Three months after his trial ended in a hung jury, ex-AT&T Illinois boss Paul La Schiazza’s bid for acquittal was denied Thursday by a federal judge, who ruled that prosecutors had shown ample evidence of a quid pro quo scheme to bribe then-House Speaker Michael Madigan.
The ruling by U.S. District Judge Robert Gettleman not only sets the stage for a potential retrial for La Schiazza, but also comes as jurors in Madigan’s own corruption trial are hearing the same evidence of the alleged scheme to steer a do-nothing contract to ex-state Rep. Edward Acevedo to help win the powerful speaker’s support on key legislation in Springfield.
Both sides in the Madigan trial will surely be examining Gettleman’s 35-page opinion closely, as it deals directly with issues of the federal bribery statute and quid pro quo that were given new, tighter boundaries by the U.S. Supreme Court earlier this year.
In his ruling, Gettleman repeatedly said that La Schiazza’s attorneys raised bona fide issues with the government’s theories of the case, but in the end the evidence was enough for a reasonable juror to find La Schiazza guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
Gettleman paid particular attention to the timing of the alleged scheme, where Madigan’s support for AT&T’s bill to end mandated landline service, known by the acronym COLR, coincided almost directly with the speaker’s longtime confidant, Michael McClain, reaching out about a contract for Acevedo.
“The proximity and sequence of Madigan’s agreement to meet with (La Schiazza) and labor leaders on COLR, McClain’s solicitation of the Acevedo contract, and McClain’s notification that Madigan had assigned him to COLR as a special project is evidence of a quid pro quo,” Gettleman wrote.
The judge also wrote that as soon as he learned that McClain had been dispatched, La Schiazza emailed his governmental affairs team with the words “Game on,” allowing jurors to infer La Schiazza “understood this timing to be a quid pro quo exchange.”
La Schiazza’s attorney, Tinos Diamantatos, could not immediately 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 using a facility in interstate commerce to promote unlawful activity.
The charges alleged La Schiazza agreed in 2017 to pay $2,500 a month to Acevedo, Madigan’s onetime assistant majority leader, through the lobbying firm of longtime Madigan political aide Tom Cullen.
In exchange for the payments, the speaker helped shepherd AT&T’s bill ending mandated landline service through the General Assembly, giving La Schiazza a career notch on his belt and saving the telecommunications giant millions of dollars, according to prosecutors.
La Schiazza’s attorneys argued it was nothing more than legal lobbying, and that there was no evidence that Acevedo’s hiring was tied to any official action by Madigan.
The trial in September was seen as a sort of litmus test for prosecutors in the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision in June that the federal 666 bribery statute required an advance agreement by both sides to exchange an official act for something of value, rather than a “gratuity” given after the fact.
After a weeklong trial, including three days of deliberation, Gettleman declared a mistrial when the jury announced it had deadlocked. The panel was overwhelmingly leaning toward a conviction, juror Jocelyn Duran told the Tribune, but a lone holdout was not convinced and said there was nothing that could change their mind.
One juror who stayed behind to talk to lawyers in the case in open court, a 62-year-old man from Naperville, told the defense panel that the discussions bogged down over whether there had been an “exchange” between La Schiazza and Madigan and if La Schiazza knew that it was improper.
“We really struggled with (La Schiazza’s) intent,” he said.
While much smaller in scope than similar bribery allegations involving Commonwealth Edison, the allegations against La Schiazza had a familiar ring in a state where the old patronage system of the Democratic political machine gave way to a new style of power and influence that allegedly rewarded Madigan’s most loyal supporters with secret, do-nothing subcontracts.
Last year, a separate trial of four ex-ComEd executives and lobbyists ended in across-the-board convictions, though defense attorneys in that case are still fighting the verdict.
In Madigan’s case, U.S. District John Robert Blakey has repeatedly shot down defense efforts to throw out or curtail the AT&T part of the case, which is just one charge in a 23-count indictment against the former speaker.
Blakey denied the latest effort on Wednesday, which came after prosecutors notified the defense they didn’t intend to call Stephen Selcke, a former AT&T legislative affairs executive whose testimony was key in La Schiazza’s case, to the stand this time around.
Defense attorneys, however, have hinted they may call Selcke as a defense witness.
Selcke gave the jury an insider’s account on the decision to hire Acevedo — despite his lack of experience and boorish demeanor — in the hopes of staying in Madigan’s good graces. But he also gave a boost to the defense by testifying that no one at AT&T believed that Acevedo’s contract was in exchange for any official act on Madigan’s part.
Gettleman indicated in his ruling that Selcke’s testimony was important to prove the conspiracy, particularly in connecting the dots on McClain’s connections to Madigan, given there was no direct evidence that the speaker was aware of the Acevedo request.
Selcke “testified that McClain was understood to be ‘speaking as an emissary for Speaker Madigan’ and that everyone at AT&T, including the defendant, believed that McClain was ‘acting at the speaker’s direction,’” Gettleman wrote.
Meanwhile, the Madigan trial will feature one witness involved in the AT&T allegations who did not testify in La Schiazza’s case: Acevedo himself.
On Wednesday, Blake ruled the 61-year-old former legislator must testify under a grant of immunity despite strenuous arguments from Acevedo’s attorney that he has dementia and is not competent to take the witness stand. That testimony is set for Monday.
jmeisner@chicagotribune.com
mcrepeau@chicagotribune.com
