‘No agreement to commit a crime’: Ex-Speaker Madigan’s legal team previews likely defense in corruption case

Defense attorneys in the federal racketeering case against former Illinois House Speaker Michael Madigan and his longtime confidant said in new filings Monday that prosecutors’ apparent plan to immunize former state Rep. Eddie Acevedo and compel him to testify is dubious due to “competency issues.”

The filings also previewed what likely will be a key element of Madigan’s defense: that while others may have schemed behind the scenes to try and influence the powerful House speaker, there is no evidence Madigan was in on it or that he took any official action to assist them.

Acevedo, a Madigan acolyte who left the General Assembly in 2017 to become a lobbyist, was allegedly paid by AT&T Illinois through a do-nothing consulting contract as part of an alleged scheme by the telephone giant to illegally influence Madigan as they worked to pass legislation in Springfield.

Prosecutors said in a filing earlier this year that they plan to call Acevedo to testify about the payments, which were allegedly arranged by Madigan’s friend and co-defendant, Michael McClain. Acevedo, who pleaded guilty in 2022 to tax-related offenses related to the same overarching investigation and served six months in prison.

In their response Monday, however, McClain’s attorneys wrote it was “extremely unlikely” that Acevedo would actually testify, even if granted immunity from further prosecution, due to “competency issues” disclosed in privately shared discovery materials.

“And even if Mr. Acevedo does testify, his mental and physical capacity to provide admissible evidence consistent with the government’s proffer is highly uncertain,” the filing stated.

Madigan’s attorneys struck a similar tone in their own filing late Monday, stating in a footnote that the defense has “a good faith belief that the government has no intention whatsoever of calling (Acevedo) as a witness.”

The motions provide no further explanation of any competency issues. However, among the evidence that has emerged in the Madigan investigation were emails where McClain and others discussed the former legislator’s perceived shortcomings.

In one email from January 2017, McClain told Fidel Marquez, then vice president of governmental affairs for ComEd, that he’d had a “frank conversation” with Acevedo and given him an unflattering list of directives, including to “watch the booze.”

Lawyers for Acevedo declined to comment on the matter, as did a spokesman for the U.S. attorney’s office.

Madigan, 82, is charged in a 23-count indictment alleging he participated in an array of bribery and extortion schemes from 2011 to 2019 aimed at using the power of his public office for personal and political gain.

Also charged in the indictment was McClain, a former state legislator and lobbyist who was convicted last year of orchestrating an alleged bribery scheme by Commonwealth Edison. McClain’s sentencing in that case is pending.

Madigan also is charged alone with illegally soliciting business for his private property tax law firm during discussions to turn a state-owned parcel of land in Chinatown into a commercial development.

Both Madigan and McClain have denied any wrongdoing.

Their trial, one of the biggest scheduled at the Dirksen U.S. Courthouse in years, had been slated to begin in April, but was delayed until October 8 by U.S. District Judge Robert Blakey as the parties await a ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court in a bribery case from northwest Indiana that involves similar prosecution paths.

A ruling by the high court is expected by the end of the month.

Prosecutors have said they will play more than 250 undercover recordings at Madigan’s trial, including wiretapped calls, consensual phone recordings and secretly videotaped in-person meetings.

In one, then-Chicago Ald. Daniel Solis, who was working as an undercover FBI mole, allegedly told Madigan the developers of the Chinatown project were on board with hiring Madigan’s law firm.

Solis is expected to be called as a government witness.

“And I think they understand how this works, you know, the quid pro quo, the quid pro quo,” Solis allegedly said. Madigan responded, “OK.”

In a filing in March, prosecutors wrote the call “is devastating evidence that Madigan intended to personally benefit himself by causing Solis to leverage his official position to in turn cause (the Chinatown developer) to give Madigan business.”

But the defense offered a much different take in their filings Monday, alleging that the FBI had induced Solis to utter the words “quid pro quo” on tape — and that Madigan did not take the bait.

“There was no quid pro quo,” Madigan’s attorneys wrote. “Even when the government was so bold as to have Solis say the words ‘quid pro quo,’ Madigan pulled him aside and told him it was not. The government attempts to spin this moment, but one thing is clear – there was no agreement to commit a crime by Madigan.”

Attorneys for both Madigan and McClain argued in their briefs that prosecutors failed to identify which specific co-conspirator statements they intend to introduce at trial, a sort of legal hidden-ball trick that they say prevents them from lodging well-informed objections to the evidence.

“Instead, the government provided a 200-plus page inventory of its years-long efforts to bring charges against Madigan, offering its spin and conclusions throughout,” Madigan’s attorney’s wrote.

Madigan’s lawyers also said that despite the hundreds of undercover recordings in the investigation, there was “not one shred of evidence” to suggest that Madigan was aware of the alleged attempts by AT&T and ComEd to influence him.

And even if it can be proven there was such an attempt, it was far from an illegal bribe, they said.

“Former executives from each company are expected to testify that the purpose of providing Madigan with the alleged benefits was not to guarantee the legislative success, but to influence Madigan in hopes he would not act against ComEd or AT&T’s interests,” the defense filing stated. “(Prosecutors provided) no evidence demonstrating Madigan acted with corrupt intent when he asked private employers to consider giving a job to someone.”

In another signal of their possible legal strategy, Madigan’s filing attempted to distance the former speaker from McClain, who was portrayed more as a rouge agent who kept Madigan in the dark about his intentions.

“The government attempts to link Madigan to this conduct through his relationship with McClain,” Madigan’s lawyers said. “The proffer goes to great lengths to portray McClain as Madigan’s agent who acted with near unlimited authority. But to be Madigan’s agent McClain and Madigan must have the same corrupt intent.”

The investigation and indictment punctuated a stunning downfall for Madigan, the longest serving leader of any legislative chamber in the nation who held an ironclad grip on the state legislature as well as the Democratic party and its political spoils.

He was dethroned as speaker in early 2021 as the investigation swirled around him, and soon after resigned the House seat he’d held since 1971.

The Tribune’s Megan Crepeau contributed.

jmeisner@chicagotribune.com

rlong@chicagotribune.com