* Just in…
* Sun-Times…
Federal prosecutors rested their case Wednesday against former Illinois House Speaker Michael J. Madigan, the once-powerful Southwest Side Democrat whose reign in Springfield shattered records but ended amid a wide-ranging corruption investigation.
Now, six years after that investigation first surfaced publicly — and almost three
years after Madigan’s indictment — federal authorities have made their case against one of the most significant politicians in Illinois history.
It’s a crucial moment that shifts Madigan’s trial into a new phase. Defense attorneys for the former speaker and his longtime confidant, Michael McClain, will get a chance to summon their own witnesses to testify before the jury. Attorneys signaled Tuesday that McClain’s defense team will go first.
It also means closing arguments and deliberations may not be far off — but neither is expected until after the holidays.
* Yesterday, ex-state Rep. Acevedo was back on the stand. Tribune…
Prosecutors had in fact been expected to rest their case in chief Tuesday afternoon, after Acevedo left the stand and they presented a handful of remaining witnesses and wiretaps.
Instead, U.S. District Judge John Robert Blakey sent jurors home for the day at about 2:30 p.m., telling them only that he had “some legal matters to attend to.” Bhachu later told the judge they had some “homework to do,” but the attorneys said nothing in court about the reason for the sudden change of plans.
The focus lingered on Acevedo for much of Tuesday, though he was on the stand relatively briefly, testifying for only an hour altogether between Monday afternoon and Tuesday morning.
It’s unclear how much his testimony helped the prosecution’s case, if at all. Acevedo has been diagnosed with dementia and a brain tumor, and his testimony, which was scattershot at best, is sure to be framed by the defense as unreliable.
* Courthouse News Service…
Besides the apparent inconsistencies in his testimony this week, [Acevedo] also gave responses that did not directly address prosecutors’ questions. During cross-examination, he began sniffling on the stand as he claimed to not be able to remember his grandchildren’s names.
He did give one definite answer to McClain’s attorney Patrick Cotter Tuesday, when Cotter asked him if he ever asked McClain for a “no-show” job.
“I never asked anyone for a no-show job,” Acevedo said.
Unlike the trial’s other big-name witnesses who spent multiple days on the stand — like ex-ComEd Vice President Fidel Marquez and ex-Chicago alderman-turned-FBI informant Danny Solis — Acevedo only spent about an hour testifying between Monday evening and Tuesday morning. […]
Besides Acevedo and [FBI Special Agent Kyle Scherrer], jurors also heard testimony Tuesday from FBI Special Agent Eileen McDermott and former AT&T internal lobbyist Michael Lieteau.
* Sun-Times…
The feds also took issue with another part of Acevedo’s testimony. He claimed on the witness stand Tuesday that he told the presiding judge about his dementia diagnosis when he pleaded guilty in December 2021.
FBI Special Agent Kyle Scherrer took the stand and testified that a transcript from that hearing shows Acevedo did not mention that diagnosis.
But under cross-examination by Collins, Acevedo did testify that he saw a neurologist about his dementia, although it was in January 2022, a month after his guilty plea. Acevedo was then sentenced in March 2022.
* WGN…
Bhachu asked whether Lieteau ever worked with Micheal Lieteau, an independent lobbyist, and former AT&T Director of Government Relations, in 2017. “I would tell him information,” Acevedo said, but he would not say whether the two worked together directly.
Lieteau also took the stand Tuesday morning; his testimony directly contradicted statements made by Acevedo.
According to Lieteau, Acevedo was one of the legislators he was assigned to lobby for different clients during his time with AT&T, which came to an end in 2014.
Assistant U.S. Attorney Julia Schwartz asked Lieteau, “During 2017 after Mr. Acevedo left the General Assembly, do you recall having any conversations with Mr. Acevedo about work Mr. Acevedo was doing for AT&T?”
“No,” Lieteau responded.
- Friendly Bob Adams - Wednesday, Dec 18, 24 @ 9:40 am:
Not sure putting a witness on the stand with a dementia diagnosis is a good move for the prosecution. Also then disputing the month in which he received the diagnosis? Can’t figure out what this adds to an already strong prosecution case.
- NIU Grad - Wednesday, Dec 18, 24 @ 10:01 am:
Hopefully these jurors still have jobs waiting for them when this wraps up…9 weeks of testimony just for the prosecution…
I can’t imagine being on this jury trying to take notes and remember all of the ins and outs being presented here.
- Lincoln Lad - Wednesday, Dec 18, 24 @ 10:07 am:
Agree the prosecution has not developed a concise and clear picture here… points were made, but then muddied up by going off the concise and clear path. Jurors frustrated? We’ll know soon enough.
- Center Drift - Wednesday, Dec 18, 24 @ 10:14 am:
Even if the prosecution has been muddied we have seen yet another example of how too many Illinois politicians do their business. As a very low level local elected official I see this sort of hubris all the time. It’s why I back the concept of term limits.
