* Tribune…

Lawyers for the former AT&T Illinois boss accused of trying to bribe then-House Speaker Michael Madigan argue in a new filing that the prosecution’s case has been “significantly undermined” by a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling walking back a federal bribery statute.

Paul La Schiazza, 66, was charged in an indictment returned by a federal grand jury in October 2022 with conspiring to pay former state Rep. Edward Acevedo $2,500 a month in consulting fees as part of a plan to win Madigan’s backing of several pending pieces of legislation in Springfield. His trial is scheduled to kick off in September.

In a flurry of motions filed late Tuesday, however, La Schiazza’s attorneys asked the judge to toss key bribery and conspiracy counts in the indictment, order the government to turn over grand jury minutes, and limit the statements of alleged co-conspirators that can be introduced at trial.

The motions were the latest fallout from the high court’s ruling last month in the case of former Portage, Indiana Mayor James Snyder that held the federal bribery statute commonly known as “666” applies only to bribes, not gratuities, and that there must be a quid pro quo agreement to accept something of value in exchange for an official act.

All the motions are here.

* From one of the filings…

In defending its decision to bring these charges, the government argued for years that 18 U.S.C. § 666 criminalized both gratuities and bribes and did not require proof of a quid pro quo. After the government indicted this case—the Seventh Circuit made clear that “[a] bribe requires a quid pro quo—an agreement to exchange this for that, to exchange money or something else of value for influence in the future.” United States v. Snyder, 71 F. 4th 555, 579 (7th Cir. 2023). Yet the government continued to press its position that no proof of a quid pro quo was required to convict under Section 666. Ultimately, in Snyder v. United States, the Supreme Court rejected the government’s interpretation of Section 666, holding that the statute applies only to bribes, and that bribery “requires that the official have a corrupt state of mind and accept (or agree to accept) the payment intending to be influenced in the official act. ” Snyder v. United States, 144 S. Ct. 1947, 1955 (2024). The Court also held that Section 666 was modeled on the federal bribery statute, 18 U.S.C. § 201, and shared the same “defining characteristics.” Id.; United States v. Sun-Diamond Growers of California, 526 U.S. 398, 404-05 (1999) (holding that bribery requires a “quid pro quo – a specific intent to give or receive something of value in exchange for an official act.”). In other words, the government must plead and prove a quid pro quo, which it did not do. […]

The indictment does not allege facts establishing a causal connection between the legislative actions undertaken by Madigan and the benefits he allegedly received from AT&T, much less an express agreement by Madigan to undertake these acts in exchange for Mr. La Schiazza having AT&T offer Acevedo a consulting job. […]

The government has not alleged AT&T hired Acevedo in exchange for a specific official act, i.e., that Mr. La Schiazza bribed Madigan. Indeed, the Indictment does not allege that Madigan even knew of AT&T’s hiring of Acevedo or AT&T’s desire to “get credit” for the hiring. Without any factual allegations supporting the existence of a quid pro quo or that Mr. La Schiazza understood that he was acting unlawfully in offering an exchange to Madigan, the Indictment violates Mr. La Schiazza’s rights to indictment by a grand jury and protection against double jeopardy, as well as his Sixth Amendment right to be informed of the nature of the accusations against him. Therefore, this Court should dismiss Courts One and Two in full.