Crime & Law
Michael Madigan Defense Rests its Case as Landmark Corruption Trial Winds Toward an End

Defense attorneys for Michael Madigan have officially rested their case, as the longtime Illinois House Speaker’s corruption trial winds toward its conclusion.
Madigan’s team officially rested Thursday morning, nearly three months after opening statements and testimony began in the landmark case. Government prosecutors then concluded a brief rebuttal case as the evidence portion of the trial officially came to a close.
“That is a conclusion to the facts of the case,” U.S. District Judge John Blakey told jurors.
Closing statements are expected to begin next Wednesday, followed by jury deliberations the following week.
Madigan, who is charged alongside his longtime right-hand man Michael McClain, is alleged to have orchestrated multiple corruption schemes, wielding his political power to reward loyal allies and enrich himself.
He and McClain are charged with racketeering, bribery and wire fraud. They have each pleaded not guilty.
After the government rested, both defense teams for both Madigan and McClain renewed their motions seeking a judgment of acquittal — a standard move following conclusion of the prosecution’s case — but both were denied.
The highlight of Madigan’s defense case was testimony from the man himself, who spent parts of four days on the witness stand explaining to jurors his upbringing and political history while maintaining he never traded official action for any private gain.
But in choosing to testify, the famously reserved speaker also opened himself up to pointed cross examination by federal prosecutors.
In one instance, Madigan told jurors how angry he’d become when learning allies of his who’d been given contracting positions with utility giant Commonwealth Edison had essentially been doing no work for the company.
But in making that statement, he opened the door for prosecutors to play a previously barred wiretapped conversation between himself and McClain from 2018 in which Madigan can be heard laughing about how others had “made out like bandits.”
“Oh my God, for very little work, too,” McClain said on that call. “Very little work.”
Unlike Madigan, McClain opted not to testify and has once again sought this week to have his own trial severed from his co-defendant’s. Blakey had previously denied a similar motion before the trial began.
In a written motion this week, McClain’s attorneys reiterated their pre-trial argument that Madigan’s attorneys would serve as “second prosecutors” against McClain.
“Further, Mr. Madigan incorrectly implied through his testimony that Mr. McClain’s efforts to advocate for jobs and contracts for individuals recommended by Mr. Madigan — which Mr. McClain maintains were nothing more and nothing less than Constitutionally protected lobbying, done for the purpose of maintaining and building goodwill with Mr. Madigan — was an unlawful effort by Mr. McClain and others at ComEd to bribe Mr. Madigan without Mr. Madigan’s knowledge or consent,” McClain’s attorney Patrick Cotter wrote in the motion.
But prosecutors contend that Madigan’s testimony actually supported McClain’s defense that there was no conspiracy to solicit bribes or scheme to defraud.
Assistant U.S. Attorney Sarah Streicker argued that “neither the facts nor the law” supported the motion to sever.
“Nothing has changed,” she said, “that requires the court to reconsider its ruling.”
Blakey agreed, and ultimately denied the new motion.
The ongoing trial officially kicked off with jury selection in early October before opening statements began Oct. 21. Attorneys initially believed the case would take 11 weeks, but a verdict is now expected no time before late January.