Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: A quick ShotSpotter history
Next Post: Suspicious package sent to Illinois State Board of Elections is under FBI investigation
Posted in:
* My weekly syndicated newspaper column…
As I’ve been telling statehouse types for a long while, lobbyists and legislators need to be paying very close attention to what’s happening in the corruption trials relating to and involving former House Speaker Michael Madigan.
For example, lots of folks rely on lawyers to help guide them through the Springfield swamp.
Then-AT&T Illinois President Paul La Schiazza told his top lobbyist Steve Selcke in 2017 that if he and other company lobbyists believed it would hurt AT&T’s Springfield efforts to publicly hire former Rep. Eddie Acevedo as a contract lobbyist, then he had “no objection” to hiring Acevedo as a consultant, which would evade public disclosure laws at the time.
La Schiazza quickly qualified his go-ahead by saying a final decision would “of course” be pending “legal approval to engage Eddie in this way.”
But while that email was part of the trial presented to the jury, and the defense heavily emphasized it in its closing arguments, the legal memo itself was not allowed into evidence.
Prosecutors strongly objected to the legal opinion’s introduction. “Such testimony risks suggesting to the jury that an expert — a lawyer — weighed in on the ultimate issue of defendant’s guilt or innocence,” the prosecutors claimed in a brief, claiming that allowing the evidence “would improperly invite the jury to give such opinions unwarranted weight.”
So, even if folks vet all their statehouse moves through attorneys, that won’t necessarily keep them from being prosecuted.
Anyway, you’ve probably heard the feds failed to convict La Schiazza last week. The jury couldn’t reach a unanimous decision, and the judge declared a mistrial. He may be tried again, but even if he isn’t, he went through a whole lot of trouble because he thought he had the legal go-ahead to do the Acevedo deal.
Selcke was billed as the “star” prosecution witness in La Schiazza’s corruption trial. But it turns out Selcke was just as puzzled about the prosecution as La Schiazza.
Assistant U.S. Attorney Tim Chapman asked Selcke “whether he believed Eddie Acevedo’s hiring by AT&T Illinois was ‘in any way related to’ AT&T’s key legislative priority,” reported Sun-Times reporter Jon Seidel. “In my mind, no, it wasn’t,” Selcke responded. Madigan’s right-hand man Mike McClain was pushing hard for the hiring, but no evidence showed Madigan ordered it.
Pretty much the whole case revolved around the prosecution’s theory that Acevedo’s hiring was done to bribe Madigan into backing their proposal, which was for years staunchly opposed by organized labor. The bill ended a state mandate the company offer landline service to everyone in Illinois, so unions were concerned about job losses. The AT&T language was eventually inserted into a larger bill.
The feds pointed to Acevedo’s undisclosed consulting contract as evidence of concealment of a dirty deed by La Schiazza.
But Selcke testified the decision to make Acevedo a consultant was because of Republican legislators. “They said if AT&T hired Acevedo, some GOP members ‘would not look favorably on our major legislative initiatives,’” Selcke said, according to Seidel.
Selcke told Chapman that La Schiazza was, “One of the best bosses I’ve ever had,” Seidel reported. Selcke also testified he didn’t see anything “inappropriate” about Acevedo’s consulting contract.
When La Schiazza’s defense attorney Jack Dodds got his turn, things looked even worse for the prosecution.
According to Seidel, Dodds asked Selcke if he thought Madigan would advance AT&T Illinois’ bill because it gave Eddie Acevedo a contract. “No, I did not feel that way or think that way.”
Selcke, Seidel wrote, testified that AT&T Illinois needed the support of labor and business to pass its bill. But, Dodds said, hiring Acevedo “wasn’t going to change that one lick, would it?” In response, Selcke said, “It wouldn’t change that need to have those types of supporters.” Left unsaid was that Madigan could often move labor’s positions on bills he truly wanted to pass by finding something else to give them.
AT&T internal emails showed Selcke and others were eager to make sure they got “credit” from Madigan for hiring Acevedo. Dodds asked Selcke if “credit” meant “bribe.” Selcke said, “no” and added he didn’t think that’s what the company was doing.
The Chicago Tribune reported the key issue in the jury room was whether La Schiazza had the “intent” to bribe Madigan. Other prosecution witnesses helped the feds make their case. But Selcke’s testimony may have been one reason why the defense decided not to present its own case.
posted by Rich Miller
Monday, Sep 23, 24 @ 9:02 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: A quick ShotSpotter history
Next Post: Suspicious package sent to Illinois State Board of Elections is under FBI investigation
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Excellent analysis.
Comment by Frumpy White Guy Monday, Sep 23, 24 @ 9:28 am
It’d be somewhat fitting that MJM’s last gift to Illinois is his team getting cleared on brazen corruption.
Really putting the exclamation mark on a half century of decline.
Comment by SWSider Monday, Sep 23, 24 @ 9:30 am
Too bad reporting from the court room did not focus attention on the AT&T law dept. memo on the hiring decision. Or the fact Labor and AARP switched to yes. Or the bill ultimately included the bailout for the 911 call centers.
Comment by Annonin' Monday, Sep 23, 24 @ 9:30 am
Or that the Mayor of Chicago needed said bailout to close a budget gap for his upcoming budget.
Comment by Juice Monday, Sep 23, 24 @ 9:46 am
“even if folks vet all their statehouse moves through attorneys, that won’t necessarily keep them from being prosecuted.”
