Michael Madigan’s Defense Calls Bribery Case ‘Incomplete’ and ‘Misleading,’ Urging Jury to Reject Charges

CHICAGO – After watching prosecutors present over 10 hours of arguments during the past three days, Michael Madigan’s attorney, Dan Collins, had his chance to respond on Friday. In his closing arguments, Collins acknowledged that while the prosecution’s case against the former Illinois House Speaker appeared “very polished,” it was, in fact, incomplete, misleading, and, most importantly, false on key points.

Despite the government’s confident portrayal of Madigan as someone who abused his power for personal gain, Collins argued that they were simply relying on their own distorted theories. He claimed that prosecutors had built a false persona of Madigan over the years, relying more on the image crafted by his detractors rather than the reality of the man himself.

“They do not see the man,” Collins told the jury, referring to the negative image of Madigan that had been built up over the years. He reminded the jury of how Madigan was often seen as a mysterious figure, even given the nickname “Sphinx” due to his enigmatic nature.

For decades, Madigan had been a dominant figure in Illinois politics, having served as Speaker of the House for an astounding 36 years. He also led the state’s Democratic Party and built his own political organization in Chicago’s 13th Ward. On top of that, Madigan co-founded a law firm specializing in property tax appeals, which represented several high-profile commercial real estate clients.

The government’s case revolves around allegations that Madigan used his vast political power to run a “criminal enterprise,” one that supposedly benefited both him and his political allies. They claim that Madigan solicited bribes in exchange for helping push major legislation, especially with the electric utility company Commonwealth Edison (ComEd) from 2011 to 2019. Additionally, the feds accuse Madigan of similar activities involving AT&T Illinois, and even of offering bribes to recruit real estate developers for his law firm.

Madigan’s longtime friend, retired lobbyist Mike McClain, is also accused of aiding Madigan in carrying out these alleged criminal acts. In fact, the government insists that McClain acted as an agent for Madigan and played a pivotal role in facilitating the bribery schemes. Prosecutors closed their arguments by urging the jury to convict both Madigan and McClain on all charges, asserting that their actions were illegal, even though they had been operating this way for years.

But Collins didn’t buy it. He accused the prosecutors of assembling their case like “misshapen puzzle pieces” in an attempt to form a picture of guilt. According to Collins, the prosecution was relying on a flawed and incomplete understanding of events, and he pointed out that they depended too much on the public’s cynicism towards politicians.

Collins also took issue with the government’s reliance on wiretapped conversations and testimony from Chicago Alderman Danny Solis, who turned FBI informant in 2016. Collins referred to Solis as more of an “actor in a stage production” rather than a genuine whistleblower, arguing that the government had used deceptive techniques to make Solis a key player in the investigation.

While the prosecutors painted a picture of Madigan being at the center of a sprawling criminal operation, Collins highlighted the weakness of certain aspects of the case. One such issue was the alleged bribery scheme involving AT&T, which remains a point of contention. According to prosecutors, AT&T had attempted to secure favorable legislation for years, and they claim Madigan’s involvement in the process led to the passing of a law that benefited the telecom giant.

However, the defense claims that Madigan was not personally involved in the alleged bribery. Collins argued that there was no direct link between Madigan and the contract awarded to former state representative Eddie Acevedo. Acevedo’s contract was awarded after Madigan referred him to McClain, but Collins argued that Acevedo did not do any work under that arrangement, suggesting that the contract had nothing to do with Madigan.

The AT&T issue has been complicated by a related trial, in which the former president of AT&T Illinois was also accused of bribery in relation to the same legislation. That trial ended in a hung jury last September, just weeks before Madigan’s trial began. In that case, the judge declined to acquit the defendant, and a retrial is scheduled for June.

Ultimately, Collins urged the jury to remember that the case against Madigan was built on speculation and incomplete evidence. He reminded the jury that, despite the feds’ confidence, they had failed to prove that Madigan was guilty of the charges levied against him. He insisted that Madigan had been the victim of a political witch hunt and that there was no solid evidence to convict him on the racketeering and bribery charges.

Closing the Case: The Government’s Argument vs. the Defense

As Collins concluded his remarks, the jury was left with a sense of uncertainty. The case against Madigan had been long and complex, but Collins argued that it had never been fully proven. With rising air temperatures predicted to bring an end to the harsh winter conditions that had led to this investigation, the defense’s message was clear: Madigan was not guilty of the charges against him, and the government had failed to present a convincing case.

In the coming days, the jury will deliberate on whether the prosecution’s case was strong enough to convict the former speaker or if they were simply looking at a series of “misshapen puzzle pieces” that never fit together.

Disclaimer – Our editorial team has thoroughly fact-checked this article to ensure its accuracy and eliminate any potential misinformation. We are dedicated to upholding the highest standards of integrity in our content.

About The Author