CHICAGO — Lawyers for convicted former House Speaker Michael Madigan are arguing for a new trial in his corruption case, saying prosecutors failed to prove the then-powerful Democrat knew about a scheme by ComEd to pay off his associates and alleging a series of mistakes by the trial judge.

The 73-page motion filed Friday alleged those errors tainted the jury with highly prejudicial evidence, and asked U.S. District Judge John Robert Blakey to reverse the jury’s verdict on certain guilty counts and grant a new trial on others.

Such post-trial motions are routine and rarely granted, however the filing provides a blueprint for a likely appeal to the 7th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals down the line.

The motion covers a litany of issues that arose during Madigan’s marathon, four-month trial, which ended in February with a split-verdict that saw the former speaker convicted of a wide-ranging bribery conspiracy but acquitted on other counts. The jury also deadlocked on some key charges, including the overarching racketeering conspiracy count.

Among the missteps that Madigan’s legal team says warrants a new trial: letting in a now-infamous FBI wiretap where Madigan tells his longtime confidant, Michael McClain, that some ComEd contractors “made out like bandits” for little work; allowing the jury hear prejudicial testimony about sexual harassment allegations; and including a recorded phone call between McClain and the speaker’s son, Andrew Madigan, about another public utility, Peoples Gas, being forced to make political hires.

The defense filing also argued that despite the jury’s guilty verdict, prosecutors failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Madigan knew about any scheme to enrich his friends or that there was a “this-for-that” agreement to help shepherd ComEd’s legislation in Springfield.

“Michael Madigan is not corrupt. He never exchanged his duty to serve his constituents for private benefit—the essence of corruption,” the filing stated. “For decades, Madigan sought to ensure ComEd did not get away with ripping off consumers in Illinois. Madigan’s primary purpose was to work hard for his community and the Democratic party.”

The U.S. attorney’s office has until April 28 to file a response.

Madigan’s filing came on the same day that prosecutors filed their own motion calling for him to forfeit more than $3.1 million as part of his sentencing, an amount equivalent to the money ComEd paid to his political pals for no-work jobs and to the law firm of political operative Victor Reyes — even though the utility had to scramble to find work for his firm to do.

The forfeiture was included in the indictment filed against Madigan in March 2022, however the numbers have fluctuated slightly as the evidence was presented.

The final figure presented by the U.S. attorney’s office was down by about $100,000 because the jury did not ultimately convict Madigan on several schemes, including payments by AT&T to ex-state Rep. Eddie Acevedo, the salary paid to Juan Ochoa as a member of ComEd’s board, and a contract for legal work between West Loop developers ZOM Living and Madigan’s law firm.

Blakey has set a hearing on the forfeiture and post-trial motions for June 9. Madigan is set to be sentenced on June 13.

Whatever forfeiture the judge decides, it’s clear Madigan, who also headed up the state Democratic Party, is not hard up for cash. At the end of last year, Madigan had nearly $6.1 million left in his personal campaign fund, Friends of Michael Madigan, campaign records show.

He’s eligible to convert nearly $1.5 million from his campaign fund to personal use, the product of a law from 1998 that grandfathered in how much lawmakers could take from their campaign funds for personal use.

Separately, Madigan has tapped his campaign fund for more than $8 million in legal fees, costs that are allowed for politicians in Illinois and other states, records show.

Madigan’s trial capped one of the most significant political corruption investigations in Chicago’s checkered history. It also cemented an extraordinary personal fall for Madigan, the longest-serving state legislative leader in the nation’s history who for decades held an iron-tight grip on the House as well as the state Democratic Party.

After 11 days of deliberation, the jury’s final verdict was mixed. Madigan was convicted of 10 of 23 counts, including marquee allegations that he agreed to squeeze lucrative, do-nothing contracts from ComEd for pals like former Alds. Frank Olivo and Michael Zalewski and precinct captains Ray Nice and Edward Moody, all while the utility won a series of major legislation victories.

Madigan was also convicted on six out of seven counts — including wire fraud and Travel Act violations — regarding a plan to get ex-Ald. Daniel Solis, a key FBI mole who testified at length in the trial, appointed to a state board.

Jurors deadlocked on all six counts related to Madigan’s co-defendant, McClain.

Madigan, who turns 83 next month, faces a wide range of potential punishments. Several of the guilty counts carry a maximum of 20 years in prison, according to the U.S. attorney’s office. He also could qualify for house arrest instead of time behind bars, given his age.

In their filing Friday, the ex-speaker’s attorneys reiterated arguments at trial that Madigan was simply doing what good politicians do when he offered to help people who came to him looking for work opportunities.

“Understanding the dignity of work, when people off the street, colleagues, friends, or other public officials, asked for help finding a job, Madigan tried to help,” the motion stated. “He recommended them to public and private employers throughout Illinois, including ComEd. Whether the individual was hired and what work was assigned was not under Madigan’s authority or control.”

The Madigan motion also took aim at how the prosecutors presented McClain as the Madigan “whisperer,” suggesting McClain overstated his knowledge and importance to ComEd in order to boost his own standing as a contract lobbyist for the utility.

And the defense team argued the jury was given erroneous or misleading instructions on the law, including a key bribery statute recently clarified by the U.S. Supreme Court that deals with the term “corruptly.”

Madigan’s lawyers argued that the instructions settled on by Blakey failed to correctly identify “corruptly” and therefore allowed the jury to find Madigan guilty even without proof that he was acting with corrupt intent.

“This definition permitted the jury to convict on entirely innocent conduct as exchanges are a key component of a public official’s daily life,” the filing stated.

____

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