Former Illinois House Speaker Michael Madigan was back in a federal courtroom Thursday to hear expert testimony from a former Chicago alderman on the structure and significance of political operations like the one Madigan ran during his record-breaking campaign for the state legislature.
Madigan’s lawyers asked a judge to disqualify Dick Simpson, a professor emeritus of political science at the University of Illinois at Chicago who served as a councilman for the 44th Ward in the 1970s, saying his views are not based on any scientific methodology and that he has a long history of bias against Madigan and the mainstream Democratic Party.
Meanwhile, as his racketeering trial approaches, Madigan’s lawyers have also filed a long list of other evidence they want the jury to avoid hearing. That included any evidence mentioning Madigan’s son, Andrew; wiretapped calls mentioning former Cook County Assessor Joseph Berrios; and a potentially damning recording of Madigan telling his confidant and co-defendant, Michael McClain, that some of his friends had “gotten away with it like gangsters” because of the deals they had secured for them.
Court activity is intense as both sides prepare for the highly anticipated trial, which is expected to begin on October 7 and last up to three months.
A 148-page joint brief filed Wednesday night by prosecutors and defense teams laid out the plethora of issues that remain to be decided over the next six weeks, ranging from dozens of evidentiary conflicts to crucial changes in the language of jury instructions following a recent Supreme Court decision that impacts what prosecutors must prove.
Madigan, 82, is charged in a 23-count indictment alleging he engaged in a series of bribery and extortion schemes from 2011 to 2019 aimed at using the power of his public office for personal and political gain.
Also indicted was Michael McClain, 76, a former state lawmaker and lobbyist and longtime Madigan confidant. He was convicted last year of orchestrating an alleged bribery scheme at Commonwealth Edison. McClain’s sentencing in that case is pending.
In court Thursday, Madigan watched from a defense table as Simpson explained the kind of “Schoolhouse Rock” version of state and city politics his testimony would entail, saying he had studied state and local politics for more than 55 years, written some 13 books on the subject and worked on transition teams for several mayors, including Harold Washington and Lori Lightfoot.
Among the practical details Simpson testified about were the composition of the ward system, how committee members accumulated and maintained power, and how elected officials employed ward captains to distribute votes and handed out patronage jobs as rewards for loyalty.
In his line of questioning, Madigan’s attorney, Dan Collins, touched on Simpson’s qualifications and resume, noting that he had no specific knowledge of Madigan’s 13th Ward, which is far from the North Side waterfront area that Simpson represented.
The defense also attacked Simpson for the many critical statements he made over the years about Madigan.
“You’ve been interviewed in the media saying that it would be a very good thing for the state when Mr. Madigan is no longer in office?” attorney Patrick Cotter, who represents McClain, asked at one point.
“I don’t remember that particular line,” Simpson replied.
Cotter went on to ask if it was true that “a significant part of your career was based on your public opposition to the regular Democratic Party in Chicago?”
“Yes,” he replied.
In arguing for Simpson’s testimony, Assistant U.S. Attorney Amarjeet Bhachu told U.S. District Judge John Robert Blakey that it would provide the jury with key context about why Madigan took actions “to reward those who work on his behalf to maintain power.”
Bhachu also said the testimony would help the jury decode some of the recorded conversations they will hear, including one in which McClain explains how the old-fashioned patronage system of giving meter-reading jobs to loyalists gave way to a more sophisticated system of funneling money to key people in the organization.
Last year, prosecutors wanted Simpson to describe the structure and workings of the Chicago machine to jurors in the “ComEd Four” trial of McClain and three former ComEd executives and lobbyists, but U.S. District Judge Harry Leinenweber ruled to bar Simpson from testifying, saying it would not help the jury decide the facts in the case and could prejudice the defendants.
Blakey said he would rule on the issue in Madigan’s case at a later date.
In their brief filed Wednesday night, the defense asked Blakey to exclude evidence related to Madigan’s son, insurance broker Andrew, saying it was irrelevant to the charges “and only served to drag a defendant’s family into the trial.”
Prosecutors alleged that the president at one point begged Chicago City Councilman Daniel Solis to help him secure contracts for Andrew Madigan with The Resurrection Project, a Pilsen-based nonprofit group that had received millions of dollars in public funds.
“Just ask him, give him (Andrew) something. … Give him a chance to show what he can do,” Madigan allegedly told Solis, who was secretly cooperating with investigators and recorded the conversation.
Other evidence in the investigation included a recording of Andrew Madigan discussing lottery legislation with McClain and donations made by AT&T to Aunt Martha’s, a community health and wellness organization of which Andrew’s “spouse” was executive director, according to the defense filing, which referred to Andrew only as a “relative” of Madigan.
“Even if the evidence relating to Madigan’s relative was marginally relevant, any probative value is far outweighed by the substantial risk of confusing the issue and wasting time,” the filing states.
The defense made a similar argument regarding evidence that Berrios’ daughter, Vanessa, had been recommended for a job at ComEd, arguing in the filing that the irrelevant testimony “would prejudice Madigan because Berrios is
a well-known, if sometimes controversial, public figure throughout Cook County.
The defense also seeks to ban a recorded call between Madigan and McClain on Aug. 4, 2018, when the two men were pushing for the execution of a labor agreement with ComEd that they had reached with ComEd Senior Vice President Fidel Marquez, without the company’s new CEO’s knowledge.
McClain noted during the conversation that they had a courier who would be passing the deal around to various parties to get it done. Madigan then asked, “But Mike, is he involved with ComEd?”
“Yeah, you remember we got him that contract, uh, maybe five years ago now, whenever that was?” McClain said on the recording, referring to the $150,000 payment to the contractor. “For a dollar fifty a year.”
Madigan replied, “Mhm,” and laughed. “Some of those guys acted like bandits, Mike,” Madigan said.
“Oh my God,” McClain said, coughing. “For a very small job, too.”
“Yeah,” Madigan said.
Specific arguments why the appeal should be barred were filed under seal Wednesday.
jmeisner@chicagotribune.com
