The long relationship between Michael J. Madigan and Michael McClain played a central role in multiple corruption trials over the last few years in Chicago, and a jury will soon begin to consider a sweeping racketeering conspiracy case against both men.
But first, McClain’s attorney sought Tuesday to define the relationship between Madigan and McClain for the jurors. Defense attorney Patrick Cotter told them that McClain was a lobbyist to Madigan, as well as an adviser. But, Cotter said, “he was also his good friend.”
“We know, now, he’s not,” Cotter told the jury. “And that’s — I guess that’s a casualty of this case. But it was real.”
Soon after Cotter made that comment, McClain reached for a tissue from his seat on the other side of the courtroom, and he pressed it against his eyes.
The moment came in the midst of Cotter’s nearly five-hour closing argument Tuesday in the corruption trial of McClain and Madigan, Illinois’ former House speaker. Jurors are expected to begin deliberating the case against them Wednesday.
First, they will hear one final argument from Assistant U.S. Attorney Amarjeet Bhachu.
Madigan is accused of leading a criminal enterprise for nearly a decade, designed to enhance his political power and reward his associates, with ComEd lobbyist McClain acting as his agent. The feds say the men conspired to have ComEd and AT&T Illinois pay thousands to Madigan allies for do-nothing jobs so Madigan would look favorably at the utilities’ legislation.
The relationship between Madigan and McClain dates back to the 1970s, when the men served together in the Illinois General Assembly. That was before McClain turned to lobbying, and before Madigan began his 36 years as the nation’s longest-serving state House leader.
Prosecutors argue that McClain acted as Madigan’s emissary in Springfield, a theory that’s been heard by multiple juries in the last two years. Among them was a panel that convicted McClain in May 2023 of a lengthy conspiracy to bribe Madigan.
But the massive FBI corruption probe that led to criminal charges against Madigan, McClain and others has also tested that notorious friendship.
Madigan and McClain have noticeably kept their distance since their trial began in October. And then, when Madigan took the witness stand earlier this month, Cotter asked whether Madigan’s relationship with McClain had survived in the last 40 years.
“It did,” Madigan testified. “Until recently.”
In his own closing argument Monday, Madigan defense attorney Dan Collins derided McClain as “Mr. Important” and said McClain tried to embellish and exaggerate his influence with Madigan.
But the commentary about McClain’s relationship with Madigan amounted to just a piece of Cotter’s lengthy argument Tuesday. He reprised some arguments from McClain’s 2023 trial, insisting that McClain was engaged in legal lobbying: “Building, maintaining and protecting the relationships that allowed him to serve the interest of his clients.”
“This is not a trial to determine whether politics, as practiced in Illinois, is or was good,” Cotter said. “This is not a trial to determine whether or not lobbying — real human lobbying as it was practiced in Illinois — is good or the way you would like it to be.”
Cotter insisted that “the only witness” who testified about “a conspiracy to bribe Mike Madigan with Mike McClain” was Fidel Marquez, the former ComEd executive who agreed to wear a wire for the FBI after agents confronted him Jan. 16, 2019.
And Marquez, Cotter told the jurors, “is a liar. And you all know he’s a liar.”
Cotter reminded jurors how Marquez allegedly lied in a divorce case and tried to hide $400,000. Cotter also recounted how, early last year, Marquez gave false answers on a form while trying to buy a gun.
Marquez told jurors the false answer was a “mistake,” and that he tried to buy the gun to fend off rattlesnakes outside his home near Tucson, Arizona.
Cotter noted that Marquez hopes to avoid prison for his own crimes under a deal he struck with prosecutors, and Cotter told the jury, “Mr. Marquez has a long history of lying to get what he wants.”
Cotter also discussed allegations that AT&T, at McClain’s urging, paid former state Rep. Edward “Eddie” Acevedo $22,500 in 2017 as it tried to pass legislation crucial to its bottom line. Prosecutors say Acevedo, a veteran Latino politician, was valuable to Madigan because of the growing Latino population in Madigan’s district.
But Cotter pointed to testimony from retired AT&T lobbyist Stephen Selcke, who testified for prosecutors in the trial of ex-AT&T Illinois President Paul La Schiazza, which ended with a hung jury. In the latest trial, Selcke was called to testify by McClain’s lawyers.
When asked during the current trial whether Selcke thought Madigan would allow passage of AT&T’s bill “in exchange” for Acevedo’s contract, Selcke said, “I did not have a feeling that that would result in the Speaker allowing passage.”
“Who brought you Stephen Selcke’s evidence?” Cotter asked the jury Tuesday. “Wasn’t the government. It was us.”