Three years ago, the “ComEd Four” trial alleging a massive conspiracy to bribe then-House Speaker Michael Madigan was headed toward a stunning gulity-on-all-counts conclusion, cementing its place as a pillar in the state’s long, sordid history of corruption cases.
Or so it seemed at the time.
Now, after a pair of Supreme Court rulings on central issues like bribery and false statements, followed by a lightning-quick reversal by a Chicago appeals court, the case that once rocked Illinois politics is on an increasingly shaky foundation.
Last week, a three-judge panel for the 7th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals took only a few hours after hearing arguments to announce it would reverse the convictions of two of the ComEd Four defendants, ex-CEO Anne Pramaggiore and retired lobbyist Michael McClain, who were ordered released from prison “forthwith.”
The development has left the U.S. attorney’s office in the unusual position of trying to salvage one of its signature cases in a building where traditionally they rarely lose the big ones.
It also has raised questions about how the 7th Circuit might be leaning in a parallel appeal by Madigan, the longtime political juggernaut and leader of the state Democratic Party who will mark his 84th birthday on Sunday at a federal prison camp in West Virginia, where he’s serving a 7½-year sentence.
Although Madigan’s February 2025 conviction included counts related to the alleged ComEd conspiracy, it’s difficult to draw any apples-to-apples comparisons. Madigan’s arguments on appeal vary greatly from those of Pramaggiore and McClain, because the cases were tried on different legal theories. Madigan also was convicted on counts completely unrelated to ComEd.
At Madigan’s appellate arguments earlier this month, the focus was not on the application of the law, but whether there was sufficient evidence to prove the speaker entered into any quid pro quo agreements to trade official action for anything of value.
It could take months to issue an opinion on Madigan’s appeal. That could be the case for the ComEd Four case as well, especially since Pramaggiore and McClain have been released from prison, taking much of the pressure off a quick turnaround.
Once the ComEd Four opinion comes down, the U.S. attorney’s office will have a tough decision to make. A retrial is possible, though it would have to be under different legal theories, or potentially a new indictment that could vastly change the scope of the evidence, legal observers have said.
Prosecutors could also try to negotiate a deal with the defendants that would resolve the case short of trial, such as a plea to lesser counts or deferred prosecution agreement.
Or prosecutors could drop the matter altogether, a distinct possibility given the age of the defendants, the costs and court resources that would have be expended, and the fact that all four have served at least some time in prison.
U.S. Attorney Andrew Boutros, who took over the Chicago office two years after the ComEd Four trial, declined to discuss next steps for now.
“We intend to issue a statement after the Seventh Circuit issues its decision and we have the opportunity to review it,” Boutros said in a written statement. “Until then, it would be premature to comment.”
While the 7th Circuit is overturning the convictions of Pramaggiore and McClain, it doesn’t mean the case was a flop.
It led to ComEd admitting acts of bribery and paying a record $200 million fine. Prosecutors used the extensive wiretaps, undercover videos, emails and testimony from cooperators in the investigation to win convictions for various aspects of the alleged scheme from two separate juries.
The two other defendants, ex-ComEd executive John Hooker and former City Club of Chicago head Jay Doherty, did not appeal their convictions and have already served prison sentences. Another former ComEd executive, Fidel Marquez, pleaded guilty and cooperated.
And, of course, the case played a pivotal role in the precipitous end to Madigan’s record-breaking career at the helm of Illinois power politics.
Jurors from the “ComEd Four” trial who spoke to the Tribune after the appeals decision last week said the evidence showed a complex, intertwined conspiracy was corrupt to its core.
Juror Amanda Schnitker Sayers, a veterinarian who lives in Chicago, said she understands the higher court’s ruling was based on the Supreme Court’s decisions and appreciates the “checks and balances” on jury trials. “It’s why we have a court system,” Schnitker Sayers said.
But she said she couldn’t help feeling a little let down that the behavior that Pramaggiore and McClain engaged in was in some ways given a green light, particularly with a public utility like ComEd with so many public dollars at stake.
“It absolutely does not make sense,” she said. “Our verdict showed that we shouldn’t stand for this behavior. … It’s wrong, and when people do the wrong thing, they should pay the price for it.”
The Supreme Court changed the legal landscape a year after the verdict, first with its decision in the bribery case of former Portage, Indiana, Mayor James Snyder, ruling that “gratuities” given to elected officials with no direct tie to official actions are not illegal under the statute known as “666,” its number in the criminal code, which was also used to prosecute the ComEd Four.
Another Supreme Court decision followed in the case against former Chicago Ald. Patrick Daley Thompson, who was convicted of lying to banking regulators. That ruling said the law does not criminalize statements that are misleading but not demonstrably false — which had bearing in the ComEd Four counts involving the alleged falsification of the utility’s books and records.
In the 7th Circuit arguments last week, the judges clearly felt there was no way of knowing whether the jury’s verdict would have been within the new boundaries of the law.
“Here’s the problem,” Judge Thomas Kirsch II said to Assistant U.S. Attorney Irene Hickey Sullivan just moments after she stepped to the podium. “When you charge the case and try the case as a bribery case, what’s to say the jury just didn’t consider the illegal bribery object of the conspiracy and stop right there?”
Paul Clement, the lead attorney for Pramaggiore’s appeal, told the Tribune on Friday that he had a pretty good feeling things were going his way right out of the gate, when Kirsch had stopped him less than five seconds into his argument to say he understood his position.
“We got a very strong positive signal literally before I finished my first sentence,” Clement, a renowned appeals attorney who has argued dozens of cases before the Supreme Court, said in an interview. “That really did kind of set the tone for the arguments in a very positive way.”
Still, Clement said that with Pramaggiore sitting in prison, his focus was on getting her a bond while awaiting retrial than having to wait months for an opinion.
“If she had not been incarcerated, I might have thought differently about trying to swing for the fences in rebuttal and really talk more about the substantial evidence issues in the case,” Clement said. “But job one is getting your client out of prison.”
Another exchange later in the hearing came as Joel Bertocchi, an attorney for McClain, was fielding questions about his argument that the remaining books-and-records counts can’t act as stand-ins for the government’s original premise and what it promised to prove to the jury.
“At some point you have to hold the government to the case that it tried,” Bertocchi told the court. “I understand why they tried the case on bribery the way they did, given the condition of the law at the time. But the law changed.”
Kirsch jumped in, saying, “Well. it changed in the Supreme Court. There was a circuit split when they charged this case on 666 … they could have charged this as wire fraud, mail fraud. There is a lot of evidence here, OK?”
Schnitker Sayers said the ComEd Four jury spent four days methodically going through the wiretaps, emails and testimony and vetting each count of conviction — including the books-and-records charges. At first, she said, there were jurors “on both sides of every count.” But when there were questions, they took time to go through the evidence and find the proof, she said.
“We considered every every defendant by taking apart each individual count and deliberating it back and forth,” she said. “The evidence spoke for itself.”
jmeisner@chicagotribune.com
