Madigan trial: Jury finishes 8th day of deliberations, asks for clarity on legal definitions

CHICAGO — Jurors in the federal corruption trial of former Illinois House Speaker Michael Madigan and longtime political confidant Michael McClain went home Friday evening with no verdict after eight days of deliberations but hinted at the fact they are digging deep into whether this was a giant bribery scheme as prosecutors allege.

Madigan, 82, is accused of using his influence to run his political operation like a criminal enterprise, with the goal of preserving and gaining power and wealth for himself and his allies, in exchange for official actions. McClain, 77, is accused of helping Madigan carry those out.

The jury of eight women and four men passed the 50-hour mark in their deliberations, which started on the afternoon of Jan. 29.

After two days of silence, jurors sent a note to the judge. Before that, jurors had only asked one substantive question related to an exhibit number they were searching for. All other questions had been about to supplies needed, including white out, pens, and highlighters, and scheduling.

That changed Friday around 11 a.m. after jurors sent, by far, the most substantive note since the start of deliberations.

On the bench Friday was Judge Edmond Chang, not Judge John Robert Blakey, who has presided over the entire trial. Chang said he would be covering the trial Friday for Blakey who was ‘unavoidably absent,’ but offered no further explanation.

Blakey is set to preside over another case, with jury selection starting Monday, however he made it clear it will not affect his fairness in either trial.

“We did receive a note, and the note has been delivered out to the parties, read to them, and made available to them in the courtroom about 45 minutes ago,” said Chang.

Jurors’ first question, the less complicated of the two, was for two hard copies of the stipulations as well as more binder copies of the wiretap call transcripts. With no objection from either defense team, which each asked to review the binder first, the judge granted that request.

The next question, related to four of the five schemes the two men are accused in, was far more complex and landed the parties in a discussion, which eventually was resolved by Blakey, who made the ultimate call via text message.

Instructions jurors must follow when working to reach their verdict are over 100 pages long. Jurors asked for clarity whether a “bona fide salary” paid to someone through the “usual course of business” is considered “something of value.”

“This is an excellent question,” Chang said.

After Assistant U.S. Attorney Amarjeet Bhachu offered to draft a change in the language, something both defense attorneys and the judge objected to, Chang called a recess and reached out to Blakey via text message. He explained the decision when the parties returned shortly after 12:45 p.m. to the courtroom.

“He [Blakey] is of the like mind that we do need to answer the jury’s question with more than just referring them back to the instructions,” said Chang.

Jurors will be given a modified version of this paragraph from the instructions. Chang said they will be told “bona fide” salary, wages, or fees paid through a “usual course of business” should not qualify as “something of value” but that salaries, wages, or fees obtained by means of bribery can be considered a “‘valuable thing” or “something of value.”

This also relates to the wire fraud and travel act charges in the 23-count indictment, which Chang said he will remind jurors it is up to them to decide the facts based on evidence of the trial, and each count is to be decided separately.

For around 50 hours, jurors have combed through months of testimony, more than 150 secret calls, videos, and arguments from all sides. They’re tasked with also weighing testimony from the ex-Speaker, who took the stand in his own defense.

Madigan has denied any allegation ComEd or AT&T Illinois tried to bribe him by offering do-nothing subcontracts to his allies in exchange for the ex-speaker’s support on key legislation in Springfield. He also testified anything McClain did, he was unaware of, in an attempt to distance himself.

After his testimony specific to the ComEd subcontracts, prosecutors got the green light to play a once-inadmissible wiretapped call between the Speaker and his former right-hand man. Blakey allowed the call to be played after prosecutors argued his testimony provided an opening for it.

“Some of these guys have made out like bandits,” Madigan told McClain, who responded, “for very little work, too.”

Legal experts call Madigan’s choice to testify ‘risky.’

“It hasn’t worked in the last couple years in this building and I think in this case, they caught Madigan up in a couple lies, and they only need to catch you up in one lie for your credibility to be blown,” said Pat Brady, former federal prosecutor and chairman of the Illinois Republican Party.

Both defendants deny any wrongdoing.

The trial has given a front row seat for people to get a glimpse of the way the longest serving speaker of a statehouse in U.S. history allegedly carried out his affairs behind the scenes. The man nicknamed ‘The Velvet Hammer’ operated quietly, avoided the press, and didn’t have a personal cell phone or email.

Brady said he believes the Madigan case is the “biggest breach of public trust trial” the state has seen.

Jurors will be back Monday morning to resume their deliberations.