* Crain’s…

Former Commonwealth Edison CEO Anne Pramaggiore and three others set to stand trial starting next week for their alleged roles in the ComEd bribery scheme today won a few victories in advance of the proceedings.

U.S. District Judge Harry Leinenweber, ruling on a raft of motions before the trial begins on Tuesday, agreed that the deferred prosecution agreement ComEd struck with the U.S. attorney’s office in 2020 — containing ComEd’s admissions to the feds — shouldn’t be part of the government’s case. […]

Another win for the defense was Leinenweber’s denial of prosecutors’ attempt to bar defense lawyers from arguing that the conduct in evidence represented “politics as usual” and wasn’t illegal. That argument is one that’s central not just to this case, but to the trial scheduled for next year of Madigan in connection with the ComEd bribery scheme and other acts.

As a former Illinois state legislator himself, Leinenweber saw “politics as usual” up close. From the defense motion against barring that argument…

(T)he Government seeks to preclude evidence “regarding similar ‘political’ acts engaged in by others or suggesting that defendants’ conduct was simply part of politics or ‘politics as usual.’” But what counts as a similar political act? The Government does not say. If the motion is granted, the parties will undoubtedly have further disputes concerning whether certain acts are “similar” or “political.” Granting the Government’s motions to exclude these vague categories of information would thus replace the clear guidance of the Federal Rules of Evidence with murky boundaries, which is the exact opposite of what motions in limine are intended to do.

* Sun-Times…

(T)he judge presiding over the upcoming trial of the four has ruled that secret recordings forming the backbone of the federal government’s case will not be widely released to the public once they are admitted at trial. Such release is standard practice in Chicago’s federal court. […]

The judge said transcripts of the recordings could be released — though much of what is said in the recordings has previously been divulged. […]

Leinenweber also ruled on several motions during Thursday’s hearing that will govern the trial. And he told attorneys that roughly half of jurors who have already filled out questionnaires could be ruled out of the case based primarily on their answers to three questions.

The questions centered on whether the jurors had already heard anything about the case, and whether they had any preconceived notions about lobbying, the state legislature, ComEd — or Madigan.

All that money spent ruining Madigan’s political brand is apparently getting some jurors booted.

* I’ve reformatted excerpts from the rulings and added a few links…

McClain’s Agreed Motion by all defendants jointly to bar evidence or argument concerning an alleged rape in Champaign and the ATT Illinois [Deferred Prosecution Agreement] is GRANTED. […]

McClain’s Sealed Motion 1 in which Defendants McClain and Hooker seek to prohibit the Government from arguing that, as part of the conspiracy and to conceal the nature and purpose of their conduct, the Defendants often referred to Madigan as “our friend” or “a friend of ours,” rather than using Madigan’s true name is DENIED. While this evidence has less relevance in light of Defendant McClain’s prior cooperation with law enforcement, is still relevant as a desire of secrecy. […]

Pramaggiore’s Motion 5 in which Defendants Pramaggiore & Hooker jointly move to exclude any evidence, testimony, or argument concerning the draft introductory remarks written by Keisha Parker about Madigan for Pramaggiore to present at a fundraiser is DENIED. It is allowed for limited purpose of context regarding Madigan’s perceived value to ComEd. […]

Pramaggiore’s Motion 7 in which Defendants Pramaggiore, McClain, & Hooker jointly move to exclude evidence or argument concerning campaign contributions from ComEd, Exelon, or personnel of ComEd or Exelon to Michael J. Madigan, Friends of Michael J. Madigan, or the Democratic Party of Illinois is DENIED. While campaign contributions may be protected by the First Amendment, they may constitute illegal conduct under certain circumstances. It is illegal, for example, to tie a campaign contribution to a promise to vote in a certain way. […]

Doherty’s Motion 3-B to bar references or parallels between this case and gang cases or organized crime cases that use coded language to accomplish its criminal objectives and avoid detection by law enforcement is GRANTED.

Doherty’s Motion 3-C to bar argument that the JDDA contract was paid from the CEO budget as suspicious or a means to conceal the alleged crime is DENIED. The evidence is relevant for intent. […]

The Government’s Motion 3 to exclude argument or evidence designed to elicit jury nullification is GRANTED IN PART.

• 3-A: “Politics as Usual” is DENIED. Defendants may argue that their actions were lawful, constitutionally- protected activity.
• 3-B: Penalties Faced by the Defendants if Convicted is GRANTED.
• 3-C: Allegations of Outrageous Government Conduct is GRANTED.
• 3-D: “Golden Rule” Arguments is GRANTED.

The Government’s Motion 4 to exclude opinion evidence regarding legality is GRANTED There may be instances on cross-examination where such opinions may be relevant, but permission should be sought from the Court.

The Government’s Motion 5 to preclude evidence of, or making reference to, lawfulness, non-corrupt conduct, and prior good acts, except reputation or opinion evidence offered by character witnesses strictly in accord with Rule 405(a) is DENIED IN PART. Defendants may argue that their specific acts were lawful, but the motion is GRANTED as to conduct not alleged as corrupt (e.g., contributions to charitable organizations). […]

The Government’s uncontested Sealed Motion to preclude questioning of a witness concerning a sealed 1991 conviction, etc. is GRANTED.