Nor should it.
Far too many officials have a fundamental misunderstanding of how laws and consequences work. I’ve seen it play out far too many times where an official will say, many times during an open public meeting, “the lawyers I’ve talked to have said XYZ” to justify their actions on a topic.
It’s like they think they are buying indulgencies from the church, and this gives them some sort of protection or authority by uttering these magical words.
The fun part is when opposing opinions both try to make this claim about talking to lawyers, but have opposing justifications.
Hey now, this is starting to sound like a courtroom. Which is exactly where many people with this mindset will eventually end up.
Comment by TheInvisibleMan Monday, Sep 23, 24 @ 9:55 am
It seems like Selcke could have just lied about his opinions.
Comment by Three Dimensional Checkers Monday, Sep 23, 24 @ 9:57 am
The courthouse reporters covering it seemed to think it would be a long three week trial but it was a fast one. Did the Feds present fewer witnesses than expected?
Comment by ChicagoBars Monday, Sep 23, 24 @ 10:17 am
The consensus among a lot of the defense bar is that it was a weak case that probably should not have been brought. Selke and Cullen didn’t seem to think it was illegal at the time
Comment by Paddyrollingstone Monday, Sep 23, 24 @ 10:35 am
‘Dodds asked Selcke if “credit” meant “bribe.” Selcke said, “no” and added he didn’t think that’s what the company was doing.’
LOL. Wish I could have been in the courtroom for this inspiring moment in American Justice.
Comment by Larry Bowa Jr. Monday, Sep 23, 24 @ 10:38 am
Oh, puh-lease. They’ve admitted they wanted to hire the Madigan ally for no real work and admitted they wanted Madigan to view it as a favor to them. That is corruption.
Comment by Just Me 2 Monday, Sep 23, 24 @ 10:47 am
Really thoughtful column in the Times this weekend.
Felt like a lot of knowledge on Springfield business practices went into it. Nothing like having someone with a longstanding institutional insight base of State Government to help readers get a handle the current situation.
Hard to see a valid reason not to retry the defendants. 11 to 1 is certainly a valid reason and also this is a very fundamental problem that needs resolved.
The Federal folks seemed to do a very good job. They may have gotten a few surprises along the way, but obviously the People’s case was very strong and needs to move forward.
Comment by Back to the Future Monday, Sep 23, 24 @ 10:53 am
@Annonin’ is right. If one was to put together a list of top factors that contributed to that bill getting passed, I’m not sure Acevedo’s lobbying contract would make it. I get that has nothing to do with the legal standards necessary to bring charges, but it’s probably contextual information the jury should hear but didn’t.
Comment by Telly Monday, Sep 23, 24 @ 11:36 am
The point that the bill had been proposed for a length of time, and now the Speaker would have supported it, labor’s opposition not-withstanding, for a few thousand dollars to a questionable character, is frankly ridiculous. The question remains; What was McClain’s motive in suggesting the company hire Acevedo?
Comment by The Professor Monday, Sep 23, 24 @ 11:40 am
I’m still puzzled by the claim about GOP members having any influence whatsoever on legislation. I thought the IL-GOP is nearly non-existent.
Comment by Guilty bystander Monday, Sep 23, 24 @ 1:32 pm
===I’m still puzzled by the claim about GOP members having any influence whatsoever on legislation===
Both chambers wanted bipartisan votes on this.
Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Sep 23, 24 @ 1:36 pm
@Invisible, so let’s save everyone some money by not having any lawyers anymore - if running something by a lawyer doesn’t matter in court as to whether or not you have intent to do the wrong thing, because asking someone “hey you’re hired to be an expert, is this thing allowed?” sure shows intent that you’re trying at least to avoid the very thing you’re being accused of doing which is intending to bribe, let’s just dump the whole profession in the lake and be done with it?
Comment by sewer thoughts Monday, Sep 23, 24 @ 1:43 pm
==That is corruption.==
Apparently the jury wasn’t swayed.
Comment by Demoralized Monday, Sep 23, 24 @ 1:57 pm
===Apparently the jury wasn’t swayed.===
One juror wasn’t swayed. The 11 others apparently were.
Comment by 47th Ward Monday, Sep 23, 24 @ 2:09 pm
It takes twelve.
Comment by Dotnonymous x Monday, Sep 23, 24 @ 3:16 pm
It seems that hiring Idiot Eddie Acevedo wasn’t the determining factor in getting the bill passed but didnt hurt either.
Regardless, this certainly was not Room 300’s finest hour…
Comment by low level Monday, Sep 23, 24 @ 3:24 pm
only 1 juror was NG? yeah, trying that again.
Comment by Amalia Monday, Sep 23, 24 @ 4:44 pm
==One juror wasn’t swayed.==
There’s no such thing as almost winning.
Comment by Demoralized Monday, Sep 23, 24 @ 5:02 pm
I don’t want to belabor this point, Demoralized, but your comment said “the jury wasn’t swayed.” That’s what I was responding to, the fact that only one juror wasn’t swayed. And yes, that’s enough to end in a mistrial.
Now the feds have to decide whether or not to retry. Given that only one juror thought they didn’t prove their case, and 11 did, I think the feds will try again.
Convincing 11 of 12 jurors isn’t winning. Agreed. But it is a signal that the evidence was persuasive enough to believe another jury may reach a unanimous verdict if they retry.
Comment by 47th Ward Monday, Sep 23, 24 @ 5:17 pm