Madigan asks judge to put his criminal case on hold while Supreme Court considers Indiana corruption case
Former Speaker of the House Michael Madigan parks in the garage at his Southwest Side home, Wednesday afternoon, March 2, 2022.
Ashlee Rezin/Sun-Times
Former Illinois House Speaker Michael Madigan asked a judge Tuesday to put his criminal case on hold while the U.S. Supreme Court considers a separate corruption case out of Indiana that Madigan’s attorneys say could have a “monumental impact” on his.
The request comes less than four months before Madigan is set to stand trial for racketeering. Also charged in Madigan’s case is his longtime confidant, Michael McClain, who was separately convicted in May for a lengthy conspiracy to bribe Madigan to benefit ComEd.
McClain’s attorney, Patrick Cotter, signaled Monday that he would be asking for a stay in the Madigan case. But Madigan’s attorneys wound up joining in that request before U.S. District Judge John Blakey in an eight-page filing Tuesday afternoon.
That makes Madigan the latest public corruption defendant in Chicago to ask that his case be put on hold while the Supreme Court considers the corruption conviction of James Snyder, a former mayor of Portage, Indiana.
Illinois and Indiana are both overseen by the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
Madigan is accused of leading a “criminal enterprise” for nearly a decade designed to enhance his political power and generate income for his allies and associates. He and McClain are set to face trial April 1.
However, attorneys for Madigan and McClain say the Snyder case could answer key questions revolving around a crucial bribery statute in the case dealing with programs receiving federal funds. Among them is whether that statute also criminalizes so-called gratuities or rewards without a quid pro quo.
Another question is whether a quid pro quo is required to prove bribery under the statute. Federal prosecutors in Chicago insist it is not required.
“A stay, or at the very least a continuance of the trial date, will remove the risk that the court and the parties will waste time and resources working in a murky landscape” around the law “that is about to be clarified by the Supreme Court,” the defense attorneys wrote.
They even noted that the Supreme Court’s Snyder decision could come down “right at the end” of Madigan’s trial, “rendering any result (and the effort that went into it) moot.”
McClain and three other defendants convicted with him in May also sought a stay in their separate case last week. Convicted of conspiring to bribe Madigan in that case with McClain were ex-ComEd CEO Anne Pramaggiore, former ComEd lobbyist John Hooker, and onetime City Club President Jay Doherty.
U.S. District Judge Manish Shah handled that request as an emergency judge Monday. He declined to enter a stay in that case. However, he said sentencing hearings in the case could not go forward as planned, apparently for scheduling reasons.
During that hearing, Assistant U.S. Attorney Amarjeet Bhachu insisted the Snyder case “doesn’t have any effect upon the verdict” in the case that led to McClain’s May conviction.
The sentencings of the four defendants in that case have yet to be rescheduled.