Prosecutor: 'Power and profit,' ex-speaker 'abused his public office'
Send a link to a friend
 [January 23, 2025]
By Jim Talamonti | The Center Square
(The Center Square) – Closing arguments have begun at the public
corruption trial of former Illinois House Speaker Michael Madigan in
Chicago.
“Power and profit,” Assistant U.S. Attorney Julia Schwartz said
Wednesday afternoon as she started her address to the jury on behalf of
the government. “Michael Madigan and Michael McClain conspired to
preserve Madigan’s power and line his pockets.”
Schwartz said Madigan, who pleaded not guilty to 23 corruption-related
charges, was the most powerful politician in the state of Illinois and
controlled legislation in state government. As chairman of the
Democratic Party of Illinois, “Madigan controlled the campaign financing
of politicians across the state,” Schwartz said.
Madigan, D-Chicago, was speaker of the Illinois House for all but two
years from 1983 to 2021. He chaired the state Democratic Party for 23
years.
McClain, D-Quincy, was a longtime lobbyist who previously served as a
state representative from 1973 to 1982.
“Legislation should not be bought, but that’s what was happening here,”
Schwartz said.
“Madigan abused his public office and [Chicago] Alderman Daniel Solis’
public office to get business for his private law firm,” she added.
Schwartz said, along with her colleague Diane MacArthur, she would
explain how Madigan and McClain broke the law.
Schwartz listed episodes of what she called “racketeering activity” on a
screen in the courtroom: ComEd, a Chinatown Chicago parking lot, the
Union West development in Chicago and AT&T.
Madigan used ComEd as his “personal piggy bank,” Schwartz said, adding
that Counts 2-7 of the indictment related to ComEd were charges against
Madigan alone.
Schwartz said that the former speaker acted corruptly in bribery deals
with subcontractors, the Reyes Kurson law firm contract, a ComEd board
seat for Juan Ochoa, ComEd’s intern program and other hires.
“These subcontractors did virtually no work. They were ghosts. This was
a sham,” Schwartz said.
Schwartz said that ComEd complied with Madigan’s request to hire former
Chicago Alderman Mike Zalewski in one day.
“This is a public official making a job offer on behalf of ComEd,”
Schwartz said after playing several wiretapped phone calls. “These are
not disinterested job recommendations.”
Schwartz said Zalewski made $45,000 from ComEd through contractor Jay
Doherty in 2018 and 2019.
“He didn’t do a lick of work for ComEd,” Schwartz said.
Schwartz detailed how former state Rep. Eddie Acevedo, D-Chicago, and
Madigan campaign worker Ed Moody did little to no work for ComEd and how
ComEd executive Fidel Marquez asked for McClain’s permission to let
Acevedo go.
“It’s a bribe,” Schwartz said, regarding the payments to Moody. “A bribe
connected to legislation.”
Schwartz reminded jurors that Moody testified, “If I leave my politics …
I’m going to lose the contract.”
According to Schwartz, ComEd paid Moody $359,000 through contractors for
little work from 2012 to 2019. She said another of Madigan’s precinct
captains, Ray Nice, made $415,000 from ComEd during the same period and
former 13th Ward Alderman Frank Olivo made $368,000 from 2011-2019.
All told, Schwartz said, ComEd paid $1.3 million through contractors to
Madigan allies for little or no work.
Schwartz replayed an interview Madigan did in 2009 about political
patronage and people who came to his ward office looking for work.
“We can put you in a job, but you’re going to work for the Democratic
Party,” Madigan said in the interview.
In a recording on July 2, 2018, Madigan brought up using contractor Jay
Doherty to pay the wife of state Rep. Jaime Andrade, D-Chicago, who
Madigan said “needs money.”
Doherty, McClain and two others were convicted of multiple corruption
charges in the related 2023 ComEd Four trial. ComEd agreed to pay $200
million in fines as part of a deferred prosecution agreement.
[to top of second column]
|
Former Illinois House Speaker Michael Madigan, followed by a
protester, enters the federal court building in Chicago Tuesday Dec.
10, 2024
Jim Talamonti | The Center Square
“Of course he knows what’s going on here,” Schwartz said, referring to
Madigan.
Schwartz replayed a video of Doherty discussing the importance of
keeping Madigan happy, telling Marquez he would not make changes with
the payments to subcontractors.
“Madigan wanted to get money to his loyal soldiers. ComEd wanted to get
its legislation passed,” Schwartz explained.
“This stream of benefits was corresponding to ComEd’s constant need for
legislation.”
Schwartz also discussed ComEd’s falsification of records to hide
payments and displayed contracts and invoices that contained false
information.
“These lies made their way all the way through to the payment records,”
Schwartz said.
Schwartz said Madigan knew that false documents were being prepared and
offered several recordings as evidence.
In negotiating the Reyes Kurson law contract with ComEd, Schwartz said
McClain “resorted to intimidation.” Schwartz displayed emails as
evidence of “a cycle of pressure” by McClain.
Former Assistant U.S. Attorney Patrick Collins, who is not involved in
the trial, said prosecutors tend to downplay their own personalities.
“You’re there as a government to just show that the defendant is guilty,
not because the prosecutor has some animus about the individual, but
it’s because of the weight of the evidence,” Collins told The Center
Square.
Judge John Robert Blakey began reading his final instructions to the
jury on Wednesday morning. The judge told jurors they must follow the
instructions even if they disagreed with them. He said it was their job
and not anyone else’s to decide the facts and apply the law to those
facts.
In another instruction, Blakey said the jury should consider each charge
on the indictment separately and each defendant separately.
The judge took about two hours to read his instructions, which he said
were complete except for “a few final instructions" before the jury
starts deliberating.
Chicago attorney Sam Adam Jr. said jury instructions are important.
“The lawyers will be pointing to the instructions [about] what the law
is and saying, ‘Even though you may have some circumstantial evidence
here, does it show that there was a quid pro quo, that these things were
done one for the other?'” Adam told The Center Square.
Adam said the law is clear in most public corruption cases.
“It’s not enough to just say, ‘I think that they were doing something
and taking bribes here.’ They’re gonna have to show that it was one for
the other,” Adam told The Center Square.
The judge briefly reopened the case Wednesday morning to allow
prosecutors to introduce three exhibits, all of which were admitted
without objection.
Before jurors entered the courtroom Wednesday, Madigan’s attorneys
objected to a jury instruction regarding an inconsistent statement made
by Madigan during his testimony about Ed Moody.
Jury instruction 11 read, in part, “You may consider an inconsistent
statement defendant Madigan made before the trial to help you decide how
believable defendant Madigan’s testimony was in court.”
Madigan attorney Dan Collins argued that Madigan’s two statements about
Moody were made seven years apart and therefore not inconsistent. Blakey
overruled the objection, saying the parties could argue about the
inconsistency of the statements in court.
Closing arguments are scheduled to resume Thursday in United States of
America vs. Michael Madigan and Michael McClain at the Everett McKinley
Dirksen U.S. Courthouse in Chicago.
 |
