The trial of former Illinois House Speaker Michael J. Madigan is nearing its conclusion, but significant hurdles remain before jury deliberations can begin. A key obstacle involves the finalization of over 100 pages of jury instructions, a process complicated by a lingering dispute over the definition of “corruptly” – a term central to the bribery charges against Madigan.
This debate stems from a Supreme Court case last spring involving former Portage, Indiana, Mayor James Snyder, which resulted in a six-month delay in Madigan’s trial. While the Supreme Court clarified that the federal bribery law doesn’t criminalize post-action rewards (gratuities), it avoided defining “corruptly,” leaving the lower court to grapple with the issue. This led to protracted discussions in Judge John Blakey’s courtroom, with prosecutors arguing “corruptly” means acting with an understanding that the action is “wrongful or unlawful,” while the defense contends it should be defined as “acting with knowledge the person’s conduct is unlawful.” The defense argues that using “wrongful” risks encompassing innocent actions.
The back-and-forth mirrors the Supreme Court’s deliberations, with both sides acknowledging their presence at the oral arguments. However, as Assistant U.S. Attorney Amarjeet Bhachu noted, oral arguments don’t always dictate final rulings. Judge Blakey, referencing 7th Circuit case law, suggested “corruptly” implies a “factual awareness that the exchange is a bribe,” but offered this as a thought process rather than an official ruling. He instructed lawyers to continue their discussions.
Further complicating the timeline is the need for the defense to call additional witnesses, including a representative from Madigan’s tax appeals law firm and an accountant for former Alderman Danny Solis, who secretly recorded conversations for the FBI. These additions, coupled with the work on jury instructions and the National Day of Mourning for President Carter, mean closing arguments are likely to begin the week of January 13th, rather than earlier as initially anticipated.
Madigan and his associate Michael McClain are charged with racketeering conspiracy, with Madigan accused of leading a criminal enterprise to consolidate power and reward allies. Seven of the 23 counts against Madigan relate to the bribery law at the heart of the Supreme Court case, which applies to any state or local official who “corruptly solicits…anything of value…intending to be influenced or rewarded.” The ongoing dispute over the definition of “corruptly” significantly impacts the jury’s understanding of the charges and underscores the complexity of this high-profile case.