Federal prosecutors spent the last year and a half building a narrative around Michael J. Madigan, based largely on his unrivaled control of Illinois’ House of Representatives.
They’ve done so with the help of former lawmakers such as Scott Drury. The three-term Democratic state representative testified at trial last year that, after he chose not to support Madigan’s reelection as speaker in 2017, no bill he authored in the House passed into law.
Drury made a similar comment Tuesday, during Madigan’s racketeering conspiracy trial. But this time, he faced cross-examination from Madigan attorney Todd Pugh — who then pointed to four bills Drury sponsored in 2017 that passed the House. Pugh asked who was in charge at the time.
“Madigan was,” Drury said.
The devil is in the details, of course. And Drury is hardly a star witness in Madigan’s trial. But it’s further proof that Madigan’s defense attorneys plan to aggressively challenge the theory prosecutors have been battle-testing over multiple trials.
Trial highlights
- Secret FBI recordings showed Michael Madigan co-defendant Michael McClain working “assignments.”
- FBI agent testifies about convincing ex-ComEd executive Fidel Marquez to wear a wire.
- Defense attorneys question FBI tactics
Another sign of things to come could be found in the opening statement delivered Tuesday by John Mitchell, a defense attorney for Madigan co-defendant Michael McClain. Mitchell offered jurors the most extensive dirty-laundry list so far for government mole Danny Solis, the former City Council member who secretly recorded Madigan and McClain for the FBI.
Mitchell told jurors that Solis “stole hundreds of thousands of dollars of campaign funds”; took bribes in the form of “cash, Viagra, and prostitutes”; that he lied to a grand jury “and his own wife and family”; and that he now manages to vacation in “tropical islands” thanks to his deal with prosecutors.
“You’ll see what a real criminal looks like,” Mitchell said. “You’ll see what a real public corruption defendant looks like. It’ll take him a week to testify about all the bribes he took.”
Madigan, who resigned in 2021, is accused of leading a criminal enterprise designed to enhance his political power and enrich his allies and associates. McClain, a former lobbyist who was convicted at trial last year of a scheme to bribe Madigan, is now accused of acting as Madigan’s agent.
Testimony in their racketeering conspiracy case got underway Tuesday after Mitchell’s opening statement. Prosecutors could call as many as 50 witnesses in the trial that could last well into December. But they kicked things off with the same two witnesses who began testimony in McClain’s 2023 trial: Drury and former state Rep. Carol Sente.
Both former lawmakers gave jurors an education on the nuts and bolts of Springfield. They testified that Madigan controlled the legislative process by overseeing committees and the movement of bills.
Sente recalled an instance when she wanted to pass a bill that would update prior regulations to fight predatory loans in real estate. Madigan plainly told her on the House floor, “I don’t want to talk about that bill again. It’s not moving forward.”
She suggested that demonstrated that she’s seen Madigan “visibly upset,” but Sente told jurors that “he does not yell.”
Madigan seemed to chuckle at that in the courtroom Tuesday.
Meanwhile, the former speaker’s defense team showed jurors a handwritten letter Sente once wrote to Madigan praising his “tactical abilities and patience” and insisting that working with him had been “an honor I will treasure for a lifetime.”
Sente acknowledged she still agreed with the sentiment.
Still, the biggest blow from Madigan’s defense Tuesday came during Drury’s testimony about bills in his third term. Despite Drury’s previous testimony, Pugh showed Drury records of two 2017 bills he’d filed that passed the House but died in the Senate before becoming law.
Pugh also showed Drury records of two 2017 bills that he’d sponsored in the House that had originated and passed in the Senate. Both of those bills went on to become law after House passage.
Madigan watched from his seat in the courtroom, his fingers interlaced in front of him at times.
There’s legislative bad blood between Drury and Madigan, and jurors got a taste of it Tuesday when Drury testified that he’d flirted with a bid to oust Madigan as speaker in 2017. That was before he went on to explore campaigns for governor and attorney general.
What jurors haven’t heard is that, after Drury failed to support Madigan’s bid in 2017 to become the longest-serving statehouse speaker in the country, Madigan delivered his own snub to Drury.
Madigan gave $150-inscribed crystal mantle clocks to 65 members of his Democratic caucus to mark the occasion. The 66th member of the caucus — Drury — didn’t get one.
Why the Madigan trial matters
Why the Madigan trial matters
Michael J. Madigan was the longest-serving state House speaker in the United States. That position made him the leader of the Illinois House of Representatives for nearly four decades, where he shepherded legislation that affected everyday life in Illinois. He also served for more than 20 years as the head of the Democratic Party of Illinois. Ultimately, he rose to become one of the most dominant politicians in Illinois since the late Chicago Mayor Richard J. Daley.
- What to expect in the trial
- Who was caught up in the investigation
- Who is Judge John Blakey?
- The documents behind the case
Read all our coverage of the historic trial here.
Prosecutors will have another chance to question Drury when the trial resumes Wednesday. But first, McClain’s defense team will have a turn.
One member of that team, Mitchell, spoke to jurors for an hour earlier Tuesday as he concluded opening statements in the trial. In addition to targeting Solis, Mitchell insisted that the FBI “turned over heaven and earth” to find incriminating evidence against Madigan — but found nothing more than “legal favors.”
That won’t be enough to convict McClain, Mitchell insisted. The crucial missing piece, he said, will be any evidence of an intention to exchange a favor for something else.
“It can’t just be that there were job recommendations, and that there was legislation,” Mitchell said. “There has to be an intent to exchange those two things.”
Mitchell’s comments echoed arguments from last month’s trial of former AT&T Illinois President Paul La Schiazza, who is accused of bribing Madigan by paying a Madigan ally $22,500 while AT&T had crucial legislation pending in Springfield.
La Schiazza’s trial ended with a hung jury.
La Schiazza had hired the Madigan ally at McClain’s request. Now, McClain faces charges in the current trial for that alleged scheme and others. But Mitchell, like La Schiazza’s attorneys, stressed the need for prosecutors to show an exchange.
He compared McClain’s work as a lobbyist to a salesperson who tries to build a relationship with a client over time.
“A favor is not, by itself, a bribe,” Mitchell said. “A favor is a favor.”