A jury has delivered a split verdict against former Illinois House Speaker Michael Madigan, finding him guilty on 10 of 23 criminal counts in his case.
The jury also found Madigan not guilty on seven counts, and was unable to reach a verdict on six additional counts, it was announced in court on Wednesday morning.
Michael McClain, Madigan's longtime confidant, was also charged with six counts in the case, but the jury deadlocked on all six.
Jurors delivered a note to the judge in the case on Wednesday morning that they had reached a verdict on 17 of the 29 counts Madigan faced, but have been unable to reach a unanimous decision on the other 12 counts.
The jury informed the judge they didn't think they could overcome the impasse on those counts, leading to the split verdict.
" frameborder="0">
The trial has spanned more than three months, including dozens of witnesses and hundreds of audio recordings, with jury deliberations beginning late last month.
The corruption trial for Madigan and his former long-time confidant McClain is the culmination of a years-long investigation into the way lobbying and political influence is undertaken in Springfield.
The 23-count federal indictment charges both men with racketeering, conspiracy, bribery and wire fraud, with Madigan facing an additional charge of extortion.
Madigan is accused of using the influence of his position as Illinois’ most powerful political figure to enrich himself and others, but he has strenuously defended himself, both through his legal team and through his own testimony, which took the political world by surprise earlier this month.
Both Madigan and McClain pleaded not guilty in the case.
In a 23-count federal indictment, they are charged with racketeering conspiracy, bribery and wire fraud. Madigan faces an additional charge of extortion.
As attorneys made their final arguments to the jury, former federal prosecutor Patrick Collins says the prosecution’s case is a difficult one to make, given all of the different pieces of evidence they’ve had to present as a cohesive argument against Madigan and McClain.
“It’s not a slam dunk. The rules of the game have changed when it comes to bribery,” he said. “There has to be a quid pro quo. There has to be a really right nexus.”
After more than three months, the prosecution rested in the ongoing corruption trial of former Illinois House Speaker Michael Madigan. Charlie Wojciechowski reports.
To that end, assistant U.S. Attorney Julia Schwartz told the jury Wednesday that both men conspired to enhance Madigan’s power, while lining their own pockets in the process.
“Ladies and gentlemen, legislation should not be bought,” she said in court. “But that is what was happening here. They knew it, because they set it up that way.”
Prosecutors accused Madigan of using ComEd as his private piggy bank and a place to park people loyal to him.
“Power and profit: that is what drove Madigan, with the help of McClain, to break the law time and time again,” she said.
Prosecutors ultimately entered more than 150 tapes, wiretaps and transcripts into evidence during the trial, alleging that Madigan traded jobs and favors in exchange for favorable votes in the House.
The investigation into Madigan also targeted numerous other lobbyists and officials, with multiple convictions and prison sentences handed out in those cases.
The biggest case among those was the one against the so-called “ComEd Four.” The group included McClain, along with former ComEd CEO Anne Pragmaggiore, former ComEd lobbyist John Hooker and former City Club President Jay Doherty, all of whom were convicted in a separate trial in May 2023. All four were convicted of participating in a criminal conspiracy, along with multiple counts of bribery and other felonies.
The prosecution relied heavily on recordings of phone calls between Madigan and McClain, some of which involved former Chicago Ald. Danny Solis, who secretly recorded the calls in exchange for a deferred prosecution agreement.
Danny Solis is the government's star witness against once-powerful Illinois House Speaker Mike Madigan, but on Monday, Madigan’s attorneys took aim at the former Chicago alderman. NBC Chicago's Charlie Wojciechowski reports.
Solis testified during the trial, alleging that Madigan called him to ask about a development in his ward while Solis was on the Chicago City Council. Solis alleged Madigan wanted an introduction to a developer in order to solicit business for his private law firm.
Defense attorneys pushed back in cross-examination of Solis, with the former alderman admitting he did not receive any financial offers during conversations about the introductions.
Former 13th ward precinct captain Ed Moody also testified, alleging he was paid more than $350,000 for consulting contracts. He then performed political work for Madigan as part of the deal he laid out to the jury.
Former Illinois State Rep. Eddie Acevedo testified that he was one of five Madigan allies paid $120,000 to curry favor with the speaker, and to get legislation passed that was favorable to ComEd.
Acevedo was not charged for the payment he received, but did serve a prison sentence for tax evasion, according to prosecutors.
Rep. Nikki Budzinski, who now represents Illinois’ 13th district in Congress, testified that she was familiar with recommendations of nominees forwarded by Madigan’s office to Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker that were known as “Sphinx lists.” She testified that she felt it important to be responsive to the recommendations, but that she didn’t feel it necessary to act upon them.
As Madigan’s defense laid out their case, the former speaker stunned political and legal observers by taking the stand in his own defense, an uncommon sight in corruption trials. The move allowed Madigan to make his case to the jury, but also allowed the prosecution to cross-examine him to try to undermine that testimony.
Former Illinois House Speaker Mike Madigan was on the witness stand again in his corruption trial on Monday, and he was grilled about political appointees as well as patronage in Chicago politics. NBC Chicago's Charlie Wojciechowski reports.
Madigan admitted during his testimony that he had asked McClain for help in finding employment for “as many as 10-to-20 people,” including Acevedo, but denied he had made any sort of deal to make that happen.
“The answer would be no,” Madigan told attorneys.
Madigan told defense attorneys he knew his relationship with McClain was complex, and that he recognized what McClain was doing as cultivating relationships with public officials.
Defense attorneys painted Madigan’s actions as those of a dedicated public servant who worked hard and who tried to use his position of power to help as many people as he could.
Madigan was grilled aggressively by the prosecution in the case, who asked him about work done by political appointees and the way the former speaker utilized the patronage system, which was still accepted in the world of Chicago politics during his tenure.
A recording with McClain in 2019 revealed that he was angry with appointee Frank Olivo, who was apparently doing no work for ComEd.
“Some of these guys have made out like bandits, Mike,” Madigan was heard saying.
Madigan said he was “referring to lobbyists around the Capitol building in Springfield who generally worked less than six months out of the year and generally had a high level of compensation” in regards to the comments.
On the stand Tuesday, once-powerful Illinois House Speaker Mike Madigan told jurors he never thought he was violating the law. He, along with his co-defendant, have been accused of using that office as a criminal enterprise to further the interests of themselves, their friends and the companies they did business with. They deny all of those allegations. NBC 5's Charlie Wojciechowski reports.
After Madigan finished his testimony, his long-time real estate law partner Bud Getzendanner took the stand, guiding the jury through what he said it took for the firm to take on new clients, emphasizing that anyone who lobbied the state or had land transfer business with the state would be refused by the firm.
Heather Wier Vaught, attorney for Madigan’s political action committee, also testified about the former speaker. Vaught was asked about Madigan’s relationship with former Gov. Bruce Rauner, describing a lack of contact that resulted from a “political war” between the tow leaders.
She also testified that Madigan instructed her to treat McClain as a lobbyist during negotiations surrounding ComEd’s proposed Future Energy Jobs Act.
The government’s case was summed up last week, arguing that Madigan put personal profit above the interest of voters during his Springfield career.
“What is the one thing Madigan does to take ‘good care’ of ComEd? Their legislation. That is the corrupt exchange,” assistant U.S. Attorney Julia Schwartz said.
Fellow assistant U.S. Attorney Diane McArthur also pointed to Madigan’s relationship with Solis, whom she described as a “walking microphone” that Madigan used to bring developers into the fold at his law firm.
Attorneys for the defense sought to poke holes in the government’s case during their closing arguments in the case. Madigan’s attorneys took two days to lay out their rebuttal of the prosecution’s case, specifically citing a Supreme Court ruling that requires an explicit quid pro quo arrangement in bribery cases.
“If you look at the law with regard to these counts…there are no bribes. This is no ‘this for that,’” defense attorney Dan Collins said.
McClain’s attorneys argued that their client was “just being a lobbyist,” and that his relationship with Madigan and other figures in Springfield was part of the give-and-take of politics.
“Lobbying is a profession about hope,” attorney Patrick Cotter said. “No bribes…no exchanges.”
