The trial of former Illinois House Speaker Michael J. Madigan, underway since late October, is nearing its conclusion, but a significant hurdle remains before jury deliberations can begin. The judge and lawyers are grappling with the finalization of over 100 pages of jury instructions, a process complicated by a lingering dispute that even reached the U.S. Supreme Court.
The central point of contention revolves around the definition of the word “corruptly,” a term crucial to the bribery charges against Madigan. This debate was sparked by a similar case against former Portage, Indiana, Mayor James Snyder, which caused a six-month delay in Madigan’s trial. During the Supreme Court’s hearing last April, justices questioned the ambiguity of “corruptly,” with Justice Neil Gorsuch even posing the question of whether it constitutes a “venial sin” or a “mortal sin.” While the Supreme Court ruled that the law in question doesn’t criminalize post-action rewards (“gratuities”), it failed to define “corruptly,” leaving the issue unresolved.
This ambiguity reignited the debate in Chicago on Thursday, as Judge John Blakey, federal prosecutors, and Madigan’s defense team continued to wrangle over the jury instructions. Testimony, which had paused on December 19th after a two-week holiday break, is set to resume Monday. Madigan’s lawyers intend to call additional witnesses, including a representative from Madigan’s tax appeals law firm and an accountant for former Alderman Danny Solis, an FBI informant in the case. The extended deliberations on the jury instructions, along with the National Day of Mourning for President Jimmy Carter on January 9th, mean closing arguments are now expected to begin the week of January 13th, later than initially anticipated.
Madigan and his longtime ally, Michael McClain, are facing charges of racketeering conspiracy. Madigan is accused of leading a criminal enterprise aimed at boosting his political power and rewarding allies, with McClain allegedly acting as his agent. Seven of the 23 counts in Madigan’s indictment hinge on the federal bribery law scrutinized by the Supreme Court, which applies to any state or local official who “corruptly solicits…anything of value…intending to be influenced or rewarded.”
Assistant U.S. Attorney Amarjeet Bhachu argued that “corruptly” should be defined as acting with an understanding that the action is “wrongful or unlawful.” However, Madigan’s attorney, Lari Dierks, countered that it should be defined as “acting with knowledge the person’s conduct is unlawful,” arguing that using “wrongful” could encompass innocent actions. This mirrored the Supreme Court’s debate, a fact both attorneys acknowledged having witnessed. While Judge Blakey offered his interpretation—that “corruptly” implies a “factual awareness that the exchange is a bribe”—he emphasized it was a “thought process,” not an official ruling, leaving the discussion ongoing.
The lawyers spent five hours on Thursday debating the jury instructions draft, revealing potential insights into the upcoming arguments. Dierks unsuccessfully attempted to differentiate between a defendant’s “association” with a criminal enterprise and “knowingly agreeing to join” a conspiracy. She argued that helping people obtain jobs within a political organization shouldn’t automatically equate to participating in an unlawful conspiracy, emphasizing the importance of proving the defendant’s knowledge of illegality. The ongoing debate highlights the complexities and nuances that the jury will have to consider when deciding the case.