Madigan defense team kicks off New Year with new narratives for jurors as corruption trial gets back underway

More than two months and most of the fall and winter holidays have passed since longtime Michael J. Madigan aide Will Cousineau told jurors in October that the then-Illinois House speaker sent him to round up votes for a bill crucial to ComEd’s bottom line amid an alleged bribery scheme.

But Monday, on the first day of testimony in Madigan’s trial in 2025, a former colleague of Cousineau in the speaker’s office took the stand as a defense witness and insisted that Cousineau never told Madigan’s staff to track down those votes.

Craig Willert, now a lobbyist in Springfield, also said he didn’t remember Cousineau conducting a so-called “roll call” of House members to determine where they stood on ComEd’s Future Energy Jobs Act, also known as FEJA.

“I have no recollection, and I’m quite certain that he did not,” Willert testified.

Willert on Monday became the sixth witness called by Madigan’s defense team, which spent the day working to deliver alternative narratives to the jury to counter the nine weeks of testimony the panel heard from witnesses called by prosecutors.

Madigan, who resigned in 2021, is on trial for an alleged racketeering conspiracy. He is accused of leading a criminal enterprise designed to enhance his political power and reward his allies. His longtime ally Michael McClain, accused of acting as Madigan’s agent, is also on trial.

The allegations include claims of a conspiracy involving ComEd to bribe Madigan by giving do-nothing jobs to his allies so he’d look favorably at the utility’s legislation.

The defense theme is likely to resume Tuesday, when Madigan’s lawyers are expected to call his law partner Bud Getzendanner to the stand. Madigan’s lawyers have said his testimony will support the notion that prosecutors have offered a “false narrative” about a dirty deal involving property in Chinatown that never would have been consummated.

U.S. District Judge John Blakey must also decide whether jurors should hear about the overall profits collected by the Madigan & Getzendanner law firm.

It’s a discussion that will apparently continue Tuesday under seal, after a prosecutor told the judge in open court that Madigan made more than $1 million at the firm in a good year. Jurors were out of the room at the time, but defense attorneys complained moments later that the remark had already been reported on social media.

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.

“I don't remember his specific words for me, but I recall … I was to go out and work the bill,” Cousineau testified.

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.

Earlier Monday, Madigan’s lawyers called 13th Ward precinct captain Steven Hensley to the stand. They did so in an apparent effort to counter testimony by former Madigan precinct captain Ed Moody about a chat Moody had with Madigan in Hensley’s precinct in March 2018.

But Assistant U.S. Attorney Amarjeet Bhachu wound up undermining Hensley’s testimony by pointing out that Hensley had donated $20,000 between 1997 and 2009 to the 13th Ward — which was Madigan’s power base — and to Madigan’s daughter, former Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan.

The prosecutor asked Hensley about claims that Madigan had helped Hensley’s son get into a competitive graduate program at the University of Illinois and arranged for a $32,000 scholarship for him.

Bhachu also asked Hensley whether he campaigned for Joe Berrios, the former Cook County assessor and former chairman of the Cook County Democratic Party. Hensley said he didn’t remember and could only recall that Berrios was “an elected official at some time.”

Another narrative likely to be attacked by Madigan’s defense team is the allegation that he pushed in 2018 for passage of a land-transfer bill involving a piece of property in Chinatown with the expectation that developers hoping to build a hotel there would hire Madigan & Getzendanner if the transfer happened.

Getzendanner is expected to testify about practices at the law firm that would flag conflicts of interest between Madigan’s state office and private law firm. In fact, Collins argued to Blakey that it shows Madigan’s firm would have never hired the developers.

“It’s a false narrative,” Collins said.

Prosecutors also want to ask Getzendanner about the firm’s finances. Madigan attorney Lari Dierks objected, but Bhachu said it would show “why Mr. Madigan would be motivated to engage in an illegal transaction.”

“It’s a very lucrative business,” Bhachu said, adding that Madigan made more than $1 million at the firm in a good year.

Blakey posed a counter-argument: “Why would he risk everything for $3,300?” — citing the amount Madigan & Getzendanner was paid as a result of a separate alleged scheme involving an apartment complex in the West Loop.

Collins asked Blakey to finish discussing the matter under seal after Bhachu disclosed Madigan’s income, referencing news reporting and telling the judge, “It’s already on Twitter.”

Blakey is expected to make a decision on whether the profits can be discussed before Getzendanner takes the stand.