Michael Madigan rests his case against the feds' racketeering claims

Former Illinois House Speaker Michael J. Madigan’s legal team rested their case Thursday, hoping to convince jurors that prosecutors overreached by bringing a historic racketeering conspiracy claim against the man once considered Illinois’ most powerful politician.

Madigan’s lawyers called 12 witnesses over seven days of testimony — the most called by a single defendant in the major corruption trials that have recently played out in Chicago. Most notable among the witnesses, of course, was Madigan himself.

Madigan testified for nearly 12 hours over four days.

The former speaker offered counter-narratives to the jury that likely would not have emerged as clearly had the Southwest Side Democrat not testified in his own defense. But some jurors had skeptical looks on their faces as he tried to explain his dealings with former Ald. Danny Solis, and it’s not clear if the defense will be able to overcome the feds’ mountain of evidence.

Other defense witnesses seemed to undermine the case offered by prosecutors, though, both on the facts and by presenting themselves as poised and polished professionals — the antithesis of who jurors might expect to be involved in a long-running crime spree.

Among them was Illinois Appellate Justice David Ellis, a successful novelist.

Madigan’s legal team will get one more chance to make its pitch when closing arguments get underway, likely next week. U.S. District Judge John Blakey signaled that he expects them to begin Wednesday and continue through the end of the week.

That means the jury could begin deliberating the case Jan. 27. Lawyers began their opening statements Oct. 21 and have called more than 60 witnesses in the months since.

Madigan is accused of leading the criminal “Madigan Enterprise” made up of his public and private offices, and designed to enhance his political power and reward his associates. Michael McClain, his longtime ally, is also on trial and accused of acting as Madigan’s agent.

Prosecutors say ComEd and AT&T Illinois bribed Madigan by paying his associates for do-nothing jobs so that Madigan would look favorably at the utilities’ legislation. They also say Madigan used Solis, then the chair of the City Council’s zoning committee, to steer business to his private law firm, Madigan & Getzendanner.

Solis agreed to work undercover for the FBI starting in June 2016, in a bid to avoid prison for his own alleged wrongdoing.

Madigan told the jury he was “very angry” to learn that associates of his, like ex-Ald. Frank Olivo and former campaign worker Raymond Nice, allegedly did no work while being paid thousands of dollars by ComEd.

“I knew Frank for years,” Madigan testified. “And Frank knew that I worked all the time. And I expected people associated with me to work all the time. And he knew that. And given that knowledge, he should have worked. He should have done his job.”

Madigan stood by the claim, even when an incredulous prosecutor noted that Olivo’s son referred to Madigan as his uncle and asked “you had no idea that your longtime friend and political ally — whose son calls you ‘uncle’ — was getting paid eight years straight for doing little to no work for ComEd?”

“That’s my testimony,” Madigan insisted.

Former state Rep. Edward “Eddie” Acevedo was also hired by AT&T Illinois in an alleged bid by the utility to bribe Madigan. But Madigan told the jury he didn’t even learn Acevedo had been hired until hearing about it as part of his criminal case.

The former speaker revealed details about his closely guarded personal life to the jury. He explained why he never carries a cell phone, telling jurors "I wanted to end my day." And he told them that his father was an alcoholic who taught him about “hard work,” “attention to detail” — and avoiding confrontation.

That final lesson could be key to how Madigan’s lawyers will explain his dealings with Solis. Madigan struggled to offer that explanation himself, though, especially when it came to discussions that continued after Solis floated the words “quid pro quo” in 2017.

Madigan lectured Solis in July 2017 about having used the Latin phrase, meaning “this for that,” during one of their earlier chats.

“You shouldn’t be talking like that,” Madigan told Solis. “You’re just recommending our law firm. … Because if, if they don’t get a good result on the real estate taxes, the whole project would be in trouble.”

Madigan testified that he thought he had made it clear to Solis that he would not be part of a “quid pro quo.” But Assistant U.S. Attorney Amarjeet Bhachu listed at least five other instances in which Solis suggested an inappropriate arrangement.

Eventually, Solis asked for Madigan’s help in 2018 landing a paid seat on a government board as part of the FBI investigation.

“In spite of all those statements, you were prepared to actually recommend him for a board position, right?” Bhachu asked.

“I was prepared to entertain the possibility,” Madigan said.

Madigan turned reflective when asked about Solis on his final day on the witness stand. He explained that he’d given Solis “the benefit of the doubt” because of their long-standing political relationship. But he told the jury, “we all have regrets in life.”

“One of my regrets is that I had any time spent with Danny Solis,” Madigan said.

After Madigan left the witness stand, the jury heard from his longtime law partner, Bud Getzendanner, who said he started a law firm with Madigan on a “handshake.” It has long focused on property tax appeals.

Getzendanner told the jury about procedures there meant to make sure there were no conflicts with Madigan’s public office. Crucially, Getzendanner testified that “you absolutely could not take on a client” whose property had been transferred out of state ownership.

Prosecutors say Madigan agreed to help have a state-owned Chinatown parking lot transferred out of the state’s possession, with the understanding that his law firm would get business from the developers working on a project there.

From the witness stand, Madigan told jurors he “didn’t want” to meet those Chinatown developers “because there was no way that I would take that property for representation on real estate taxes.”

Separately, the alleged ComEd scheme involved bills such as the Future Energy Jobs Act, which passed late in 2016. Will Cousineau, a longtime Madigan aide who testified for prosecutors, told the jury he’d concluded there weren’t enough votes to pass it.

Cousineau testified in October that Madigan told him to go out and round up the votes.

But Craig Willert, a former colleague of Cousineau, contradicted that testimony when he took the stand for the defense this month. He said he didn’t recall Cousineau performing a so-called “roll call” to gauge support for the bill — and he’d have a record of it if it’d happened.

Willert also testified about text messages that purportedly show he and Cousineau actually encouraged certain lawmakers, from politically sensitive districts, to vote against the bill.

Perhaps most notably, Madigan and his lawyers used their case to distance the politician from McClain, who has been described to multiple juries as Madigan’s emissary in Springfield.

Madigan acknowledged that he’d enlisted McClain to tell longtime state Rep. Lou Lang it was time to resign when allegations against Lang emerged in 2018. Prosecutors have used the episode to show how McClain acted as Madigan’s agent — McClain even described himself that way on a phone call with Lang secretly recorded by the FBI.

But Madigan told the jury, “Like a lot of people, I chose to have someone else deliver the bad news.”

When Bhachu tried to pin Madigan down on whether he “trusted McClain with sensitive matters,” Madigan said he only did so “sometimes.” Madigan explained, “I would have differences of opinion with [McClain]. …I didn’t always accept his advice. I would listen, but I would take it with other pieces of advice.”

Bhachu pointed to colorful notes and letters McClain would send to Madigan, such as when McClain wrote “I am at the bridge with my musket standing with and for the Madigan family.”

The prosecutor asked Madigan if he would “reciprocate.”

“Not that I recall,” Madigan said.

“You never told [McClain] that you held him in high regard or you appreciated his friendship, you never told him that?” Bhachu asked.

“Not that I recall,” Madigan repeated.

The prosecutor asked Madigan, “were you very loyal to Mr. McClain?”

Madigan told him, “I don’t think I was as loyal to [McClain] as he was to me.”