Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: It’s just a bill
Next Post: IVF debate takes a weird political turn
Posted in:
* Tribune…
Sentencing hearings in the “ComEd Four” bribery case involving former House Speaker Michael Madigan will be delayed until after the U.S. Supreme Court weighs in on a key federal bribery statute that has put several high-profile public corruption cases in limbo, a judge ruled Thursday.
Prosecutors had argued against the delay, saying defense attorneys were doing a premature victory lap and that there is a public interest in seeing the case through in a timely fashion.
In announcing his decision, however, U.S. District Judge Harry Leinenweber said it “makes sense to me to find out precisely” where the high court lands before proceeding to sentencing. He also quoted from the prosecutions’ opening statements at trial last year, which the judge said mirrored some of the exact issues in the Supreme Court filings.
Leinenweber’s ruling follows a similar decision by U.S. District Judge John Robert Blakey, who agreed to postpone Madigan’s racketeering trial from April to October in order to have the Supreme Court’s decision in hand.
* Sun-Times…
In his ruling Thursday, Leinenweber quoted from the prosecutors’ opening statement in the trial of Madigan confidant Michael McClain, former ComEd CEO Anne Pramaggiore, ex-ComEd lobbyist John Hooker and onetime City Club President Jay Doherty.
The feds told jurors the four “sought to reward Madigan for past beneficial conduct to Commonwealth Edison,” Leinenweber noted. The judge said prosecutors also assured the jury they were pursuing a “gratuity theory” and that the trial wasn’t going to be a “straight-up bribery case.”
The judge said that means a Supreme Court decision in favor of Snyder “will impact” the ComEd case.
posted by Rich Miller
Thursday, Feb 29, 24 @ 11:27 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: It’s just a bill
Next Post: IVF debate takes a weird political turn
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
I admit to not being anywhere close to an expert in criminal law, but it seems to me as a matter of public policy, public officials doing acts with the intent to obtain a gratuity, where it explicitly would have been bribery had the payment come first, is still bad and we shouldn’t permit it.
Whether it fits under the letter of the current law, I don’t know. But holy cow if SCOTUS says it isn’t, everyone should be scrambling to close that hole.
Unfortunately between national red/blue politics, and state level legislators showing basically no willingness to do anything ethics related with teeth, I’m not optimistic.
Comment by Homebody Thursday, Feb 29, 24 @ 12:13 pm
Homebody, it’s like the USSC hasn’t heard of invoicing.
Comment by ArchPundit Thursday, Feb 29, 24 @ 1:23 pm
SCOTUS has had their own ethical challenges lately, like Justice Thomas’s vacation habits and Justice Sotomayer’s book selling tactics. Given that those episodes didn’t involve a quid pro quo (that we know of,) I assume they’re going to find “gratuities” are okay unless a direct quid pro quo can be proven.
Comment by TNR Thursday, Feb 29, 24 @ 1:49 pm
Well, this will give McClain extra free time to visit Mapes in prison.
Comment by NMP Thursday, Feb 29, 24 @ 1:55 pm
If Snyder is overturned depending on how bad SCOTUS guts it this could have ramifications not only going forward but on past cases.
Comment by Long time independent Thursday, Feb 29, 24 @ 4:01 pm