Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: *** UPDATED x1 *** SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Update to today’s edition
Next Post: After state request, Census Bureau admits it missed 46,400 people in 2020 count
Posted in:
* This happened during the break, but we need to catch up. Sun-Times…
A federal judge agreed Wednesday to delay the racketeering trial of former Illinois House Speaker Michael J. Madigan for six months while the Supreme Court considers a Northwest Indiana corruption case revolving around a key statute at play in Madigan’s case.
U.S. District Judge John Blakey rescheduled Madigan’s highly anticipated trial for Oct. 8. He cited the risk of a retrial if he pushed ahead before the high court rules. And he said that result would be unfair to all parties, including the “unsung” hero jurors who would end up sitting through a lengthy trial all for naught.
“I don’t do this lightly,” Blakey said. “I do it reluctantly, I’ll say that. But it’s better to do it right than to do it twice.” […]
The trials last year largely went the feds’ way. But the Supreme Court has now slowed their momentum — and delayed the biggest Chicago corruption trial since former Gov. Rod Blagojevich’s — by picking up the case of James Snyder, a former mayor of Portage, Indiana.
The high court’s ruling in the Snyder case is unlikely to seriously damage the case against Madigan. Still, Blakey said even a nuanced decision could have some effect.
The case at issue on the Supreme Court’s docket is a review of a 2021 conviction of a northwest Indiana mayor who accepted $13,000 from a company that had recently won contracts to sell garbage trucks to the city. The high court accepted the case last month and is expected to clarify whether “gratuities” are the same as bribes, even if there’s no quid pro quo agreement in place.
Assistant U.S. Attorney Amarjeet Bhachu pointed out that prosecutors in the Northern District of Illinois are overseeing that case, which stems from Portage, Indiana, about 20 miles east of the Illinois border.
“When you corruptly solicit a payment…an actual quid pro quo isn’t required,” Bhachu maintained during Wednesday’s hearing.
But Federal appeals courts have split on the issue, and Madigan has already attempted to have the case dismissed on similar grounds, though Blakey has yet to rule on that motion from last year.
* Tribune…
Bhachu argued Wednesday that whatever the Supreme Court winds up doing, “They’re not going to delete the word ‘reward’ from the statute.” He also said the “legislative history is clear as a bell that the statute is meant to include gratuities.”
Blakey, however, sided with the defense, saying it would be “fool’s errand to figure out what the Supreme Court’s going to do” in the Indiana case, and that holding a trial without knowing what the rules were going to be would be unfair.
“It would be like starting a football game and then halfway though announcing we’re going to play baseball,” Blakey said, apologizing for the somewhat shaky analogy.
The judge also said that the Madigan case has proceeded toward trial at a fairly normal pace, even though the public might have the impression from movies and television that “a guy gets arrested and the next scene is the trial.”
* More…
* WTTW | Michael Madigan Makes First In-Person Court Appearance as Federal Racketeering Trial Pushed Back to October: “It’s impossible to prepare a defense if I don’t know what the elements are,” Cotter said. Blakey agreed. “They have to know what the rules are,” the judge said, comparing the situation to that of football teams being forced to switch to baseball halfway through the game. In responding to Madigan’s motion, Assistant U.S. Attorney Amarjeet Bhachu noted — as he did when the ComEd Four bribery defendants sought a similar delay — that the Northern District of Illinois ranks near the bottom in terms of the time it takes to resolve federal criminal cases. He argued that the public has “a strong interest in a prompt resolution to this case.” But Blakey rejected that arguement. “There is no excess delay currently,” Blakey said, noting that court proceedings are not like a movie where someone is arrested and their trial begins in the next scene. “That’s not how things work in real life and there’s a lot that goes into the process.” He pointed out that this is “not your average case,” and that the Northern District of Illinois is “not your average district,” when it comes to the complexity of the cases heard there. Madigan’s defense team is still pouring over millions of pages of documents and countless recorded conversations — made by disgraced former Chicago Ald. Danny Solis — that have been turned over by the feds during the discovery process.
* ABC Chicago | Mike Madigan’s motion to delay federal bribery trial to October approved by judge: “Some Courts have held you need some sort of quid pro-quo understanding the statute to apply, other courts including the federal appellate that covers Chicago, Illinois, Indiana, Wisconsin says that no this statute covers gratuities that are paid to officials as a reward,” Former Assistant U.S. Attorney Dylan Smith said. It will be up the Supreme Court to define the federal bribery statute that is widely used by prosecutors in public corruption case. Several of the charges against Madigan involve the statute. “It is really pretty standard in the federal prosecutors tool kit, what the Supreme Court rules about the federal statute will apply for the whole country,” Smith said.
* Fox Chicago | Mike Madigan’s corruption trial delayed until fall: Following the news of the delay, House Minority Leader Tony McCombie issued the following statement: “It is disappointing to wait for justice to be served to Mike Madigan and his corrupt associates. Speaker Welch and Democratic leaders: Pass ethics reform now.”
posted by Isabel Miller
Tuesday, Jan 9, 24 @ 10:17 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: *** UPDATED x1 *** SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Update to today’s edition
Next Post: After state request, Census Bureau admits it missed 46,400 people in 2020 count
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Likely a reasonable decision to delay, though we are anxious for this to move toward conclusion.
Comment by Lincoln Lad Tuesday, Jan 9, 24 @ 11:05 am
I should probably leave the speculation to an actual lawyer, which I am not, but it seems to me, whether or not the Supreme Court clarifies that proof of a direct quid pro quo is necessary for a conviction is the key question here. Based on the SCOTUS decision in the McDonnell case, I can see why several current defendants and recent convicts might be optimistic the justices will decide in their favor.
However, I don’t think having their cases thrown out this summer would necessarily be the end of the road for them. Given the apparent hang’m-high mood of recent federal juries, some of the cases might still be winnable for the feds if they retry them, even with a higher burden of proof standard.
Comment by TNR Tuesday, Jan 9, 24 @ 12:43 pm
Juries today have a consistent view. “The whole lot of em are guilty I tells ya.”
Comment by Frumpy White Guy Tuesday, Jan 9, 24 @ 1:10 pm
Just before the election. That should create a GOP landslide in Illinois. /s
Comment by Lurker Tuesday, Jan 9, 24 @ 1:50 pm
“Some Courts have held you need some sort of quid pro-quo understanding the statute to apply, other courts including the federal appellate that covers Chicago, Illinois, Indiana, Wisconsin says that no this statute covers gratuities that are paid to officials as a reward,” Former Assistant U.S. Attorney Dylan Smith said. ”
Gratuities are gifts…payments are payments…gratuities (by definition ) are not payments.
Comment by Dotnonymous x Tuesday, Jan 9, 24 @ 3:58 pm
Gratuity… a gift or reward, usually of money, for services rendered; tip. something given without claim or obligation.
Comment by Dotnonymous x Tuesday, Jan 9, 24 @ 4:01 pm