Crime & Law

Jury Deliberations Underway in Michael Madigan’s Landmark Corruption Case

Jury deliberations finally got underway Wednesday afternoon in the landmark corruption trial of powerful Illinois House Speaker Michael Madigan after six days of closing arguments and 113 days since the trial first began.

The sweeping criminal case included nearly two weeks of jury selection, almost two months of government evidence, trial breaks for the Thanksgiving, Christmas and New Year’s holidays, and four days of testimony from Madigan himself as he denied any wrongdoing on the witness stand.

Madigan is charged along with his longtime right-hand man Michael McClain with racketeering, bribery and wire fraud. The pair is alleged to have orchestrated multiple corruption schemes, wielding Madigan’s immense political power to reward his loyal allies and enrich himself.

They have each pleaded not guilty.

Jurors were initially told to expect a 10- or 11-week trial, but it’s now been 16 weeks since the case kicked off in early October.

Government prosecutors presented their closing arguments last week, followed by Madigan’s defense team and then McClain’s. Because prosecutors have the burden to prove guilt, they are given the final word in the case with their rebuttal arguments.

“These folks are not playing checkers, they were playing chess,” Assistant U.S. Attorney Amarjeet Bhachu said of Madigan and McClain on Wednesday, “and the two of them were grandmasters of corruption.”

In presenting those rebuttal arguments, Bhachu pointed back to comments from Madigan defense attorney Dan Collins, who told jurors last week the government’s case was built around a “myth.”

“The charges in the indictment before you, ladies and gentlemen, are not the product of myth, they’re not the product of imagination,” Bhachu said. “Those charges are based upon matters of undeniable fact.”

He told jurors Madigan had trust placed in him “by each and every member of the public,” but that he “lost his way” after he became “blinded by profit, by power, by his desire to stay in power.”

In the most wide-ranging scheme detailed by prosecutors, utility company Commonwealth Edison is accused of paying Madigan allies — 13th Ward precinct captains Ray Nice and Ed Moody, and former Chicago Alds. Frank Olivo and Michael Zalewski — even as they did little or no work, in order to win Madigan’s support on critical energy legislation in Springfield.

Those four — along with former state Rep. Eddie Acevedo — were “ghost workers” who collectively were paid $1.3 million by ComEd, according to Bhachu.

“If you’re thinking about a bribe,” he said, “you could not find an envelope big enough to contain that much money and that money was being paid for nothing in terms of real work.”

ComEd execs had hoped to keep Madigan happy so he would back their efforts to pass major pieces of legislation including Smart Grid in 2011 and the Future Energy Jobs Act in 2016, prosecutors allege.

In the “ComEd Four” trial in 2023, McClain and three other utility officials were convicted of conspiring to bribe Madigan.

Bhachu accused Madigan of lying on the witness stand in order to conceal his involvement in the ComEd scheme and distance himself from McClain.

While the pair were friends and confidants for decades, Bhachu told jurors they heard more from Madigan about his upbringing and his brief stint “working on a garbage truck than you did about his relationship with McClain.”

Madigan testified that he had nothing to do with any hiring any “ghosts” and that he did nothing more than pass names along to McClain as job recommendations. He also claimed he became “angry” when he learned, after the fact, that the subcontractors had not been completing real work.

But prosecutors presented a 2018 wiretapped call in which Madigan can be heard laughing about how others had “made out like bandits,” while McClain quips “for very little work.”

In another wiretapped phone call from May 2018, McClain complained to Madigan’s son Andrew about a utility company official who was resisting efforts to hire someone who’d been pushed by the speaker.

“So? And that’s, that’s like, that’s what happens when you do, when you’re in this game,” McClain said on the call. “I mean and yo—, you never (know). Maybe someday you can ask for a favor, so.”

“I just love these people that, they, they are in a regulatory body, right?” McClain continued. “And they’re offended if people ask for favors. Hello? Dumb s--ts.”

The game McClain is speaking about, Bhachu said, “is pay-to-play.”

“If you want your legislation to move, you pay,” he told jurors. “The people who don’t understand this concept are dumb s--ts, according to Mr. McClain.”

Prosecutors have argued Madigan was looped in on this plan from the start and that he thought “it was great,” because it gave them plausible deniability by paying the subcontractors through an intermediary — consultant Jay Doherty — rather than directly by ComEd.

“You did not only see lies during the course of this trial,” Bhachu said after displaying emails and documents he said were used to help cover up payments to the ComEd subcontractors.

“You heard them as well right from the witness stand,” Bhachu continued, pointing to Madigan, “from this man right here.”

Madigan is also accused of attempting to illegally steer business to his private tax firm.

In a June 2017 call between Madigan and 25th Ward Ald. Danny Solis — a federal cooperator who was secretly recording calls for the government — about the developer of the Union West property in Chicago, Solis mentioned to Madigan, “I think they understand how this works, you know the quid pro quo.”

“Yeah, OK,” Madigan replied on the recording.

Prosecutors have alleged this response shows Madigan was happy to engage in a trade of public action for his own private gain.

Madigan attorney Dan Collins had claimed his client is largely non-confrontational and was simply trying to move along his conversations with Solis when he replied positively to Solis’ bribery overtures.

Bhachu mocked that idea Wednesday, saying the notion of Mike “milquetoast” Madigan is completely inconsistent with the person multiple witnesses described as a strong leader who was never afraid to speak his mind and the person widely seen as the most powerful politician in Illinois.

While Solis often followed directions on what to say from federal investigators, Bhachu reminded jurors that Madigan’s words were all his own.

“That was his script,” Bhachu said. “He chose what to say.”

---