Closing arguments within the federal trial of former AT&T Illinois boss Paul La Schiazza, who was accused of bribing Home Speaker Michael Madigan, introduced an anticipated crowd to a Chicago courtroom.
However just one spectator might declare to have had a direct affect on the proceedings.
That was James Snyder, the previous mayor of Portage, Indiana, whose combat to overturn his personal bribery case ended with a U.S. Supreme Court docket ruling in June that raised the bar for prosecutors in plenty of Illinois public corruption circumstances.
Snyder advised the Tribune he was downtown to fulfill together with his appellate lawyer on Tuesday and determined to soak up a few of the La Schiazza closings. However he was not there two days later, when the case ended dramatically in a mistrial as a result of the jury deadlocked over most of the similar points that have been central to his case.
Now, all eyes flip to Madigan’s personal trial on racketeering costs, which kicks off in lower than three weeks and will pose related issues for prosecutors, significantly on a number of counts the place they now must show there was an settlement with Madigan forward of time to trade one thing of worth for an official act.
In its Snyder choice, the excessive court docket dominated that “gratuities” — or items given as a thank-you for actions a public official has already taken — usually are not criminalized below the federal statute.
And bribery, the justices made clear, has to contain two events who, with corrupt intentions, make an express settlement to trade advantages for official motion. It requires “the corrupt way of thinking and the intent to be influenced within the official act,” the court docket wrote within the Snyder ruling.
How ominous an indication the La Schiazza mistrial is for the U.S. legal professional’s workplace stays to be seen, nevertheless it’s the second post-Snyder public corruption case in a row the place prosecutors have did not win a conviction.
Final month, a jury that was given directions, which had been tweaked to fulfill the Snyder ruling, acquitted a suburban fencing contractor on costs of bribing Prepare dinner County assessor’s workplace staff with entry to an unique Michigan golf membership in trade for diminished property tax charges.
That very same language was contained within the directions the La Schiazza jury was given, and can also be being proposed by the U.S. legal professional’s workplace for the bribery-related counts in Madigan’s case.
To make sure, each trial is totally different, and the Madigan and La Schiazza circumstances specifically are starkly totally different in scope. Whereas Madigan served as a form of phantom determine in La Schiazza’s case, his bodily presence in court docket as a defendant will guarantee all focus is on the previous Democratic chief.
However jurors whose feedback have discovered their manner into the general public sphere stated they struggled with the query of intent relating to allegations of influencing public officers.
Juror Jocelyn Duran stated she got here away from the La Schiazza trial having discovered rather a lot about politics and its often-blurred edges. There was not a lot daylight, she stated, between the language of the bribery statute and the definition of “lobbying” that jurors got through the testimony.
“The principles and rules surrounding lobbyists usually are not very clear in any respect, and that fantastic line between lobbying and bribing or some other sort of unlawful act could be very exhausting to find out,” Duran, 29, a market researcher from Chicago, advised the Tribune on Thursday night.
The proof in La Schiazza’s case took solely 4 days to current and consisted largely of inner AT&T emails and the largely dry testimony of two insiders, who advised the jury about an alleged deal to funnel funds to a longtime Madigan acolyte in trade for what they believed was the speaker’s help for AT&T’s invoice to finish mandated landline service.
Madigan’s trial, in the meantime, will function dozens of wiretapped cellphone calls, together with many between Madigan and his co-defendant, Michael McClain, in addition to secretly recorded movies made by a ComEd insider speaking about an alleged scheme to secretly pay a cadre of Madigan associates in trade for his affect over laws.
After which there’s star prosecution witness Daniel Solis, the previous twenty fifth Ward alderman-turned-FBI mole who will testify about video recordings he manufactured from Madigan allegedly discussing efforts to squeeze a Chinatown developer to rent his non-public legislation agency.
However the Snyder ruling might give Madigan’s top-flight authorized workforce new ammunition to counter the sheer quantity of proof, significantly on points that jurors in La Schiazza’s case struggled over, resembling the road the place authorized lobbying turns into bribery and what constitutes an “trade” between a politician and those that search to affect them.
One other juror, a 62-year-old Naperville man, was amongst a number of from the panel who stayed behind to speak to legal professionals within the case in open court docket. He advised the protection workforce that their discussions slowed down over whether or not there had been an “trade” between La Schiazza and Madigan and if La Schiazza knew that it was improper.
“We actually struggled with (La Schiazza’s) intent,” he stated, including that with out the defendant taking the witness stand, “We might solely cope with what was introduced to us.”
La Schiazza, 66, was charged in an indictment returned by a federal grand jury in October 2022 with conspiracy, federal program bribery and utilizing a facility in interstate commerce to advertise illegal exercise. Probably the most severe counts carry as much as 20 years in jail if convicted.
The costs alleged La Schiazza agreed in 2017 to pay $2,500 a month to retiring state Rep. Eddie Acevedo, Madigan’s onetime assistant majority chief, by means of the lobbying agency of longtime Madigan political aide Tom Cullen.
In trade for the funds, the speaker helped shepherd AT&T’s invoice ending mandated landline service, recognized by the acronym COLR, by means of the Common Meeting, giving La Schiazza a profession notch on his belt and saving the telecommunications large tens of millions of {dollars}, in accordance with prosecutors.
In her remarks to the Tribune, Duran stated jurors pored over reams of emails, however that there didn’t appear to be a smoking-gun piece of proof.
“It’s a bit convoluted to resolve primarily based off what we got,” she stated. “We did must make numerous inferences, however that’s a sound factor for us to do.”
