Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar

Former AT&T president says no quid pro quo, no unlawful intent means Madigan-related charges should be dismissed

Posted in:

Illinois

Lawyers for the former AT&T Illinois boss accused of trying to bribe then-House Speaker Michael Madigan argue in a new filing that the prosecution’s case has been “significantly undermined” by a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling walking back a federal bribery statute.

Paul La Schiazza, 66, was charged in an indictment returned by a federal grand jury in October 2022 with conspiring to pay former state Rep. Edward Acevedo $2,500 a month in consulting fees as part of a plan to win Madigan’s backing of several pending pieces of legislation in Springfield. His trial is scheduled to kick off in September.

In a flurry of motions filed late Tuesday, however, La Schiazza’s attorneys asked the judge to toss key bribery and conspiracy counts in the indictment, order the government to turn over grand jury minutes, and limit the statements of alleged co-conspirators that can be introduced at trial.

The motions were the latest fallout from the high court’s ruling last month in the case of former Portage, Indiana Mayor James Snyder that held the federal bribery statute commonly known as “666” applies only to bribes, not gratuities, and that there must be a quid pro quo agreement to accept something of value in exchange for an official act.

All the motions are here.

* From one of the filings…

In defending its decision to bring these charges, the government argued for years that 18 U.S.C. § 666 criminalized both gratuities and bribes and did not require proof of a quid pro quo. After the government indicted this case—the Seventh Circuit made clear that “[a] bribe requires a quid pro quo—an agreement to exchange this for that, to exchange money or something else of value for influence in the future.” United States v. Snyder, 71 F. 4th 555, 579 (7th Cir. 2023). Yet the government continued to press its position that no proof of a quid pro quo was required to convict under Section 666. Ultimately, in Snyder v. United States, the Supreme Court rejected the government’s interpretation of Section 666, holding that the statute applies only to bribes, and that bribery “requires that the official have a corrupt state of mind and accept (or agree to accept) the payment intending to be influenced in the official act. ” Snyder v. United States, 144 S. Ct. 1947, 1955 (2024). The Court also held that Section 666 was modeled on the federal bribery statute, 18 U.S.C. § 201, and shared the same “defining characteristics.” Id.; United States v. Sun-Diamond Growers of California, 526 U.S. 398, 404-05 (1999) (holding that bribery requires a “quid pro quo – a specific intent to give or receive something of value in exchange for an official act.”). In other words, the government must plead and prove a quid pro quo, which it did not do. […]

The indictment does not allege facts establishing a causal connection between the legislative actions undertaken by Madigan and the benefits he allegedly received from AT&T, much less an express agreement by Madigan to undertake these acts in exchange for Mr. La Schiazza having AT&T offer Acevedo a consulting job. […]

The government has not alleged AT&T hired Acevedo in exchange for a specific official act, i.e., that Mr. La Schiazza bribed Madigan. Indeed, the Indictment does not allege that Madigan even knew of AT&T’s hiring of Acevedo or AT&T’s desire to “get credit” for the hiring. Without any factual allegations supporting the existence of a quid pro quo or that Mr. La Schiazza understood that he was acting unlawfully in offering an exchange to Madigan, the Indictment violates Mr. La Schiazza’s rights to indictment by a grand jury and protection against double jeopardy, as well as his Sixth Amendment right to be informed of the nature of the accusations against him. Therefore, this Court should dismiss Courts One and Two in full.

posted by Isabel Miller
Wednesday, Jul 24, 24 @ 12:12 pm

Comments

The harm done by this Supreme Court has changed us for decades to come. As we learn of bad behavior behind the scenes, it’s little wonder.

Comment by Lincoln Lad Wednesday, Jul 24, 24 @ 12:16 pm
Criminals backing criminals
Wonderful😭

Comment by halving_fun Wednesday, Jul 24, 24 @ 12:22 pm
I mean, he’s not wrong. It’s repulsive, but this is the result of the path that Americans chose to take in 2016.

Comment by Proud Papa Bear Wednesday, Jul 24, 24 @ 12:40 pm
Thanks to the Snyder ruling, I think the ATT defense makes a strong case.

The ComEd case had a key insider testify for the prosecution, and that helped connect the actions of ComEd to the actions of the Speaker (albeit with no smoking quid-pro-quo gun). Insider testimony corroborated internal communications that the prosecutors were able to subpoena.

As far as I know, there is no cooperating witness who can provide similar testimony to internal ATT decision-making. That is why it will be more difficult to prove a quid-pro-quo in this case.

Snyder was a terrible decision. Add it to the long list of terrible decisions from the Roberts Court.

Comment by 47th Ward Wednesday, Jul 24, 24 @ 12:45 pm
Pretty simple fix going forward. Congress can amend the federal bribery statute to cover activities like this one.

Comment by phocion Wednesday, Jul 24, 24 @ 12:46 pm
They weren’t bribes, they were tips for services rendered. /s

Comment by Huh? Wednesday, Jul 24, 24 @ 12:58 pm
Not to defend the supreme court, but the 7th circuit reached a similar conclusion about the statute. If there’s a court that is the polar opposite of the supreme court right now, it’s probably the 7th circuit. There must be something to the argument that prosecutors have to prove that the tit was actually for the tat.

Comment by Duck Duck Goose Wednesday, Jul 24, 24 @ 1:10 pm
Every Dem ad in Illinois for the next decade should stress that the decision of GOP judges set Madigan free. He’s their mess, not the Dems’.

Comment by TJ Wednesday, Jul 24, 24 @ 1:22 pm
In Madigan’s defense, there is no “quid pro quo” alleged by the US Attorneys thus that part of their case is out the window. Move On.

Comment by Moon Wednesday, Jul 24, 24 @ 1:48 pm