* You can find our previous coverage here and here. Tribune…

Madigan departed the Dirksen U.S. Courthouse just before noon Wednesday, holding hands with two of his daughters and walking out into the falling snow toward his attorneys’ offices followed by a horde of news cameras.

He greeted journalists mildly, and expressed concern about a reporter who was out in the street while he waited for the walk signal, but declined to comment. Asked about a potential appeal, Madigan attorney Todd Pugh said it was “too soon.”

* WTTW…

Morris Pasqual, the acting U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois, said Wednesday’s convictions “rank high in the annals of criminal cases tried in this court.”

“The citizens of Illinois have a right to honest, clean government,” he said. “They have a right to have the decisions of their elected officials made based on what is good for the public, what is in the common good. They have a right to trust and expect that from their public officials.Michael Madigan breached and violated that trust over and over again.”

* During a news conference, a reporter asked Pasqual if he will seek a retrial on the counts where the jury was deadlocked.…

Pasqual: No decision been made on that. We will obviously closely discuss the developments, what’s happened, discuss it with the team and at the appropriate time we’ll make a decision about whether to seek a retrial.

Q: Do you still consider this a win even though the biggest charge, the racketeering, there was no verdict and McClain walked out free.

Pasqual: Well, there were guilty verdicts on 10 separate corruption counts, the statutory max and those range anywhere from 5 to 10 to 20 years. Mr. Madigan, again, he was at the top of Illinois state government. So to say that he stands convicted of 10 felony corruption counts is significant.

Q: If this case goes to sentencing and you guys determined that Mr. Madigan lied on the witness stand, could you use that try to enhance any sentencing?

Pasqual: Well he would be subject to a two point enhancement if a judge were to find that he intentionally provided false material testimony at trial. So yes, we would pursue that. And we would make our decision on sentencing after reviewing all the facts, after reviewing the investigation report. If we came to the conclusion that he knowingly provided false testimony at trial, we would pursue that adjustment.

* McClain’s attorney Patrick Cotter…

* Sun-Times reporter Jon Seidel on a media interview with one of the jurors…

* ABC Chicago has the full gaggle with the juror here…

* From the transcript…

Q: Would it surprise you to learn that McClain was actually convicted in a separate trial two years ago, along with Anne Pramaggiore and Jay Doherty and John Hooker?

Juror: I wasn’t aware of that. […] I think, as a collective. Now that you mentioned that, that wasn’t presented to us, so we didn’t include that in our deliberations, in terms of making a decision on any count.

Q: Is there any kind of broader message that today’s verdict sends?

Juror: No […]

Q: In terms of the convictions with Madigan, what was, to you, the most decisive piece of evidence that really cinched it for you?

Juror: I think a lot of Madigan’s evidence were really pertaining whatever McClain had going on. Since McClain was basically speaking on his behalf the majority of the case, but the majority of the time. It kind of was a straight shot at what Madigan had guilt in certain counts. Especially the way [the judge], laid out the instructions and the details that we had to answer regarding whether someone was guilty or not guilty.

Please pardon all transcription errors.

* Sun-Times has more from the juror…

One juror said, “deliberations were very productive. I honestly believe we all got our opinions out about the case. … I really believe that we all considered each other’s thoughts and feelings.”

However, the juror said they didn’t exactly get along.

“Most people really stood their ground on what they believed on what they saw,” he said.

He believed Madigan was speaking the truth “from his lens” when he testified during the trial.

“When you put all of the pieces together, I don’t think they were all adding up,” the juror said.