Jury returns to Mike Madigan corruption trial after holiday break

CHICAGO (CN) — Jurors in the ongoing corruption trial of ex-Illinois House Speaker Mike Madigan came back to Chicago’s federal courthouse on Monday, following a holiday break of more than two weeks.

The jurors picked up Monday morning where they left off on the afternoon of Dec. 19, continuing to hear testimony from Illinois Appellate Court Justice David Ellis. He served as assistant counsel, chief counsel and special counsel to Illinois House Speaker’s Office at various points between 1999 and 2014, and he appeared at trial as a witness for Madigan’s defense case. Prosecutors rested their own case in chief on Dec. 18.

The appellate judge offered testimony supporting Madigan’s character during direct examination on Dec. 19, saying Madigan “didn’t mind being criticized … didn’t mind being second-guessed.”

Federal prosecutor Sarah Streicker challenged that testimony Monday morning on cross-examination. She asked Ellis if, as other Madigan associates have testified, he felt he was “loyal” to the former speaker.

“I tried to do my job. I tried to be honest with him all the time,” Ellis said.

Jurors heard testimony from four other defense witnesses Monday: Justin Cox, another former chief counsel for the Speaker’s Office; Steven Hensley, a longtime political worker in Chicago’s 13th Ward — Madigan’s neighborhood and political home turf; Craig Willert, a Madigan political staffer-turned-consultant; and former Illinois House Majority Leader Greg Harris.

Defense attorneys called the four to challenge various elements of the conspiracy, fraud, racketeering and bribery charges lodged against Madigan and his codefendant, retired lobbyist and longtime ally Mike McClain. Some of these challenges reached weeks back into the prosecution’s case.

Cox’s and Willert’s testimony, for example, touched on the accusation that Madigan supported energy company ComEd’s agenda in the Illinois Legislature between 2011 and 2019 in exchange for jobs and contracts for his political allies. Prosecutors largely concluded the ComEd portion of their case in November.

Madigan’s defense attorney Tom Breen also used Hensley to cast doubt on a specific line of testimony related to the ComEd charges. Another longtime 13th Ward political worker named Ed Moody offered the testimony in question in November. Moody was among Madigan associates whom prosecutors said received a do-nothing subcontractor gig from ComEd — via lobbying and legal firms owned by other Madigan allies — in exchange for Madigan’s favor in the Illinois Legislature.

Moody testified in November that he ran into Madigan in the driveway of the then-speaker’s home in 2018, while canvassing in the neighborhood ahead of the 2018 elections. Moody told jurors that during the chance meeting, Madigan told him doing political work in the 13th Ward was good for ComEd. Never mind Moody wasn’t doing much actual work for ComEd contractor John Bradley, who handled his subcontract.

“What you’re doing right now is what I want, what he wants, what ComEd wants,” Moody said Madigan told him.

Hensley on Monday said he never encountered another 13th Ward canvasser during the years he spent doing political work in his assigned precinct of the 13th Ward, a precinct that included Madigan’s home. Breen even brought in photos of Madigan’s home, and had Hensley use the photos to confirm Madigan’s driveway didn’t face the adjoining precinct where Moody would have been canvassing in 2018.

Federal prosecutor Amarjeet Bhachu, on cross-examination, had Hensley confirm that someone could still see Madigan’s home if they were standing across the street and over the imagined precinct boundary.

Hensley also said on the stand that he believed Madigan’s office in Chicago helped him get several jobs with local institutions over the years, such as Moraine Valley Community College, the Chicago Transit Authority and the Cook County Sheriff’s Office. Hensley further conceded, with some prodding from Bhachu, that he believed Madigan helped his son secure a $32,000 scholarship for a competitive program at the University of Illinois.

Portions of Cox’s and Willert’s direct testimonies turned as granular as Hensley’s. At one point, Madigan defense attorney Dan Collins delved into a Nov. 15, 2016, text chain between Willert and former Madigan political staffer Will Cousineau, in which the pair discussed the disposition of Illinois House energy committee members regarding a bill that would become the ComEd-backed Future Energy Jobs Act. In one text, Cousineau tells Willert to sub then-Democratic state representative Michelle Mussman off the energy committee for Democratic State Representative Bob Rita.

Willert testified this was so that Mussman could “keep her powder dry” on a contentious issue in a contested legislative district. But on cross-examination, he also acknowledged to federal prosecutor Julia Schwartz that Rita voted “yes” on the issue in committee.

One of the prosecution’s overarching accusations against Madigan was that he spent years as a political kingpin in Chicago and Springfield as the head of the so-called “Madigan Enterprise” that consisted of multiple players in various positions.

Harris was the last witness Madigan’s defense team called Monday, but U.S. District Judge John Robert Blakey called for an end to the trial day before Madigan’s attorney Lari Dierks could get too deep into his testimony.

Jurors were supposed to return last Thursday, but attorneys instead took that day to hash out issues with the proposed jury instructions, some of which remain unsettled.

Madigan’s defense case will continue Tuesday, with the former speaker’s former private law partner Vincent “Bud” Getzendanner expected to testify.

Monday marked the start of the 12th week of trial overall and the 10th week of testimony.

Closing arguments may begin next week.

Follow @djbyrnes1