When former Illinois Home Speaker Michael J. Madigan obtained on the witness stand earlier this month to inform his facet of the story, he mentioned issues to jurors that have been “simply not believable,” a federal prosecutor argued Wednesday.
Key elements of Madigan’s testimony amounted to a “facade,” she mentioned. The laughter heard from Madigan on a infamous recorded name — through which he joked about sure ComEd contractors making out “like bandits” — is “fully inconsistent” with what he advised the jury, she argued.
And as closing arguments obtained underway in Madigan’s historic racketeering conspiracy trial, Assistant U.S. Legal professional Julia Schwartz advised the jury that “laws shouldn’t be purchased.”
“Energy and revenue,” she mentioned. “Michael Madigan and Michael McClain conspired to reinforce and protect Madigan’s energy and line Madigan’s pockets.”
Schwartz spent greater than two hours arguing to the jury Wednesday as Madigan’s prolonged trial started to attract to a detailed. She mentioned McClain was Madigan’s “right-hand man” who helped Madigan’s different “cronies” pocket $1.3 million from ComEd by means of “sham” contracts.
“Repeatedly, Madigan abused the great energy he wielded,” Schwartz mentioned.
The closing arguments imply jurors may lastly see a light-weight on the finish of a really lengthy tunnel. Madigan’s trial has lasted practically 4 months. It featured greater than 60 witnesses. And now, attorneys have predicted closing arguments might final days.
After jurors left the courtroom to go dwelling Wednesday, Assistant U.S. Legal professional Amarjeet Bhachu advised U.S. District Choose John Blakey that the feds’ preliminary closing argument would doubtless proceed by means of the top of the day Thursday.
In an uncommon transfer, that preliminary argument might be dealt with by two prosecutors. Assistant U.S. Legal professional Diane MacArthur is predicted to take the baton from Schwartz sooner or later Thursday.
When Schwartz and MacArthur are achieved, jurors will hear from attorneys for Madigan after which McClain. However prosecutors have the burden of proof, so that they will even make a rebuttal argument — giving them the final phrase.
Prosecutors say Madigan led a felony enterprise designed to reinforce his political energy and reward his associates, with longtime ally McClain appearing as his agent. A 117-page indictment leveled towards the pair alleges 5 separate schemes.
Earlier than Schwartz’s argument started Wednesday, Blakey spent two hours instructing jurors on the regulation within the case. In doing so, he advised them how they need to outline the phrase “corruptly.” It’s a controversial query within the case, tied to U.S. Supreme Court docket arguments final spring.
The justices thought of a corruption case out of Northwest Indiana that revolved round a federal bribery regulation aimed toward state and native officers. Madigan’s case includes the identical regulation, and the Supreme Court docket arguments delayed his trial by six months.
Although the justices argued at size final April concerning the definition of the phrase “corruptly,” they did not outline it of their closing opinion.
Blakey advised the jury Wednesday that somebody acts corruptly in the event that they “understood the conspiracy concerned a ‘this for that’ change of a ‘factor of worth’ for an ‘official motion.’” He additionally mentioned “the federal government needn’t show … that the defendant knew that the regulation prohibited his conduct.”
Schwartz advised jurors Wednesday that she would focus her argument on two of the schemes alleged within the indictment, through which prosecutors say ComEd and AT&T Illinois paid Madigan’s allies for do-nothing jobs so he would look favorably at their laws in Springfield. McClain has already been convicted for his position within the ComEd scheme.
“There’s no authorized requirement that the cash go immediately into Madigan’s pocket,” Schwartz mentioned. “As a substitute the bribes on this case have been paid to Madigan’s allies.”
Prosecutors say 5 Madigan allies have been paid $1.3 million by ComEd over eight years, by means of intermediaries. They have been former Alds. Frank Olivo and Michael R. Zalewski, former Cook dinner County Recorder of Deeds Edward Moody, longtime Madigan marketing campaign employee Raymond Good and ex-state Rep. Edward “Eddie” Acevedo.
AT&T Illinois paid a further $22,500 to Acevedo, although Schwartz’s argument ended for the day earlier than she had a chance to debate it.
“What do all of them have in frequent?” Schwartz requested. “[It] wasn’t the abilities these individuals delivered to bear. It wasn’t their {qualifications}. It was their connection to Michael Madigan. … These hires have been paid to bribe Madigan.”
And to focus on Madigan’s data of the scheme, she pointed to a sequence of 5 calls on Could 16, 2018. In an preliminary name between Madigan and McClain that morning, Madigan asks McClain to talk with then-ComEd CEO Anne Pramaggiore about Zalewski, who was leaving the Chicago Metropolis Council.
McClain goes on to have conversations with Pramaggiore and then-ComEd government Fidel Marquez. Pramaggiore tells McClain, “I advised Fidel to rent [Zalewski],” and Marquez asks, “What have been you pondering numbers clever,” relating to Zalewski’s pay.
Finally, that very same day, McClain follows up and tells Madigan “you may name Mike Zalewski and say that they’re gonna get in contact with him.” Zalewski wound up accumulating $45,000 from ComEd, beginning in August 2018. He isn’t accused of wrongdoing.
“Madigan is following up,” Schwartz advised jurors in courtroom Wednesday. “He’s ensuring it will get achieved. And he’s making the job provide. These usually are not disinterested job suggestions.”
Relatively, she mentioned, “this complete set-up is designed round Madigan.” She advised jurors to make use of their frequent sense.
“After all he is aware of what’s happening right here,” Schwartz mentioned. “After all he is aware of why his persons are being paid.”
Persevering with to make her level, Schwartz performed an notorious February 2019 video of McClain and Marquez at Saputo’s restaurant in Springfield. Jurors once more heard McClain and Marquez discussing the way to clarify the association with Madigan’s allies to ComEd’s new CEO on the time, Joe Dominguez, who was a former federal prosecutor.
Marquez recorded the dialog, having agreed to put on a wire for the FBI one month earlier.
“I’d say to you, don’t put something in writing,” McClain advised Marquez. Later within the dialog, McClain added, “I feel all that may do is damage ya’.”
Schwartz emphasised the “code” phrases utilized by McClain and different members of the conspiracy. She pointed to McClain saying “it appears uncooked” and a remark he made about Dominguez’s “ex-prosecutor hat.”
“Reliable lobbying doesn’t require using a code,” the prosecutor mentioned. “Plain outdated job suggestions don’t require somebody who is aware of the way to be discreet.
“They’re speaking about bribes right here,” Schwartz mentioned.
“Concealment is the hallmark of this conspiracy,” she mentioned. “And it exhibits that the conspirators have been hiding one thing. They know what they’re doing is improper.”
