government opted not to call Selcke at this trial, Madigan attorney Dan Collins said, “because he doesn’t back their conclusions.”
“This was the guy,” Collins said of Selcke. “This was the guy at AT&T who was going to talk about the hiring of an outside consultant, why it was done and that was the heart of the charge.”
Even without Selcke on the witness stand, Judge John Blakey ruled that the government may still present the emails as evidence.
“I believe, with respect, the motion by both defendants to reconsider the co-conspirator ruling … that motion’s gonna be overruled,” Blakey said
Following that ruling, Madigan’s defense team indicated it may call Selcke as a witness.
Acevedo has been compelled to testify in this case, but not before he’s interviewed by Blakey to determine his competence as a witness. He reportedly suffers from dementia.
That interview is set to take place Tuesday afternoon, with Blakey planning to rule on his competency Wednesday morning.
If Acevedo does testify, he would so through a video deposition that would be shown to jurors, rather than live testimony in court.
This week marks the 10th week of the ongoing trial. The government is expected to rest its case next week.
