Lawyers for Michael Madigan have asked a federal judge to dismiss 14 criminal counts against the former Illinois House speaker, arguing they have been “upended” by a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling in an Indiana corruption case.
U.S. District Judge John Blakey did not address Madigan’s 73-page motion during a status hearing Tuesday afternoon. The judge requested the revised motion, which largely reflects one filed earlier this year, in light of the Supreme Court’s ruling in the case of Portage, Indiana Mayor James Snyder.
Madigan attended the hearing but did not speak.
The Supreme Court ruled that a key statute at play in Madigan’s case criminalizes bribery among state and local officials, but not after-the-fact rewards known as “gratuities.” Madigan’s lawyers seized on the ruling to argue that 14 of the indictment’s 23 counts must be dismissed.
“Now that Snyder has held that gratuities are not criminalized by [the federal bribery statute], these and the many other allegations … cannot stand,” Madigan’s lawyers wrote. “The mismatch between the conduct alleged and the statutes invoked is a fatal defect that precludes this prosecution.”
Madigan, 82, is accused of leading a criminal enterprise for nearly a decade designed to enhance his political power and generate income for his allies and associates. Prosecutors allege the Southwest Side Democrat helped promote favorable legislation for utility companies ComEd and AT&T Illinois in exchange for jobs for his associates. Madigan left office in 2021 and was indicted in March 2022.
Madigan and co-defendant Michael F. McClain are set to go to trial Oct. 8.
In the filing, defense lawyers noted that, in several counts, Madigan’s alleged official acts happened well before any alleged hiring decisions by ComEd for Madigan allies.
“Snyder upends this prosecution,” the lawyers wrote.
A day after the motion was filed, Madigan appeared at a hearing Tuesday as Blakey and attorneys hashed out housekeeping items before jurors are summoned in the coming weeks.
Attorneys agreed that jurors’ names would be kept secret during the trial, with suggested questionnaires for them due to the judge by Monday. Blakey said the trial would be held on weekdays but not on Fridays.
The judge also discussed an attempt by Madigan’s lawyers to block the prosecution’s request to call two former members of the Chicago City Council, Dick Simpson and Michele Smith. Prosecutors want them to testify about the nature of ward politics. U.S. Assistant Attorney Julia Kathryn Schwartz said their testimony was needed so jurors could understand the context of Madigan’s alleged crimes.
Blakey requested another pretrial hearing to sample Simpson’s and Smith’s testimony, saying he needed to determine which parts would be admissible. He did not set a date.
Enlisting expert witnesses to school jurors on Chicago politics has been a recurring tactic prosecutors have tried to use in corruption trials — with mixed success.
The feds sought to call Simpson, a former 43rd Ward alderperson and professor emeritus at the University of Illinois, to testify in the ComEd bribery trial last year. But U.S. District Judge Harry Leinenweber ruled that his testimony about the history of Chicago corruption would likely prejudice the jury.
But jurors deciding the fate of former Ald. Ed Burke last fall were allowed to hear from Elmhurst University political science professor Constance Mixon. The kick-off prosecution witness testified that Burke was “a fixture in Chicago politics for over 50 years.”
“As mayors came and went, Ald. Burke was the one constant on the Chicago City Council,” she testified.
Blakey questioned another defense’s request for court-appointed internet searches of potential jurors. Attorneys for Madigan and McClain want the searches performed to flag people who’ve shown bias toward their clients.
The judge questioned how it would be technically possible for a third-party to perform the search. Blakey said he is “not convinced it’s necessary or advisable.”
“It’s a whole Pandora’s box of issues and delays on a trial that I’m trying to keep on schedule. And for what benefit?” the judge said.
Blakey gave the defense until Friday to file arguments in support of the requested internet search.
The Snyder ruling has already delayed Madigan’s trial, which was previously set for April but put on hold before the ruling was expected.
Earlier this month, prosecutors said they don’t plan to file a revised indictment in the wake of the Snyder ruling. In Monday’s filing, Madigan’s lawyers wrote they don’t want the indictment sent back to a grand jury either. The lawyers also asked the judge to strike language in the indictment they say is prejudicial, such as the term “Madigan Enterprise.”
The Supreme Court’s Snyder ruling is also expected to cause fallout in the case of four former Madigan allies convicted last year of a lengthy conspiracy to bribe Madigan to benefit ComEd.
Sentencing hearings in that case have long been on hold because of the high court’s deliberations.