Lawyers within the corruption trial of former House Speaker Michael Madigan arrived in court docket Thursday anticipating a protracted battle over the implications of a current U.S. Supreme Court determination on the federal bribery statute, together with a dispute over how the jurors ought to outline the phrase “corrupt.” .”
But towards the top of the five-hour jury briefing, U.S. District Judge John Robert Blakey instructed legal professionals on either side that, so far as he knew, the excessive court docket’s determination had little affect on Madigan’s case .
Indeed, the judges in Snyder v. US — a bombshell case involving the previous mayor of Portage, Indiana — supplied no actual steerage on the right way to outline “corrupt,” Blakey stated, leaving legal professionals tied to a long-standing precedent set by the seventh Circuit Court of Justice U.S. enchantment based mostly in Chicago.
“The Snyder case has no management over the matter,” Blakey stated. “It doesn’t interpret, a lot much less reinterpret, the time period ‘corrupt’… That doesn’t imply it’s irrelevant, however the reality of the matter is that the seventh Circuit’s authority stays intact in its definition of ‘corrupt’.”
Madigan’s legal professionals had argued that Snyder’s determination reframed the which means of the phrase “corrupt” within the federal bribery statute generally known as 666, asking the decide to outline it for the jury in Madigan’s case as “appearing with the data that the conduct of particular person is prohibited.”
Madigan legal professional Lari Dierks stated such a definition would assist jurors distinguish between a citizen’s proper to petition authorities officers and a prison scheme to affect a public official.
“The query is, when does this affect cross the road into an unlawful bribe?” Dierks stated. “What (the phrase) ‘corrupt’ does is draw that line to verify harmless conduct does not get swept away.”
But Blakey cited two seventh Circuit opinions from the previous decade that he stated supplied the clearest steerage. The first alleges that an officer “acts corruptly when he understands that the fee given is a bribe, reward, or tip,” though the decide stated the time period “gratuity” ought to be eliminated as a result of Snyder ruling.
The second case states that bribery entails “data on the a part of the payee that the payer expects to achieve prohibited affect or ship a prohibited reward,” Blakey stated, quoting the opinion straight.
Blakey additionally stated that underneath his understanding of the legislation, prosecutors should show {that a} defendant knew he was participating in a bribe, however they don’t have to show that the defendant knew the bribe was unlawful.
“The authorities should exhibit a corrupt factual data that the change was a bribe, not a subjective authorized data that such an change is prohibited by legislation,” Blakey stated, acknowledging that the distinction is “blurred.”
That means Madigan’s protection crew probably will not be allowed to make use of what is understood in authorized jargon as a “mistake of legislation” protection, arguing that the previous speaker merely did not know his actions had been unlawful.
Blakey stated that if Congress had wished to incorporate a protection of ignorance of the legislation in Statute 666, it could have used the normal time period “intentional” as a substitute of the extra nebulous “corrupt.”
And, the decide famous, the entire legal professionals stated in court docket in November that that they had no foundation to argue an error of legislation.
“I do not see the view of both celebration on this case that an error of legislation protection is feasible, and I do not see how I might rewrite the statute and add some in any other case ‘prohibited’ or ‘illegal.'” (language) that doesn’t has any form of definition,” the decide stated.
Blakey added that the circuit mannequin directions they’re engaged on “are the identical directions which have convicted a number of governors and different individuals underneath 666 for a era, and never one in every of them has made an error of (protection) legislation.”
The decide averted making a definitive ruling on the difficulty, giving the legal professionals the chance to talk to one another and make various proposals.
“Everything I simply stated shouldn’t be an opinion, it is a thought course of,” he stated. “…Why do not you guys check out this, then I’ll be pleased to speak extra about it.”
The trial, which started on October 8, is anticipated to conclude on the finish of this month.
While jury instruction conferences are typically boring, it took on larger significance in Madigan’s case after the Snyder ruling in June raised the bar for what prosecutors should show.
In its determination, the U.S. Supreme Court dominated that “gratuities” – or items given as thanks for actions already taken by a public official – usually are not criminalized underneath federal statute and that prosecutors should exhibit upfront the existence of an settlement.
A jury seemed to be wrestling with that very query earlier than deadlocking in September within the trial of former AT&T Illinois chief Paul La Schiazza, accused of bribing Madigan in an alleged scheme that can also be a part of Madigan’s case.
La Schiazza’s legal professionals misplaced their bid to dismiss the fees final month, and the case will now go to a brand new trial in June.
Blakey, in the meantime, refused to dismiss any corruption prices in opposition to Madigan, saying the indictment overcomes the hurdle posed within the Snyder case by alleging that Madigan carried out official acts in change for numerous issues of worth, together with ComEd jobs for his associates.
However, the High Court’s ruling will probably considerably have an effect on the language Madigan’s jury will obtain in authorized directions, which is able to set out what prosecutors should show on the 5 counts that relate to Statute 666.
Despite the dearth of steerage on the time period “bribe,” a few of the proposed jury directions are clearly influenced straight by the Snyder case, together with the inclusion of the phrase “change” within the definition of what an unlawful bribe is.
“If the bribe is to be paid after an official motion has occurred, then the federal government should exhibit that the bribery settlement existed earlier than the official motion came about,” the proposed directions learn.
Blakey had hoped that earlier than the trial concluded, the seventh Circuit would obtain new directions from the jury listening to the Snyder ruling. But the decide instructed the events final month that the brand new mannequin directions wouldn’t be prepared in time.
Madigan, 82, a Southwest Side Democrat, and his longtime confidante, Michael McClain, 77, of Quincy, are charged in a 23-count indictment that alleges the vaunted state and political operations of Madigan had been run as a prison enterprise to build up and improve his energy and enrich himself and his associates.
In addition to pressuring builders to rent the relator’s legislation agency, the indictment accuses Madigan and McClain of conspiring to have utility giants Commonwealth Edison and AT&T Illinois place the relator’s associates on contracts requiring little or no work in return of Madigan’s help on key laws in Springfield. .
ComEd additionally allegedly outsourced authorized work to a Madigan ally, granted his request to position a political affiliate on the state-regulated firm’s board of administrators, and distributed summer season internship packages to varsity college students dwelling in his Southwest Side legislative district, based on the fees.
Both Madigan and McClain have denied any wrongdoing.
After a protracted vacation break, jurors are anticipated to return Monday to listen to extra witnesses in Madigan’s protection.
jmeisner@chicagotribune.com
mcrepeau@chicagotribune.com
