CHICAGO (CN) — A federal judge in the Windy City decided Wednesday to postpone the corruption trial of Mike Madigan, former Illinois House speaker and ex-chairman of the Democratic Party of Illinois. The court's decision pushes back the trial start date from April 1 of this year to Oct. 8.
The 81-year-old Madigan came to the hearing on the issue in person at Chicago's Dirksen Federal Courthouse. It was the first time he has set foot in the building in connection to the case since being indicted in March 2022. Wearing a black suit and deep blue tie, he uttered only five words in court, affirming that he consented to the change in the trial date.
"Yes I do, your honor," the once-powerful politician told presiding U.S. District Judge Robert Blakey.
Madigan, who led the Illinois House for 36 years, currently faces 23 charges for racketeering, fraud, conspiracy and bribery. Many of them are related to his alleged involvement in energy utility Commonwealth Edison's — or ComEd's — admitted bribery scheme in the Illinois Legislature between 2011 and 2019.
Former Democratic state Rep. Michael McClain — one of the "ComEd Four" convicted this past May on multiple counts for his own connection to the utility's bribery efforts — is also listed as Madigan's co-defendant in this case and faces six new fraud, racketeering and bribery charges. Both men have pled not guilty on all counts.
Central to the charges involving bribery against Madigan and McClain is U.S. Code Title 18, Section 666, which lays out what defines "bribery" for public officials. The Supreme Court threw a wrench into the government's case against the pair last month, along with the post-trial ComEd Four proceedings and the perjury case against Madigan's former Chief of Staff Tim Mapes, when it agreed to hear a bribery case out of Indiana challenging the interpretation of 666.
Known as Snyder v. United States, the case specifically questions whether the law criminalizes gratuities — that is, payments the official may have taken in recognition of their past actions or actions they have committed to take, absent any direct quid pro quo exchange.
The government's indictment against Madigan cites 666 multiple times as one of the laws he violated while leading the Illinois House and state Democratic Party. But it specifically does not accuse him of ever taking direct quid quo pro payments. Instead, it alleges that he helped ComEd and others in exchange for payments and jobs directed to his associates and political allies, and that he had legal work illicitly funneled to his private law firm Madigan & Getzendanner.
Given this uncertainty over 666, Madigan and McClain's attorneys successfully argued to Blakey on Wednesday that trial should be delayed until the Supreme Court handed down its take on the law in Snyder. To begin trial while a major element of the charges their client faced was up for debate, they said, would unfairly hurt Madigan and McClain's defense and may even botch the trial process.
Madigan's attorney Daniel Collins framed the delay in the case as better not just for the defense, but for the court as a whole.
"We're not putting it on the shelf," Collins said. "We're just saying that in a couple of months, we'll have more clarity that will be better for us all."
Patrick Cotter, one of McClain's attorneys, added that he wouldn't be able to adequately do his job if one of the trial's central elements was still up for debate.
"I won't be able to prepare for trial if I don't know what the rules are," he said.
Even Assistant U.S. Attorney Amarjeet Bhachu, who argued that the Supreme Court likely wouldn't change the law's interpretation so radically that it would nullify the relevant charges against the former state legislators, conceded "it would be helpful to know what the Supreme Court thinks of the statute."
Ultimately Blakey agreed to delay the start of trial, but not to freeze the case entirely, saying there was still "plenty of work to be done" before the first day of jury selection. He warned against "reading tea leaves" regarding the high court's decision in Snyder, but agreed with the defense attorneys that it would be unwise to begin trial without knowing that decision.
He likened the issue to a football game changing to a baseball game at halftime, or when he stepped on his children's Lego blocks at home.
"What I fear is that you, and me, and you," Blakey said, gesturing to the attorneys in the courtroom, "are going to be walking into a dark room and the Supreme Court's going to give us a Lego."
Citing the same concerns, attorneys for the ComEd Four — including McClain — moved in December to have the Four's cases put on hold pending Snyder. Similar to Blakey, District Judge Manish Shah only partly obliged. He did not completely halt the cases, but cancelled the Four's pending January sentencing dates without setting new ones. A hearing on the matter is scheduled for Thursday morning.
Mapes, who was convicted in August of lying to a grand jury to protect Madigan, has also moved for a stay of proceedings pending Snyder. The court has yet to rule on his motion.
Follow @djbyrnes1
Subscribe to Closing Arguments
Sign up for new weekly newsletter Closing Arguments to get the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and hot cases and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world.
Additional Reads
-
Homes, businesses damaged as tornadoes pummel Midwest April 26, 2024 -