* Capitol News Illinois…
As former Illinois House Speaker Michael Madigan approaches six months in a West Virginia federal prison, the high-profile legal team he hired to handle his appeal made long-awaited arguments Thursday, urging the longtime Democratic power broker’s conviction on bribery and other corruption charges be overturned.
Arguing to a 7th Circuit Court of Appeals panel, lawyer Amy Saharia said federal prosecutors’ core legal theory — that Madigan and electric utility Commonwealth Edison were engaged in a reciprocal “quid pro quo” bribery relationship for eight years beginning in 2011 — was fundamentally flawed.
“The alleged ‘quo’ … is far too vague,” Saharia told the appellate judges.
Government attorneys had told the jury repeatedly during Madigan’s four-month trial that ended last year that Madigan enjoyed a “stream of benefits” from ComEd, namely the hiring of the speaker’s political allies, in exchange for his “official action” on ComEd’s behalf in Springfield.
But Saharia drilled down on what defense lawyers argued just as often in the course of the trial: That despite hundreds of hours of wiretapped phone calls, hundreds of other pieces of evidence and testimony from dozens of witnesses, prosecutors never produced evidence of a quid pro quo agreement.
* Click here for the full audio of yesterday’s proceedings. The Tribune…
The three-judge panel that held the roughly 45-minute hearing was composed of two Republican nominees, Judges Frank Easterbrook and Michael Scudder, and Judge Nancy Maldonado, who was nominated by Democratic President Joe Biden.
Scudder did the bulk of the questioning, which seemed to be evenly split between the sides and focused on language in jury instructions over the definition of “corruptly” as well as what prosecutors had to prove about Madigan’s intent.
Of the three on the panel, only Easterbrook, known for his often tough grilling of lawyers appearing before him, did not ask a question of either side.
A ruling will come at a later date.
* The Tribune’s Jason Meisner…
* Sun-Times…
When it was [ Assistant U.S. Attorney Julia Schwartz] turn, [Judge Michael Scudder] asked her to identify the “focused and concrete matter” in the ComEd conspiracy.
“The specific and focused matter that the conspiracy focused on in 2011,” Schwartz said, “was Madigan’s support on ComEd legislation and, specifically, legislation affecting ComEd’s rates and its bottom line.”
Scudder asked why that’s “not proceeding at too high of a level of generality.” She said “legislation, official action a speaker of a state house takes to move legislation — to get it on the calendar, to help whip up the votes to get it passed — are all kind of in the heartland of official actions.”
[Judge Nancy Maldonado] asked Schwartz about a recording of Madigan and Solis, in which they discussed Solis’ bid for a state board seat. Solis was secretly working for the FBI at the time and recorded Madigan. When Solis offered to help Madigan, Madigan told him “don’t worry about it.” […]
Schwartz told her “that recording should be viewed as a whole.” The men went on to discuss Madigan’s son Andrew, who is not accused of wrongdoing. Schwartz said that Madigan eventually told Solis there was actually something he could do — “help my son.”
* Saharia’s response…
* More…
* Bloomberg | Madigan Corruption Oral Argument Focuses on Whose Intent Matters: In considering the high-profile corruption convictions of ex-Illinois House Speaker Michael Madigan (D), the Seventh Circuit on Thursday drilled down on a key question: How should jurors consider an alleged bribe-taker’s intent? Under the US Supreme Court’s 2024 decision in Snyder v. United States, it doesn’t matter whether an official actually meant to take any action after accepting a bribe, said Assistant US Attorney Julia Schwartz.
* ABC Chicago | Ex-Speaker Mike Madigan appeal goes in front of 3-judge panel in Chicago court Thursday: The three-judge panel did not seem to give any reals hints of which way they might be leaning. And after the hearing Judge Easterbrook said they would take the case under advisement with a ruling coming at a later time. Madigan asked President Donald Trump for a pardon late last year.
- Remember the Alamo II - Friday, Apr 10, 26 @ 9:41 am:
I think the appellate panel did a good job of not tipping their hand as to which way they were leaning. The fact that Easterbrook was silent was remarkable.