- Flyin'Elvis'-Utah Chapter - Wednesday, Dec 18, 24 @ 10:41 am:
What Friendly Bob Adams said-
Probably a juror or two that has/had a loved one with dementia.
Wanting to split hairs about the date of diagnosis in order to make his testimony seem more reliable?
I’m no one’s attorney, but I don’t see how that endears you to the jury.
- Moon - Wednesday, Dec 18, 24 @ 10:51 am:
I have yet to hear any testimony or see any evidence that shows a understanding and/or Quid Pro Quo between Madigan and AT&T or COM ED.
- low level - Wednesday, Dec 18, 24 @ 11:15 am:
==Can’t figure out what this adds to an already strong prosecution case.==
I had the exact same reaction as other commentators have noted. They went from strong witnesses like Cullen and Moody to Eddie Acevedo? Very odd.
- Excitable Boy - Wednesday, Dec 18, 24 @ 11:25 am:
- I have yet to hear any testimony or see any evidence that shows an understanding and/or Quid Pro Quo between Madigan and AT&T or COM ED. -
Ok. Now do the Chinatown deal.
- AlfondoGonz - Wednesday, Dec 18, 24 @ 11:26 am:
As much as those who like to chatter portray Madigan as inherently corrupt, it’s remarkable that 5 years of secret recordings and over 2 months of testimony provided, by my count, 0 “gotcha” moments.
The prosecution’s case-in-chief has consisted of conjecture, speculation, and (admissible) hearsay.
- Excitable Boy - Wednesday, Dec 18, 24 @ 11:41 am:
- 0 “gotcha” moments. -
If that’s your takeaway from his conversations with Solis about the parking lot deal, I’ll have whatever you’re drinking.
- Juice - Wednesday, Dec 18, 24 @ 11:47 am:
Excitable Boy, well Madigan was not representing the Chinatown developers in 2017/2018, nor did the government present any evidence that Madigan even had a conversation with them at any point about trying to get them signed up as a client.
- Excitable Boy - Wednesday, Dec 18, 24 @ 11:52 am:
Juice, attempted corruption is still corruption. Is it enough to convict? I have no idea, but he was definitely caught trying to move legislation to pad his own pockets.
- Juice - Wednesday, Dec 18, 24 @ 12:07 pm:
Huh? How is it attempted corruption when there was never even an effort to lock up the business?
If Madigan had ever said he wanted to lock up that businesses for the parking lot, or started talking about rates or fees, fine. But all the government presented was that Madigan thought through how to get a bill through the Rauner administration that a Southwest side alderman wanted. When that alderman brought up that Madigan would get there business, there was never more of a reaction than him saying “ok” and moving on in the conversation.
- Sue - Wednesday, Dec 18, 24 @ 1:19 pm:
Have to wonder why Madigan thought going to trial was the smart strategy- he could have negotiated a favorable plea agreement and be out of his year and a day sentence years ago
- Excitable Boy - Wednesday, Dec 18, 24 @ 1:25 pm:
- that Madigan would get there business -
The alderman called it “quid pro quo” and Madigan said okay. Then he later told him not to call it that. Then he went out of way to make sure he wouldn’t actually have to vote in favor of the bill.
It’s obvious to everyone except sycophants.
- low level - Wednesday, Dec 18, 24 @ 1:32 pm:
Juice and Excitable Boy encapsulating the arguments for and against MJM conviction very well.
- Annoyed - Wednesday, Dec 18, 24 @ 1:37 pm:
I hope our justice system requires more than someone saying ‘ok’ to get convicted of a felony.
- Pundent - Wednesday, Dec 18, 24 @ 1:47 pm:
=It’s obvious to everyone except sycophants.=
Well you might have a few on the jury and those folks are the only ones that matter. I suspect you’ll have jurors that will consider the totality of all this and reason he must have done some of it for personal gain even if they can’t pinpoint a discreet act. Others will be looking for a smoking gun and come up empty. I wouldn’t be surprised with a verdict going either way.
- Anyone Remember - Wednesday, Dec 18, 24 @ 1:47 pm:
“… I’ll have whatever you’re drinking.”
Distiller: SCOTUS. Vintage: 2016, 2024.
Snyder vs. United States is but a mere stop on the way to requiring a “Perry Mason moment” of cash laden envelope being exchanged & caught on photgraph.
- @misterjayem - Wednesday, Dec 18, 24 @ 2:16 pm:
imho, the prosecution has established beyond all reasonable doubt that Madigan’s political organization was corrupt — but whether it was criminal is another matter.
– MrJM
- AlfondoGonz - Wednesday, Dec 18, 24 @ 2:59 pm:
“It’s obvious to everyone except sycophants.”
I came into this expecting a mountain of evidence showing Madigan’s guilt. But go off.