* Tribune…

Lawyers for convicted former House Speaker Michael Madigan are arguing for a new trial in his corruption case, saying prosecutors failed to prove the then-powerful Democrat knew about a scheme by ComEd to pay off his associates and alleging a series of mistakes by the trial judge.

The 73-page motion filed Friday alleged those errors tainted the jury with highly prejudicial evidence, and asked U.S. District Judge John Robert Blakey to reverse the jury’s verdict on certain guilty counts and grant a new trial on others.

Such post-trial motions are routine and rarely granted, however the filing provides a blueprint for a likely appeal to the 7th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals down the line.

The motion covers a litany of issues that arose during Madigan’s marathon, four-month trial, which ended in February with a split-verdict that saw the former speaker convicted of a wide-ranging bribery conspiracy but acquitted on other counts. The jury also deadlocked on some key charges, including the overarching racketeering conspiracy count.

* The Dennis Gannon part (consultants were making out “like bandits”) was interesting…

2. The Court Erred Admitting Government Exhibit 156.

Allowing the government to cross examine Madigan with, and introduce into evidence, Government Exhibit 156 was error. The court should have stood by its pretrial ruling that the discussion of a separate hire (Gannon) had nothing to do with Madigan and its introduction created unfair prejudice due to confusion. Further, the timing of the reversal prejudiced the defendant and, in particular, his right to testify in his own defense. Madigan chose to exercise his Fifth Amendment right and testify after the court excluded admission of that recording. After his direct examination, the court reversed course and allowed its admission. This denied the defendant the opportunity to front the evidence, an opportunity that the government enjoyed with its witnesses. Instead, the government was allowed to question Madigan and, even though all of the evidence was clear that Madigan had nothing to do with Gannon, the prosecutor nonetheless suggested otherwise during both the examination and during closing arguments. There can be no doubt that admission of this recording was prejudicial – one juror commented post-trial that it was the “most significant” piece of evidence and believed it related to the sub-contractors actually recommended by Madigan, the very confusion that correctly prompted the court to exclude the recording before trial.

Exhibit 156 was a recording between Madigan and McClain. During the call, McClain described that labor consultant Dennis Gannon was asked to drive around a contract to get it signed. When Madigan asked how Gannon got involved (because he did not even know Gannon was employed by ComEd), McClain explained that “we [ComEd]” gave him a contract for $150,000. In response, Madigan stated that some consultants, like Gannon, were making out like “bandits.” As noted, Madigan had no involvement in the hiring of Gannon, and three different witnesses confirmed this fact. Tom O’Neill knew Gannon and recommended that he be hired. Fidel Marquez was supposed to supervise Gannon. And, the government interviewed Gannon himself. All three confirmed that his hiring by ComEd had nothing to do with Madigan. Knowing this, the government kept scrambling, offering conflicting explanations as to why the recording should be allowed. (Tr. p. 8889-91 (Gannon was a Madigan hire); (Tr. p. 8895-96 (Madigan and McClain mistakenly thought they helped Gannon); Tr. p. 8889-90 (“these guys” referred to Madigan recommendations).

And when the government tried to avoid acknowledging that it had no evidence to suggest that Madigan was involved, the court pressed prosecutors as “officer[s] of the court” to answer the question. In the end, the discussion about Gannon had nothing to do with Madigan. There was no reason to admit the recording. It did not relate to the charges, and it presented a danger of confusion. The admission of the exhibit allowed the prosecution to improperly impeach Madigan’s testimony, call him a liar, and describe his testimony as a façade, all while knowing that its own investigation demonstrated that Madigan had nothing to do with Gannon’s hiring. Its admission was error.

Lots more in there.