CHICAGO — Jurors in the federal corruption trial against Illinois state Sen. Emil Jones III sent the judge a series of questions Tuesday before wrapping a first full day of deliberations.

All told, the panel sent U.S. District Judge Andrea Wood five questions that largely centered around the intent and timing of the alleged $5,000 campaign contribution at the heart of the prosecution’s case. The judge, prosecutors and Jones’ defense lawyers spent hours hashing out language to send back in response.

Among the questions was whether Jones needed to agree to accept something worth $5,000 or anything of value and whether a decision to do so needed to remain in place without Jones changing his mind. The panel also asked about the difference between federal and state laws against bribery.

Soon before jurors were set to leave for the day, Wood relayed to them that “the crime of bribery as charged in Count 1 has been committed at the time the defendant solicits, agrees to accept or accepts the thing of value, so long as all the other elements of the crime are satisfied at that point in time.”

Deliberations are expected to continue Wednesday.

The deliberations have now stretched to about 10 hours after nine days in which prosecutors argued that Jones sold his power as a state senator for the promise of the $5,000 campaign contribution and a minimum-wage job for a former intern.

Jones’ defense argued that the South Side Democrat was caught in a web of other lawmakers on the take who had corrupt relationships with Omar Maani, a red-light camera executive who cooperated with the feds in exchange for deferred prosecution on his own bribery charges.

The jury is weighing counts of bribery, use of an interstate facility to solicit bribery and lying to federal agents. The most serious charge carries up to 10 years in prison, while the others have a five-year maximum term. If Jones, 46, is found guilty, he would be forced to give up his Senate seat, which he took over from his father in 2009, and likely lose any future pension.

In closing arguments Monday before a full gallery that included Jones’ father, former Senate President Emil Jones Jr., Jones’ lawyer Vic Henderson portrayed his client in a “David vs. Goliath” fight against the feds — all for the sake of a long-stalled proposal to conduct a statewide study of red-light cameras across Illinois. His attorneys painted a portrait of him as a hardworking state legislator who was simply trying to get his bill through a stubborn committee process.

Jones testified in his own defense last week that he met with Maani to curry favor with the corrupt head of the transportation committee, then-state Sen. Martin Sandoval, who admitted to taking cash payments from Maani. Jones testified that he was trying to distance himself from Maani, who reminded him of a “used-car salesman” and described his request for a job for the former intern as a routine recommendation for a family friend.

But prosecutors said Jones, who had been skeptical of red-light cameras for years, changed his tune on the bill he was pushing once Maani began to court him with steak dinners and offers of sponsorship for campaign contributions. In a recorded conversation played for the jury, Maani can be heard asking Jones “how much money you want me to come up with?”

Jones, a few moments later, replied, “If you can raise me five grand, that’d be good.”

While Jones’ defense team focused on the fact that no payment was made to Jones, prosecutors reminded jurors that Jones said he’d amend the bill and “protect” Maani’s company from a House opponent soon after Maani promised him the money and arranged a job for the senator’s intern.

“Legislators and legislation should not be up for sale for any price,” Assistant U.S. Attorney Tiffany Ardam told the panel during closing arguments. “That is a crime.”

_____

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