Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Open thread
Next Post: Hemp bill react (Updated: Mayor issues statement)
Posted in:
The jurors picked up Monday morning where they left off on the afternoon of Dec. 19, continuing to hear testimony from Illinois Appellate Court Justice David Ellis. He served as assistant counsel, chief counsel and special counsel to Illinois House Speaker’s Office at various points between 1999 and 2014, and he appeared at trial as a witness for Madigan’s defense case. Prosecutors rested their own case in chief on Dec. 18.
The appellate judge offered testimony supporting Madigan’s character during direct examination on Dec. 19, saying Madigan “didn’t mind being criticized … didn’t mind being second-guessed.”
Federal prosecutor Sarah Streicker challenged that testimony Monday morning on cross-examination. She asked Ellis if, as other Madigan associates have testified, he felt he was “loyal” to the former speaker.
“I tried to do my job. I tried to be honest with him all the time,” Ellis said.
Jurors heard testimony from four other defense witnesses Monday: Justin Cox, another former chief counsel for the Speaker’s Office; Steven Hensley, a longtime political worker in Chicago’s 13th Ward — Madigan’s neighborhood and political home turf; Craig Willert, a Madigan political staffer-turned-consultant; and former Illinois House Majority Leader Greg Harris.
* Tribune courthouse reporter Jason Meisner…
Cox spent 13 years in Madigan's office, ending as chief legal counsel. Much of his early work was on the ComEd Smart Grid legislation, he testifies.
Cox says there were many interests involved, including the AG's office, the ICC, CUB, labor unions, Senate Democrats, etc. etc.— Jason Meisner (@jmetr22b) January 6, 2025
* Sun-Times…
[Madigan aide Will Cousineau] had testified in October about the passage of ComEd’s FEJA bill on Dec. 1, 2016. Cousineau told jurors that, at one point, he’d concluded there weren’t enough votes to pass FEJA, and he’d given the news to Madigan. […]
On Monday, Madigan attorney Dan Collins walked Willert through a series of text messages suggesting that Willert and Cousineau had actually encouraged certain House members to vote against FEJA — enough to keep ComEd from seeing its bill go into immediate effect despite its passage. […]
The lawmakers they’d spoken to were in politically competitive districts, Willert acknowledged.
Willert also testified that, if Madigan’s staff had conducted a “roll call” to determine where lawmakers stood on FEJA, he’d have a record of it. However, he admitted to Assistant U.S. Attorney Julia Schwartz that Cousineau had other ways of gauging the bill’s support.
* Sun-Times federal courts reporter Jon Seidel…
Collins gets back up: "Will Cousineau never gave a directive, at the end of November 2016, to you or the staff to encourage members to vote 'yes' for FEJA, correct?"
Willert: "That's correct."
— Jon Seidel (@SeidelContent) January 6, 2025
* Tribune…
On Monday morning, Madigan’s attorneys told U.S. District Judge John Robert Blakey that they intended to disprove prosecutors’ allegations that Madigan supported legislation to transfer a parcel of land in Chinatown because he anticipated getting business from the land’s would-be developers.
Madigan attorney Daniel Collins called it a “false narrative,” saying the defense hopes to introduce proof of the law firm’s long-established protocols to prevent conflicts of interest. […]
Prosecutors objected strenuously to the inclusion of the evidence, but ultimately Blakey allowed it in.
“There is independent evidentiary significance to the fact that the firm, not the defendant but the firm, had a procedure in place which would present an obstacle to the taking on of a particular type of work or a particular project that would present a conflict of interest,” Blakey said.
Former Illinois House Speaker Michael Madigan doesn’t want prosecutors to ask his long-time law partner about the profits their private law firm generated.
Prosecutors plan to ask Madigan’s law partner, Vincent “Bud” Getzendanner, about the firm’s profits because they say it goes to Madigan’s motives for the alleged crimes, which include trading official action for favors. Defense attorneys objected, but not before prosecutors said Madigan makes more than $1 million a year as a 50% partner in the firm. The firm helps clients get property tax reductions.
Assistant U.S. Attorney Amarjeet Bhachu told Judge John Robert Blakey that the firm’s profits are relevant to the corruption charges. […]
Blakey didn’t immediately rule on the issue Monday. The jury was not in the room to hear the discussion. Defense attorneys were frustrated anyway, saying the entire matter should have been discussed under seal.
posted by Isabel Miller
Tuesday, Jan 7, 25 @ 9:15 am
Previous Post: Open thread
Next Post: Hemp bill react (Updated: Mayor issues statement)
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.