…Adding… Wow…
…Adding… Statement…
* Tribune…
Three years after the historic “ComEd Four” bribery trial, the convictions of former ComEd CEO Anne Pramaggiore and lobbyist Michael McClain appeared to be on thin ice Tuesday as a federal appeals court indicated recent Supreme Court rulings could force a retrial.
During consolidated arguments for McClain and Pramaggiore before the 7th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, the three-judge panel had tough questions for a government lawyer about how the conspiracy conviction could stand after the high court said “gratuities” given to elected officials with no direct tie to official actions are not illegal.
After that ruling, a district court judge threw out underlying bribery convictions in the “ComEd Four” case but left intact the main conspiracy count as well as guilty verdicts on other counts of falsifying ComEd’s books and records.
Paul Clement, the lead attorney for Pramaggiore, argued that there was no possible way for the court to know that the jury didn’t convict the defendants based on the government’s bribery theories — and therefore a new trial was inevitable.
At least two of the three judges on the panel appeared to agree.
* Sun-Times…
The feds’ landmark conviction against a former ComEd CEO and a longtime lobbyist seemed on shaky ground Tuesday, with the potential release of the pair seemingly on the table following arguments before an appeals court panel. […]
The judges wanted to know how they could be sure the jury didn’t convict based on an invalid bribery theory, given the emphasis on bribery during the trial.
“Here’s the problem,” Judge Thomas Kirsch asked. “When you charge the case and try the case as a bribery case, what’s to say the jury just didn’t consider the illegal bribery object and stop right there?”
Judge Joshua Kolar eventually asked about the potential release of Pramaggiore and McClain, who are serving two-year prison sentences, if a new trial is ordered. Pramaggiore attorney Paul Clement followed up by offering to file a motion for release Tuesday afternoon. The appeals court already rejected one such motion from Pramaggiore.
Kirsch told Clement, “I don’t think a new motion is necessary.”
Lots more in those links. Some play-by-play is here.
Co-defendants John Hooker and Jay Doherty didn’t appeal their convictions and both have been released to halfway houses, the Tribune also noted.
- btowntruth from forgottonia - Tuesday, Apr 14, 26 @ 12:57 pm:
Thank you 2024 Supreme Court gratuities decision.
They might get the convictions tossed because of it.
Elections sometimes have consequences and whatnot.
- thingamajaig - Tuesday, Apr 14, 26 @ 1:05 pm:
I would be OK if they were released. They did not do anything violent.
- Roadrager - Tuesday, Apr 14, 26 @ 1:14 pm:
==I would be OK if they were released. They did not do anything violent.==
Stealing a wallet by pushing someone to the ground should be life in prison. Stealing millions in taxpayer money to enrich one’s self, well, that’s just business.
It’s not a new way of thinking, but it is the one that got us where we are today, and if you subscribe to it, pause and think about who that way of thinking benefits.
- Jocko - Tuesday, Apr 14, 26 @ 1:20 pm:
==They did not do anything violent.==
So you draw the line at armed robbery?/S
The Snyder decision (i.e. 13K is a gratuity…not a bribe.) makes Citizens United appear quaint.
- Gideon - Tuesday, Apr 14, 26 @ 1:23 pm:
So as long as they don’t injure anyone violently there should be no penalty for a massive fraud scheme on the citizens of Illinois?
That will certainly teach bad actors and corrupt politicians a lesson and deter future crime.
- twowaystreet - Tuesday, Apr 14, 26 @ 1:27 pm:
==They did not do anything violent.==
Not sure where your logic stops on this one. So, all white-collar crime should be legal?
To the post, we are entering a world where politicians and lobbyists will need to be caught red-handed with a white envelope labeled “bribe” in red letters to meet the beyond-a-reasonable-doubt threshold.
- Rich Miller - Tuesday, Apr 14, 26 @ 1:30 pm:
===and deter future crime===
Did you just move to Illinois?
- Alton Sinkhole - Tuesday, Apr 14, 26 @ 1:30 pm:
Free em.
- Rich Miller - Tuesday, Apr 14, 26 @ 1:33 pm:
===Stealing millions in taxpayer money to enrich one’s self===
What taxpayer money were they convicted of stealing?
Some of the arguments here have zero to do with this case.
- Curious Stuff - Tuesday, Apr 14, 26 @ 1:41 pm:
Most are ambivalent in terms of non-violent criminals dying in prison.
The reality that society recognizes these low character bottom feeders as common criminals is required.
McClain and Madigan were running gan organized crime syndicate under the Dome of the Capitol. Com Ed is but one of many they shook down. There were dozens. As Rich used to suggest to those not well acclimated in those days - Rewatch the Godfather for context.
- Think Again - Tuesday, Apr 14, 26 @ 1:42 pm:
=ComEd Four” bribery trial, the convictions of former ComEd CEO Anne Pramaggiore and lobbyist Michael McClain appeared to be on thin ice=
Thankfully, this is not pertinent to MJM
“Madigan, meanwhile, was convicted in a separate trial of an array of schemes that included the ComEd bribery payments. He was sentenced to 7 1/2 years in prison, and his appeal is pending.”
- Anyone Remember - Tuesday, Apr 14, 26 @ 1:46 pm:
Ten years in the making - McDonnell vs. US (2016).
- Rich Miller - Tuesday, Apr 14, 26 @ 1:48 pm:
===McClain and Madigan were running gan organized crime syndicate===
McClain was not convicted on any of those charges. And the RICO charge didn’t stick on either of them.
- ;) - Tuesday, Apr 14, 26 @ 1:48 pm:
It was always a trash case. Complete miscarriage of justice.
- Rich Miller - Tuesday, Apr 14, 26 @ 1:49 pm:
===It was always a trash case===
Meh. I’ve seen worse.
- Remember the Alamo II - Tuesday, Apr 14, 26 @ 1:52 pm:
The ruling overruling the convictions would indicate that the acts described in this case are not a crime under the law. If it is not a crime, there should be no corresponding penalty.
It does not seem that many people here know about the facts that were alleged in the case. As Rich noted, you are making arguments that didn’t even exist in this case.
- Pundent - Tuesday, Apr 14, 26 @ 2:06 pm:
I think the comments illustrate the difference between being convicted in the court of public of opinion and an actual court.
- Dotnonymous x - Tuesday, Apr 14, 26 @ 2:31 pm:
- Did you just move to Illinois? -
Double spit take!
- Dotnonymous x - Tuesday, Apr 14, 26 @ 2:37 pm:
Doesn’t take much effort to break through thin ice…that quid pro quo deal is one sticky wicket, eh.
- Three Dimensional Checkers - Tuesday, Apr 14, 26 @ 2:47 pm:
Ordering a new trial is different than an acquittal. I know Trump’s Justice Department may drop the case, but that is on them. The law changed, and there is no way to know if the jury convicted on the good law or the bad, essentially.
- Excitable Boy - Tuesday, Apr 14, 26 @ 2:50 pm:
- If it is not a crime, there should be no corresponding penalty. -
I agree that what they engaged in may not now be considered a crime, but it ought to be.