- Steve - Friday, Apr 10, 26 @ 9:41 am:
Mike Madigan’s legal team has a big hurdle. Madigan was convicted before a jury that weighed the evidence. Most appeals aren’t successful in front of the 7th Circuit. When Madigan talked to Danny Solis in his legal office on LaSalle about “quality representation” he knew what he was doing.
- Think Again - Friday, Apr 10, 26 @ 10:10 am:
=Republican nominees, Judges Frank Easterbrook=
Madigan will get a fair hearing, and as for Easterbrook, he may have been appointed by a Republican, but he is no political hack; he is considered one of the great appellate judges, he is well known to possess immense intelligence, and writes amazingly clear opinions. He has, in multiple cases, upheld Illinois’s current gun ban regime - much to the consternation of many conservative 2A supporters.
- Loop Lady - Friday, Apr 10, 26 @ 10:14 am:
Oh hell no…
- Civil Commenter - Friday, Apr 10, 26 @ 10:38 am:
Madigan formally entered the conspiracy when he was selected to be the 13th Ward committeeman in 1969.
- Remember the Alamo II - Friday, Apr 10, 26 @ 10:44 am:
=== Oh hell no… ===
I mean are you really surprised that there was an appeal? From the time of the trial, many people were saying his best shot was going to be on appeal.
- Alton Sinkhole - Friday, Apr 10, 26 @ 10:58 am:
FREE EM
- Annon'in - Friday, Apr 10, 26 @ 11:30 am:
Might have been good if any of the reporting contained info on the panel’s role in Snyder and or subsequent cases. Seems like the issue is will 7th Circuit admit it has been reversed on these items and save the SCOTUS the time trouble of doing this again?
- Three Dimensional Checkers - Friday, Apr 10, 26 @ 11:38 am:
Free ‘em all, lol.
The statute says anything of value. It does not say thing of value that you see in movies or T.V. shows. The jury heard the evidence and found there was evidence of Madigan’s intent. That is a hard burden to overcome now.
The disparity between Madigan’s and Burke’s sentences was ridiculous.
- Billionaire Budster - Friday, Apr 10, 26 @ 11:42 am:
MJM will be exonerated by the US Supreme Court. The only question is how long will it take to get to the Supreme Court to hear and rule on his appeal.
- Rudy’s teeth - Friday, Apr 10, 26 @ 11:59 am:
The two Eddies…Burke and Vrdolyak…spent their time albeit short in the joint. Vacating Mike Madigan’s conviction for corruption sends the wrong message. Way too much tap dancing by Madigan’s team.
- Rich Miller - Friday, Apr 10, 26 @ 12:17 pm:
I know she’s a lawyer and this is an appellate hearing, but “nothing in Snyder holds that the government does not need to prove an intent to be influenced or rewarded” is just not a great way to make a strong case.
- Loop Lady - Friday, Apr 10, 26 @ 12:21 pm:
Agree with Rudy’s Teeth…he needs to see the inside of a cell.
He won’t be there long, but still.
By saying hell no, I meant that despite his cleverness and clout, the verdict and penalty should stand.
- Rich Miller - Friday, Apr 10, 26 @ 12:23 pm:
=== He won’t be there long, but still.===
He’s been in prison for a while now and his sentence is 7.5 years.
Try to keep up.
- Dotnonymous x - Friday, Apr 10, 26 @ 12:54 pm:
Judge Easterbrook silent?…renders me speechless.
- Keyrock - Friday, Apr 10, 26 @ 2:15 pm:
Judge Easterbrook is a noted legal thinker and an excellent writer. He is too frequently uninterested in the facts of a case.
https://www.injusticewatch.org/archive/2017/pattern-of-misstated-facts-found-in-probe-of-renowned-federal-judges-opinions/
Agree with Think Again that he’s not a political hack, but he’s too often not a particularly good judge.
He is often unnecessarily brutal to counsel in oral arguments. It is amazing that he didn’t speak in this argument.
- Been There - Friday, Apr 10, 26 @ 3:52 pm:
==== When Madigan talked to Danny Solis in his legal office on LaSalle about “quality representation” he knew what he was doing.====
I always thought this was the strongest case Madigan had to worry about. But, if my memory is correct, I think he got off on the counts tied to this.