A federal judge on Thursday put off ruling on key evidentiary issues in the upcoming trial of a former AT&T Illinois president accused of bribing then-House Speaker Michael Madigan, saying it made more sense to wait to see how the U.S. Supreme Court comes down in a case that could fundamentally alter a federal bribery statute.
Paul La Schiazza, 66, was charged in an indictment returned by a federal grand jury in October 2022 with conspiracy, federal program bribery, and using a facility in interstate commerce to promote unlawful activity. His trial is set to begin in September.
Earlier this month, prosecutors filed what is known as a Santiago proffer, detailing the statements of co-conspirators and other evidence they intend to use to prove that there was a scheme by La Schiazza and AT&T to secretly funnel money to a Madigan-connected ex-legislator to gain a competitive edge as the utility was seeking to pass a bill ending mandated landline service as well as another piece of legislation known as the “small cell” bill.
Lawyers for La Schiazza, meanwhile, have argued that the government’s proffer “is devoid of any evidence” showing La Schiazza or any other AT&T employee knew “that seeking to influence Mr. Madigan was forbidden,” as required by current Chicago-area case law.
During a pretrial hearing Thursday, U.S. District Judge Robert Gettleman said it would behoove everyone to wait for a Supreme Court decision in the case of James Snyder, the former mayor of Portage, Indiana, who is challenging his conviction under the same bribery statute at the center of La Schiazza’s indictment.
“So much of that depends on the Snyder ruling, it doesn’t pay to go into it at this point,” Gettleman said. He set a status hearing for July 7, a week after the high court’s decision is expected to come down.
Also Thursday, Gettleman told parties for both sides that witness lists and the names of other people who will be mentioned at trial will have to be made public at some point, noting that many of them have already been reported in the media anyway.
“The gentlemen of the press — and as you know I have a soft spot for the gentleman of the press — apparently know those names and have published them in the local newspapers,” Gettleman said. “So we’ll keep them under seal for now …. (but) we all know there’s going to be names mentioned in this case.”
La Schiazza’s trial is expected to last three weeks and will be sandwiched between two bombshell Chicago political events: the Democratic National Convention in August and Madigan’s own racketeering trial, which is set to begin in October at the same Dirksen U.S. Courthouse where La Schiazza is charged.
According to prosecutors, La Schiazza and others at AT&T agreed to pay $2,500 a month to former state Rep. Edward Acevedo, a onetime member of Madigan’s leadership team who’d recently left the General Assembly, at the same time the company was seeking passage of a bill known by the acronym COLR.
The payments to Acevedo — allegedly negotiated by Madigan’s longtime confidant, Michael McClain — were made via a lobbying contract between AT&T and Thomas Cullen, a former Madigan staffer and longtime political strategist aligned with the speaker, according to prosecutors. Acevedo, who was a registered lobbyist at the time, did no actual work for AT&T in exchange for the payments, prosecutors alleged.
During Thursday’s hourlong pretrial hearing, Gettleman entertained a number of motions by both sides seeking to shape the evidence and arguments that will be presented to the jury.
One motion by the defense asked Gettleman to bar prosecutors from referring to La Schiazza’s alleged deal to pay Acevedo as “corrupt.” Gettleman, however, said that appeared to be the crux of the allegations and it wouldn’t make sense to bar such arguments if they can be inferred from the evidence.
Another motion, filed by the prosecution, asked that the defense be barred from arguing the deal was just “politics as usual.” Gettleman said he’d have to wait and see how the testimony plays out, but either way, the political game in Springfield is bound to be front and center.
“You’re all going to be talking about how the political system works in Springfield,” the judge said. “Some of that in (prosecutors’) view may be corrupt, depending on how that’s defined, and the defense gets an opportunity to rebut that. So it could be interesting. Put it that way.”
jmeisner@chicagotribune.com
