Feds swat argument that Supreme Court saves Madigan: 'This dog will not hunt'
Federal prosecutors on Monday rejected the notion that charges against former Illinois House Speaker Michael J. Madigan should be tossed because of a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling.
“This dog will not hunt,” they told U.S. District Judge John Blakey, insisting in a 113-page filing that there is “no basis to disturb” their blockbuster case.
The feds took the unsurprising position as they continued to fend off potential damage from the high court’s decision in the appeal of former Portage, Indiana Mayor James Snyder. The justices found that a statute criminalizing bribery among state and local officials does not also criminalize after-the-fact rewards known as “gratuities.”
The ruling came down June 26. Defense attorneys have pounced in multiple corruption cases at the Dirksen Federal Courthouse in the month since. But the most high profile among them is Madigan’s, which remains on track for trial Oct. 8.
The Southwest Side Democrat left office in 2021 and was originally indicted in March 2022.
Madigan’s attorneys sought dismissal earlier this month of 14 of the 23 counts against him, partly because of the Supreme Court ruling. Prosecutors countered Monday that Madigan and his co-defendant, Michael McClain, “intended to engage in quid pro quo bribery.”
“All Snyder means for this case is that the government cannot proceed on a gratuity theory at trial, and it does not intend to,” prosecutors wrote.
A gratuity is a reward given without a quid pro quo for an official act that has usually already happened.
Prosecutors wrote that “Madigan accepted a stream of more than $700,000 in benefits from ComEd over the course of eight years, knowing the payments were made to influence and reward Madigan’s official action with regard to legislation that impacted ComEd’s financial interests.”
They wrote that the Supreme Court’s Snyder decision “did not discuss, and certainly does not disturb, the continued viability of bribery prosecutions that target ‘schemes that involve a stream of benefits over time, not just singly negotiated deals,’ where the government can establish an intent to engage in a quid pro quo.”
Madigan is accused of leading a criminal enterprise for nearly a decade designed to enhance his political power and generate income for his allies and associates. He is also accused of participating in a bribery conspiracy with McClain — a longtime ComEd lobbyist — and others.
McClain has already been convicted for his role in that scheme, along with former ComEd CEO Anne Pramaggiore, ex-ComEd lobbyist John Hooker and onetime City Club President Jay Doherty. The four were found guilty at the end of a lengthy trial in 2023 but are challenging their convictions because of the Snyder decision.
Prosecutors have argued against a new trial in that case. And in their brief in the Madigan case Monday, they insisted they relied upon a stream-of-benefits bribery theory during McClain’s trial last year. They even cited a graphic shown to jurors in that case, depicting a cycle in which “Madigan Wants,” “ComEd Gives” and “ComEd Gets.”
“Madigan’s contention that the government’s case can only go forward in reliance on a gratuity theory is therefore entirely meritless,” prosecutors wrote.
The feds are also fending off Snyder-based claims in the case of former AT&T Illinois President Paul La Schiazza, who is accused of conspiring to bribe Madigan in a similar scheme. He faces trial in September.
La Schiazza’s defense attorneys recently moved to dismiss charges against him, but prosecutors maintain that Snyder “does not impact” his case.