“You’re giving him all the good thing about the doubt, cheap doubt,” she stated. “However as you begin going by means of issues and connecting items and making inferences, that sort of cheap doubt begins operating out and finally bought to some extent the place, for me, there was sufficient to say by some means.”
Duran recommended the legal professionals, saying either side’ “talking abilities are nice.” And whereas jurors solely thought of the proof that was introduced, there have been conversations within the room about why sure individuals weren’t questioned, particularly lobbyists who have been working below La Schiazza, she stated.
“We solely heard from one, (Stephen) Selcke, and he was not even actually instantly concerned within the matter at hand,” she stated. “In order that was a little bit complicated.”
U.S. District Decide Robert Gettleman declared a mistrial Thursday after the jury deadlocked 11-1 in favor of conviction. Earlier than calling the jurors out, the choose advised the legal professionals that, primarily based on quantity of the discussions he might hear coming from the jury room, “they have been actually attempting exhausting.”
Duran advised the Tribune that the deliberations have been civilized, and that they went backwards and forwards earlier than almost all had determined there was sufficient proof to convict. However one holdout was not satisfied, and stated there was nothing that might change their thoughts. Duran didn’t establish which juror was unswayed.
“All of us had a really respectful and nice debate, and it’s disappointing that we didn’t attain a unanimous choice, however I feel we did strive,” she stated.
Gettleman set a listening to Tuesday to debate subsequent steps. Any retrial would virtually actually happen after Madigan’s case begins.
In the meantime, the AT&T proof will likely be introduced once more throughout Madigan’s trial, however solely as one piece of a wider indictment that accuses the 82-year-old former Democratic heavyweight in a variety of schemes to make use of his official place to bolster his political energy and enrich his associates by over greater than a decade.
The centerpiece of the case is the allegations involving Commonwealth Edison. In keeping with the costs, McClain conspired with then-ComEd President Anne Pramaggiore and others to funnel $1.3 million in funds to ghost “subcontractors” who included Madigan cronies and rating members of his thirteenth Ward Democratic group.
The utility additionally employed a clouted legislation agency run by political operative Victor Reyes, distributed quite a few school internships inside Madigan’s thirteenth Ward fiefdom, and blatantly backed former McPier chief Juan Ochoa, the buddy of a Madigan ally, for an $80,000-a-year seat on the utility’s board of administrators, the indictment alleged.
In return, prosecutors say, Madigan used his affect over the Common Meeting to assist ComEd rating a collection of giant legislative victories that not solely rescued the corporate from monetary instability however led to record-breaking, billion-dollar earnings.
Final 12 months, a separate jury convicted McClain, Pramaggiore, Doherty and former ComEd lobbyist John Hooker on all costs, although that consequence remains to be being challenged within the wake of the Snyder ruling. Attorneys for the 4 have claimed a brand new trial is inevitable.
After these verdicts in Might 2023, performing U.S. Legal professional Morris “Sonny” Pasqual advised reporters that these in enterprise and politics who declare prosecutors have sought to criminalize authorized lobbying ought to search recommendation on the place the road is.
“This was not the $10,000 in a grocery bag in a again room, it was far more complicated and the greenback quantities concerned and the achieve concerned was far more vital as properly,” he stated. “We’re simply gratified that the jury noticed it for what it was.”
The jury directions in La Schiazza’s trial contained a number of delicate however essential variations than these given within the ComEd 4 case, the place prosecutors needed to show solely {that a} defendant “supplied to present a factor of worth” with the intent to affect or reward a public official in reference to legislative exercise.
The La Schiazza jury was instructed there needed to be proof of a direct “trade” for an “official act” — one thing that the protection homed in on repeatedly in closing arguments.
That language is repeated within the authorities’s proposed jury directions in Madigan’s case, which outline a bribe as an individual giving one thing of worth “corruptly with the intent to affect or reward an agent of state authorities in trade for an official act associated to some enterprise, transaction, or collection of transactions of the federal government.”
In his closing argument, La Schiazza’s lead legal professional, Tinos Diamantatos, urged the jury to take a look at the “huge image,” recognizing that AT&T’s COLR reduction invoice was the fruits of years of legit work by the corporate’s complete authorities relations employees in addition to outdoors lobbyists, “a workforce effort by AT&T to get one thing completed lawfully and appropriately.”
If Madigan had really been bribed and the repair was in, why would La Schiazza have stored pushing so exhausting? Diamantatos requested. And why would Madigan have stored them guessing by attaching their invoice to different laws that threatened its passage proper as much as the top?
“You would need to consider that Speaker Madigan, one of the crucial highly effective members within the historical past of the Home, would change his complete place … all as a result of Eddie Acevedo obtained a nine-month contract for $2,500,” he stated.
The argument echoed related feedback from the protection within the ComEd 4 case — however that jury didn’t purchase it. One ComEd 4 juror, Robert Garnes, advised the Tribune he and his fellow jurors all felt the defendants “had an opportunity to cease” the scheme, however selected be aware to.
“It didn’t must go this far nevertheless it did, as a result of no one tried to cease it,” Garnes stated. “They felt like they have been untouchable or simply (stated) ‘to hell with it.’”
In her remarks, Duran stated she knew of Madigan earlier than the trial, however had not “actually gotten down into the weeds of it.” However in mild of her expertise on the Dirksen U.S. Courthouse the previous few weeks, she plans to maintain tabs on the Madigan trial.
“There have been numerous issues I made psychological notes on that I need to observe up on, for certain,” she stated.
The Submit-Tribune’s Amy Lavalley contributed.
jmeisner@chicagotribune.com
mcrepeau@chicagotribune.com
Initially Revealed:
