Defendant-Appellant Michael Madigan, former Speaker of the Illinois House of Representatives, respectfully moves under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 9(b) and 18 U.S.C. § 3143(b) to stay his October 13, 2025 surrender date and for release pending appeal. It is undisputed that Madigan, who is 83 years old, will not flee and poses no danger and that his appeal is not for delay. The only question, then, is whether Madigan’s appeal will raise “substantial” questions likely to result in reversal or a new trial if decided in his favor. It will.
Few areas of law are as complex and rapidly evolving in defendants’ favor as federal bribery law, and the Supreme Court has repeatedly rejected prosecutors’ aggressive applications of bribery statutes. See Snyder v. United States, 603 U.S. 1 (2024); Percoco v. United States, 598 U.S. 319 (2023); McDonnell v. United States, 579 U.S. 550 (2016); Skilling v. United States, 561 U.S. 358 (2010). Madigan’s prosecution involves substantial questions regarding how far these statutes can be stretched—questions this Court has not considered in the wake of these Supreme Court decisions, making this a quintessential case for release pending appeal.
In a sprawling 23-count indictment, the government shoehorned nearly a decade of conduct into alleged corruption schemes. The jury returned a mixed verdict, declining to convict on more than half of the counts. Madigan’s convictions, involving two “schemes,” rest on significant instructional issues and failures of proof that present substantial questions.
First, the government alleged that Madigan conspired to secure work for political associates from a utility company, ComEd, supposedly in connection with official action on legislation of interest to ComEd. The government charged this scheme under 18 U.S.C. § 666, at a time when the statute had been construed to permit prosecution for gratuities, presumably because the government could not prove bribery’s quid pro quo requirement. While this case was pending, the Supreme Court in Snyder limited § 666 to quid pro quo bribery. Instead of dismissing its charges, the government pivoted at trial to a nebulous “stream-of-benefits” theory that disclaimed the need to tie the alleged quids and quos together. The district court facilitated that misguided pivot by declining to instruct the jury that it must find that, at the time of the alleged bribe, Madigan agreed to be influenced on a specific question or matter. Every circuit to consider the stream-of-benefits theory post-McDonnell has found this limitation necessary.
The district court additionally erred in refusing to instruct the jury that the “corruptly” mens rea for § 666 requires consciousness of wrongdoing even though this Court defined “corruptly” that way on remand in Snyder, 2024 WL 4834037, at *2 (7th Cir. Nov. 20, 2024), and the government accepted that definition below. The district court further erred by instructing that an official acts corruptly if he knows the bribe-giver intends a bribe, contradicting the statute’s requirement that the official himself must intend to be influenced— an error the Second Circuit has expressly recognized. In denying release, the district court declared that the Second Circuit was wrong.
Second, the government claimed that Madigan committed traditional wire fraud and/or honest-services wire fraud by agreeing to recommend a former alderperson for a state board position in exchange for business referrals. But the government failed to prove that Madigan agreed to an exchange or made the recommendation. Nor did it prove that any such recommendation would have included a false statement or would have involved “pressure” or “advice” (and not just “expressing support”) had it occurred. The court also injected instructional error into the fraud counts in response to a jury note.
Finally, for both alleged schemes, the government charged Travel Act violations predicated on state bribery statutes lacking a quid pro quo element. But, as the Ninth Circuit recently held, state bribery statutes lacking a quid pro quo element are invalid Travel Act predicates. The district court below declared that the Ninth Circuit too was wrong.
The district court’s order denying release is manifestly erroneous. Even when the court reached conclusions admittedly at odds with those of other circuits, it refused to acknowledge the substantiality of the questions. Under the court’s standard, no defendant could obtain release pending appeal unless the error arguably violated binding precedent. If that were the test, release would almost never be granted. But in complex fraud and corruption cases like this one, courts routinely grant release. 1 Upon de novo review, this Court should grant release pending appeal and stay Madigan’s surrender date until it decides this motion.
- cermak_rd - Thursday, Sep 4, 25 @ 1:29 pm:
jailing a guy for corruption when the TX national guard is about to invade IL seems silly. The country’s broken, what’s the point?
- Johnny B - Thursday, Sep 4, 25 @ 1:45 pm:
Why should 40+ years of running a criminal enterprise that collected millions of dollars face any consequences ?
- ArchPundit - Thursday, Sep 4, 25 @ 1:49 pm:
Don’t let corruption be normalized. It may not be a lot, but it’s something.
- Ryder - Thursday, Sep 4, 25 @ 2:08 pm:
Best of luck……he loved saying that.
- Payback - Thursday, Sep 4, 25 @ 2:25 pm:
I predict that the appeals court will deny Madigan’s bid to stay out for political reasons, because the prosecutors already look bad enough with the failure to convict on all counts, and McClain walking.
One interesting detail of the trial, the indictment time frame started in 2011, when Patrick Fitzgerald was still the U.S. Attorney. The new U.S. Accountant Boutros does not impress.
- Rudy’s teeth - Thursday, Sep 4, 25 @ 2:31 pm:
Both Eddie Vrdolyak and Eddie Burke served time in the joint…Michael Madigan—-it’s your turn. When you commit a crime, be prepared to do the time.
- H-W - Thursday, Sep 4, 25 @ 2:42 pm:
Outsider here, so I am probably not following fully.
But as I read this, it seems to say Madigan wishes not to serve any time for offenses he was convicted of, on the grounds that in a new trial it will be determined that he was not guilty. I bet a people convicted of crimes would like this sort of leniency.
The petition seems to suggest in principle, that because interpretations of the law changed during the trial, innocence is possible. It seems to suggests it was not proven that Madigan “agreed to be influenced” and thus is not guilty of being influenced. Alternatively, being influenced during his long tenure as chief lawmaker is different from agreeing to be influenced during his long tenure.
The petition also seems to suggest that during Madigan’s long tenure, the evidence presented does not prove he formally “agreed to an exchange” or “made recommendations,” and regardless of whether an exchange (quid pro quo) took place, the absence of formal evidence thereby disproves Madigan committed wire fraud.
Apparently, outcomes are not evidence of intent, and therefore outcomes cannot be used to demonstrate illegal acts or harms. I suppose a finding of a deposit of say $10,000 in a bank account after a robbery, does not serve as evidence that the person may have robbed. It requires an written or recorded confession by the person who deposited the money.
Crazy world where white collar crime is rarely punished severely, if in fact actually punished at all.
- *ducks* - Thursday, Sep 4, 25 @ 2:55 pm:
“When you commit a crime, be prepared to do the time.”
That ethos has served everyone oh so well these many years. Genuine question: does anyone think sending an 80 year old geriatric to prison will deter future graft?
You can hold two competing thoughts: what Madigan did was corrupt and he deserves punishment, *and* locking him up and throwing away serves neither a deterrence purpose or an incapacitation purpose, the two stated reasons to imprison people.
- Rudy’s teeth - Thursday, Sep 4, 25 @ 3:28 pm:
Eddie Vrdolyak went to prison not once but twice…when he was 82 and again at age 84 for tax evasion. Eddie Burke went away to college when he was 81.
At an advanced age, they’re still in the game. Michael Madigan should have known better.
- 47th Ward - Thursday, Sep 4, 25 @ 3:52 pm:
I think Madigan’s team makes a strong argument that the Snyder decision could result in a new trial. It’s a long shot, but the best argument they have in my opinion.
- DuPage Saint - Thursday, Sep 4, 25 @ 4:12 pm:
If he disgorged all his zoning income his pensions and second or third homes and all political pac money let him stay out. I doubt he will reoffend. However I think the odds of him coming down with an illness increase daily. He will do minimal time and be released for health reasons
- Old Guy - Thursday, Sep 4, 25 @ 4:29 pm:
How interesting it is for U.S. Atty/DOJ to be so aggressive going after “political corruption” while the President is a convicted felon who served no time and is regularly violating the U.S. Constitution and laws. I would expect said President Felon to make similar arguments when he finally comes to trial…again.
- low level - Thursday, Sep 4, 25 @ 4:30 pm:
And yet even now if you walked down the street and asked people who Danny Solis was, youd be lucky if 3 out of 10 could identify him.
- Rich Miller - Thursday, Sep 4, 25 @ 4:46 pm:
===youd be lucky if 3 out of 10 could identify him===
Maybe in his own neighborhood. Other than that you’d get a blank stare.
- Juvenal - Thursday, Sep 4, 25 @ 9:18 pm:
I think it is worth pointing out that Judge Blakey’s father is Robert Blakey, renowned author of the federal RICO statute.
The elder Blakey was also disciplined for leaking client info in order to bring down what he believed to be corrupt enterprise in Brazil. It was an “end justifies the means” moment.
Madigan’s lawyers implicitly arguing here that Blakey stacked the deck to get the end that he wanted. It would be interesting to hear from a third party the other side: whether there were any rulings by the judge in Madigan’s favor that were not absolutely open and shut.