CHICAGO — Paul La Schiazza, the ex-boss of AT&T Illinois accused of bribing a powerful politician, could be a free man next month.
After three hours of oral arguments on Thursday, a federal judge is now weighing whether to grant the former telecom exec’s request for acquittal following a high-profile mistrial earlier this year.
A hung jury sent La Schiazza home in September without knowing whether the government would attempt a retrial. U.S. District Judge Robert Gettleman declined to convene one after the trial ended, pending his decision on this acquittal request.
Read more: Jury deadlocks, mistrial declared in case of ex-AT&T boss accused of bribing Madigan
La Schiazza is accused of directing more than $20,000 in AT&T funds to Eddie Acevedo, in a nine-month period in 2017, for a no-work consulting job as an AT&T subcontractor. At the time, Acevedo was a newly retired state representative and former chair of the Latino Caucus in the Illinois House.
The hiring was suggested by Michael McClain, a longtime ally of then-Illinois House Speaker Michael Madigan who is now his co-defendant in a separate corruption trial. In one letter the jury saw, McClain described Madigan as his “real client,” while other witnesses testified that it was well-known in Springfield that McClain acted as a go-between for the powerful speaker.
The company, eager to pass a bill reversing a 1930s-era law requiring it to maintain aging copper phone lines, allegedly sought to influence Madigan, who was seen as Springfield’s legislative gatekeeper.
Hiring Acevedo for a no-work contract, which prosecutors allege constitutes a bribe under federal and state law, is the center of La Schiazza’s legal fight.
Thursday’s hearing saw a repeat of many of the themes of the September trial, with La Schiazza’s lawyers arguing that the hiring was not an illegal bribe, but a legally protected attempt at generating a “reservoir of goodwill” with Madigan. In particular, they argued that direct evidence from the trial showed there was no agreed upon “exchange” between La Schiazza and Madigan’s representatives.
“You need more,” La Schiazza’s attorney Tinos Diamantatos. “And in this case, when you look for that ‘more,’ it isn’t there.”
Diamantatos also drew parallels between La Schiazza’s hearing and Madigan’s own corruption trial, which is going on five floors below at the Dirksen Federal Courthouse in Chicago.
He contrasted the evidence in that case – which includes secret recordings of Madigan and other elected officials – and argued the evidence in this case doesn’t meet the burden necessary to convict La Schiazza.
Read more: Madigan Trial Week in Review
This review of trial evidence is important to this type of request for acquittal, as La Schiazza and his lawyers must persuade Gettleman that no rational juror could have found La Schiazza guilty.
Although he didn’t speak Thursday, La Schiazza remained intently focused on Gettleman’s dais, rarely looking away from the judge who may soon announce his fate.
In oral arguments and written briefs, prosecutors attacked the defense’s request for acquittal. Assistant U.S. Attorney Tim Chapman on Thursday said La Schiazza’s defense relied on a “mythology” that Madigan must have promised something to La Schiazza for his behavior to be a crime.
“If the defendant thought he was influencing Madigan and Madigan had nothing to do with this, he’d still be guilty,” Chapman said.
Prosecutors also reiterated several of their own arguments from the trial, including restating their view that hiring Acevedo was done with the intent to “corruptly” influence Madigan.
Chapman argued it “would have been insane” for La Schiazza to hire Acevedo without the expectation of it influencing Madigan.
“He was absolutely a person nobody wanted to hire as a lobbyist,” he said, referring to testimony at trial about Acevedo’s poor reputation in Springfield.
Read more: On witness stand, former AT&T lobbyist describes how Madigan ally got $22,500 contract | In bribery trial, AT&T lobbyists detail contentious meeting with Madigan ally
But even without Madigan personally asking La Schiazza to do it, Chapman insisted that the lobbyists involved in Acevedo’s hiring knew “logically and immediately” that Madigan was behind the request.
Additionally, they reiterated evidence they say demonstrates a rational juror could have convicted La Schiazza, such as evidence that La Schiazza hid Acevedo’s hiring from other AT&T employees and viewed the scheme as a way to “get credit” with Madigan.
Gettleman, who acknowledged that this procedural step brought out longer-than-normal briefs and an “unusually well-presented proceeding,” will issue a written opinion on the order by the middle of next month.
He scheduled a hearing to outline his ruling on Dec. 19.
Capitol News Illinois is a nonprofit, nonpartisan news service that distributes state government coverage to hundreds of news outlets statewide. It is funded primarily by the Illinois Press Foundation and the Robert R. McCormick Foundation.
