Three months after his trial ended with a hung jury, former AT&T Illinois chief Paul La Schiazza’s bid for acquittal was denied Thursday by a federal decide, who dominated that prosecutors had proven ample proof of a quid professional quo scheme to bribe the then Speaker of the House. Michele Madigan.
U.S. District Judge Robert Gettleman’s ruling not solely units the stage for a possible retrial for La Schiazza, but additionally comes as jurors in Madigan’s corruption trial are listening to the identical proof of the alleged scheme to route a contract with out doing something to ex-state Rep. Edward Acevedo to assist win the highly effective speaker’s assist on key laws in Springfield.
Both sides within the Madigan trial are positive to fastidiously scrutinize Gettleman’s 35-page opinion, because it instantly addresses points associated to the federal bribery statute and quid professional quo which were given new and stricter boundaries by the U.S. Supreme Court at starting of this yr.
In his ruling, Gettleman repeatedly mentioned that La Schiazza’s attorneys raised good religion doubts with the federal government’s theories concerning the case, however finally the proof was adequate for an inexpensive juror to seek out La Schiazza responsible past an inexpensive doubt.
Gettleman paid specific consideration to the timing of the alleged plan, by which Madigan’s assist for AT&T’s invoice to finish obligatory landline service, identified by the acronym COLR, coincided virtually instantly with the longtime confidant of the speaker, Michael McClain, who reached out a couple of contract for Acevedo.
“The proximity and timing of Madigan’s settlement to satisfy with (La Schiazza) and union leaders about COLR, McClain’s solicitation of the contract with Acevedo, and McClain’s notification that Madigan had assigned him to COLR as a particular mission are proof of a quid professional quo,” Gettleman wrote.
The decide additionally wrote that as quickly as he realized that McClain had been dispatched, La Schiazza despatched an e mail to his authorities affairs crew with the phrases “Game on,” permitting jurors to deduce that La Schiazza “has understood that this timing was a quid professional quo alternate.”
La Schiazza’s lawyer, Tinos Diamantatos, couldn’t instantly be reached Thursday.
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 criminality.
According to the fees, La Schiazza agreed in 2017 to pay $2,500 a month to Acevedo, Madigan’s former deputy majority chief, by way of the lobbying agency of Madigan’s longtime political aide, Tom Cullen.
In alternate for the funds, the speaker helped go AT&T’s invoice ending obligatory landline service by way of the General Assembly, giving La Schiazza a profession in his belt and saving the telecommunications large cash million {dollars}, in response to prosecutors.
La Schiazza’s attorneys argued that it amounted to nothing greater than authorized lobbying and that there was no proof that Acevedo’s hiring was tied to any official motion by Madigan.
The September trial was seen as one thing of a litmus check for prosecutors within the wake of the Supreme Court’s June determination that federal corruption statute 666 required prior settlement from each events to alternate an official act for one thing of worth, moderately than a “free reward” given after the actual fact.
After a week-long trial, together with three days of deliberation, Gettleman declared a mistrial when the jury introduced that the trial was deadlocked. The majority of the jury was leaning towards a conviction, juror Jocelyn Duran informed the Tribune, however a lone supporter was unconvinced and mentioned there was nothing that will change their minds.
One juror who remained to talk to attorneys concerning the case in open court docket, a 62-year-old Naperville man, informed the protection jury that discussions had change into slowed down over whether or not there had been an “alternate” between La Schiazza and Madigan and if La Schiazza knew that it was improper.
“We actually struggled with the intent (of La Schiazza),” he mentioned.
Although a lot smaller in scope than related corruption allegations involving Commonwealth Edison, the fees in opposition to La Schiazza had a well-known ring in a state the place the previous patronage system of the Democratic political machine has given strategy to a brand new fashion of energy and affect that supposedly rewarded Madigan’s biggest exponents. loyal supporters with secret and inactive subcontracts.
Last yr, a separate trial of 4 former ComEd executives and lobbyists ended with convictions on all counts, though protection attorneys in that case are nonetheless combating the decision.
In Madigan’s case, U.S. District John Robert Blakey has repeatedly rebuffed protection efforts to dismiss or restrict the AT&T portion of the case, which is simply one of many costs in a 23-count indictment in opposition to the previous speaker.
Blakey denied the newest try Wednesday, which got here after prosecutors notified the protection that they didn’t intend to name Stephen Selcke, a former AT&T legislative affairs government whose testimony was central to the La Schiazza case, to the stand.
Defense attorneys, nevertheless, have hinted that they could name Selcke as a protection witness.
Selcke gave the jury an insider’s account of the choice to rent Acevedo — regardless of his lack of expertise and boorish demeanor — in hopes of staying in Madigan’s good graces. But he additionally gave the protection a lift by testifying that nobody at AT&T believed Acevedo’s contract was in alternate for an official act by Madigan.
Gettleman indicated in his ruling that Selcke’s testimony was essential in proving the conspiracy, significantly in connecting the dots about McClain’s connections to Madigan, on condition that there was no direct proof that the speaker knew about Acevedo’s request .
Selcke “testified that McClain was supposed ‘to talk as an emissary of Speaker Madigan’ and that everybody at AT&T, together with defendant, believed that McClain was ‘performing on the Speaker’s course,'” Gettleman wrote.
Meanwhile, the Madigan trial will function a witness implicated within the AT&T allegations who didn’t testify within the La Schiazza case: Acevedo himself.
On Wednesday, Blake dominated that the 61-year-old former lawmaker should testify with immunity granted regardless of Acevedo’s lawyer’s strenuous arguments that he suffers from dementia and isn’t competent to testify. Testimony is about for Monday.
jmeisner@chicagotribune.com
mcrepeau@chicagotribune.com
Originally revealed:
