CHICAGO — The jurors in the landmark racketeering trial of former House Speaker Michael Madigan and his longtime confidant deliberated for their first full day Thursday without reaching a verdict — though they should be all set on office supplies.

The jury of eight women and four men resumed deliberations at 9 a.m. and left the courthouse at 4:40 p.m., putting their total deliberation time at about nine hours since getting the case Wednesday afternoon.

Under their self-imposed schedule, the panel will return for more discussion at 10 a.m. Friday and call it a day at 3 p.m.

So far the only communication from the jurors has been about scheduling — and office supplies. Shortly before noon Thursday, they sent a note to the judge asking for more highlighters, sticky notes and white-out.

That followed requests on Wednesday for “more pens and highlighters and tape” as well as “at least five more copies of the indictment.”

“Apparently there is some kind of arts and crafts going on back there,” U.S. District Judge John Robert Blakey quipped after reading the Thursday note. When another message from the jurors arrived later in the day, the judge joked that it would be a red flag only “if they start asking for pipe cleaners and macaroni.”

The panel was sent back to deliberate at about 3:15 p.m. Wednesday after attorneys presented roughly 27 hours of closing arguments this week and last. Jurors will have to consider 23 counts against Madigan alleging an array of schemes to enrich his political allies and line his pockets. McClain is charged in six of those counts.

To assist their deliberations, jurors have about 100 pages of legal instructions, dozens of undercover recordings, and hundreds of emails, texts and other documents entered into evidence.

The trial dragged on significantly longer than expected. It began with jury selection in early October and was slated to wrap up before Christmas. But unexpected witness change-ups, lengthy legal arguments and Madigan’s choice to testify on his own behalf — among other factors — kept proceedings going for nearly four months.

The panel, which was selected anonymously, also announced they had elected Juror 16 as their foreman, a white man who appears to be in his 40s or 50s who said during jury selection he was born and raised in Chicago’s 19th Ward on the Far Southwest Side, where he still lives.

Madigan, 82, of Chicago’s Southwest Side, was for decades the most powerful man in Illinois politics, reigning over the state Democratic party and setting a national record for longest-serving speaker of a state house. His co-defendant, Michael McClain, 77, is a retired lobbyist from downstate Quincy who acted as Madigan’s right-hand man.

In addition to alleging plans to pressure developers into hiring Madigan’s law firm, the indictment accuses Madigan and McClain of bribery schemes involving ComEd and AT&T Illinois, where the utilities allegedly funneled payments through do-nothing subcontracts to a handful of the speaker’s closest allies.

At the beginning of the case, prosecutors told the jury that the trial was about corruption at the highest levels of state government, where Madigan and McClain schemed to leverage the speaker’s power for profit, both for himself and his associates.

That theme continued to the end, with Assistant U.S. Attorney Amarjeet Bhachu showing the jury Wednesday a handwritten note McClain wrote to Madigan in 2016, telling the speaker that Illinois was a better place because he had his “hand on the rudder.”

“And that was true — Mr. Madigan did have his hand on the rudder of the state,” Bhachu said. “He also had something else in his hand. He had the trust that was placed in him by each and every member of the public. Mr. Madigan abused that trust. He lost his way. He was blinded by profit, by power, by his desire to stay in power.”

Madigan’s attorneys, meanwhile, argued prosecutors failed to show the former speaker ever acted with corrupt intent.

“Mike Madigan was not part of any racketeering enterprise,” defense attorney Daniel Collins said near the end of his closing argument. “He was a public official who did his best. He’s made some mistakes, but he’s always tried to build consensus, to collaborate. That’s who he was. That’s who he tries to be.”

McClain attorney Patrick Cotter, meanwhile, argued on Tuesday his client was a diligent — if sometimes “blunt” and “earthy” — lobbyist who never agreed to or knew about any bribery scheme.

He only ever acted out of a commitment to his clients and a true respect for Madigan, Cotter said.

“Did this very real, very unique and — I would submit based on the overall evidence in this case — very decent human being actually have the intent to engage in a conspiracy to bribe the person he thought of as his closest friend?” Cotter asked.

_____

©2025 Chicago Tribune. Visit chicagotribune.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.