As freed ComEd defendants face new trial, jurors say they already considered ‘every aspect’ of the case

Before they freed two former ComEd officials who went to prison over an alleged corruption scheme involving Illinois’ most powerful politician, federal appeals court judges asked a lot of questions about the case — but mostly about the jury that found the pair guilty.

For example, how could the judges be sure the jury didn’t focus solely on bribery claims that have since been undermined by the U.S. Supreme Court?

The Chicago Sun-Times asked three of the 12 jurors Wednesday. They said they carefully considered every claim leveled against former ComEd CEO Anne Pramaggiore and longtime ComEd lobbyist Michael McClain — including those that survived a 2024 Supreme Court ruling.

“We concluded they all intertwined and related to each other,” Robert Garnes, one of the jurors in the 2023 ComEd conspiracy trial, told the Sun-Times.

The ComEd trial ended with the convictions of McClain, Pramaggiore and two others of a plot to bribe ex-Illinois House Speaker Michael J. Madigan. The high court’s later decision to limit a key bribery law undermined the verdict and led to the dismissal of the bribery counts in 2025. But convictions for conspiracy and falsifying books and records remained.

Then the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals took things further Tuesday. It promised to order a new trial and told the feds to release Pramaggiore and McClain from their two-year prison sentences “forthwith.” The news came four hours after a three-judge panel heard arguments in the case.

The Federal Bureau of Prisons confirmed the release of McClain and Pramaggiore late Wednesday afternoon.

The appeals court’s order had no direct impact on Madigan’s separate conviction, which came in February 2025. The 2023 trial of McClain and Pramaggiore also ended with the convictions of longtime ComEd lobbyist John Hooker and former City Club President Jay Doherty, but they did not appeal and have served their sentences.

During Tuesday’s arguments in the ComEd case, Judges Thomas Kirsch and Joshua Kolar seemed particularly concerned with the remaining conspiracy conviction against McClain and Pramaggiore.

It featured multiple “objects” for the jury to consider, including bribery and falsifying records.

Given the feds’ emphasis on bribery during the trial, as well as the Supreme Court’s ruling, the judges wanted assurance that jurors reached a verdict that included false records as an object of the conspiracy, rather than an invalid bribery theory.

“Here’s the problem,” Kirsch told a prosecutor. “When you charge the case and try the case as a bribery case, what’s to say the jury just didn’t consider the illegal bribery object in the conspiracy and stop right there?”

Sarah Goldenberg, foreperson of the ComEd jury, said the conspiracy count “was actually one of the last ones we looked at,” even though it appeared as Count One in the indictment.

“That was the big behemoth of it all,” Goldenberg said. “We actually did really parse it out and look at each individual charge and looked at each object of it.”

Another juror, Amanda Schnitker Sayers, agreed with Goldenberg’s recollection. She said, “we almost worked it backwards” during the 27-hour deliberations.

“For each individual count we took them all separate and we went through and we found the evidence for each one,” Schnitker Sayers said.

Garnes said it all “went hand in hand.”

“We took in every aspect of the trial that was presented before us,” he said.

The jurors’ comments are unlikely to influence what happens next in the case. But they provide insight that’s otherwise unavailable in the courtroom. The jurors weren’t required to mark the objects of the conspiracy on the verdict form, and U.S. District Judge Harry Leinenweber declined a defense request to question the jury in May 2023.

All three jurors who spoke to the Sun-Times said they would have been open to an inquiry that could have resolved the questions. Schnitker Sayers raised a concern about future efforts to invade the privacy of the jury room, though.

By the time deliberations came around, she said they all felt free to question each other. Garnes even said they “fought and hollered and screamed and threw things” but “finally came to an agreement.”

“And we loved each other for it,” he added.

As to whether the feds should move forward with a new trial, Schnitker Sayers had mixed feelings. She said the four defendants were “good people who did illegal things,” and not a danger to society.

But, she asked, “are we allowed now to act in the way that they acted?”

Garnes said a new trial suggests the first one ended in a wrongful conviction.

“I think it should be over,” he said.

And Goldenberg said it would be a waste of tax dollars.

“I believe they will be found guilty again,” she said, “because that’s what we did.”