CHICAGO – A federal judge on Thursday declined to acquit former AT&T Illinois president Paul La Schiazza after his September trial on charges that he bribed ex-Illinois House Speaker Michael Madigan ended in a hung jury.
U.S. District Judge Robert Gettleman was forced to declare a mistrial after jurors failed to reach a verdict in La Schiazza’s case, which ended a few weeks before Madigan’s trial began five floors down in Chicago’s Dirksen Federal Courthouse.
Read more: Judge weighs whether to acquit ex-AT&T boss after hung jury in corruption case | Jury deadlocks, mistrial declared in case of ex-AT&T boss accused of bribing Madigan
La Schiazza is accused of bribing Madigan with a nine-month, $22,500 contract in 2017 for his ally, former state Rep. Eddie Acevedo. In exchange, the feds allege, Madigan paved the way for AT&T’s biggest legislative priority: relief from a 1930s-era regulation that obligated the company to maintain its expensive and aging copper landline network.
During La Schiazza’s four-day trial, the jury heard from more than a dozen witnesses, including two former AT&T Illinois lobbyists who testified that Acevedo wasn’t a desirable hire. Newly retired from the Illinois House after a 20-year career, Acevedo had a reputation for being inflammatory and allegedly drinking to excess in Springfield.
But in February 2017, veteran Statehouse lobbyist Mike McClain, who was known around the Capitol to be an “agent” of Madigan, asked an AT&T executive if there was “even a small contract for Eddie Acevedo?”
Hours prior to that email, AT&T’s leadership team had gotten good news: Madigan had agreed to sit down with La Schiazza and members of organized labor to talk about their legislation. And two days later, La Schiazza got even more good news on a call from McClain, who told him the speaker had assigned AT&T’s legislation as a “special project.”
READ IT: Gettleman-LaSchiazza-acquittal-denial
In his 35-page opinion, Gettleman acknowledged that prosecutors “offered no direct evidence that Madigan was aware of McClain’s ask.” But, he wrote, “a reasonable juror could easily rely on the circumstantial evidence presented at trial to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that Madigan was aware of and directed the request.”
Gettleman said the timing of Acevedo’s contract, which was finally inked in late April 2017, was key to AT&T’s passage of legislation getting the company out from under the decades-old “Carrier of Last Resort,” or COLR, regulations.
“Looking at a wider timeframe, the evidence shows that COLR relief legislation had failed for over seven years, and finally passed after defendant responded to McClain’s request to hire Acevedo,” Gettleman wrote.
Zooming in on the sequence of events during the spring of 2017, Gettleman wrote, is further proof of a “quid pro quo” understanding – something that would be necessary to prove intent of bribery. The judge focused on an email La Schiazza sent to his colleagues in late March asking about the contract for Acevedo after indicating he’d gotten a call from McClain.
“Somehow I thought we had this in progress??” La Schiazza wrote.
Gettleman referred to prosecutors’ presentation of cell phone records, which showed a 23-minute call between La Schiazza and McClain before the timestamp on the email.
“Defendant’s immediate attention to the Acevedo contract after receiving a call form McClain in late March bolsters the inference that defendant understood himself to be engaging in a quid pro quo,” Gettleman wrote.
La Schiazza’s attorneys argued he and his fellow AT&T executives were just trying to build goodwill with the speaker and “not rock the boat” by complying with the request for the “small contract” for Acevedo.
And while former AT&T lobbyist Steve Selcke said multiple times during his time on the witness stand that he didn’t believe Acevedo’s contract was meant as a bribe, Gettleman wrote that Selcke’s testimony actually helped both the defense and the prosecution.
Gettleman happened to file his ruling as prosecutors in the trial against Madigan and McClain are presenting evidence about the alleged AT&T bribery before resting their case early next week. La Schiazza’s attorneys attended Madigan’s trial Tuesday and Wednesday this week before a long weekend break.
Defense attorneys this week unsuccessfully argued that prosecutors should’ve been barred from presenting emails involving Selcke after they decided not to call him in this trial. Selcke could be called in the defense’s case after Madigan’s legal team subpoenaed him this week. His attorneys also attended trial this week.
La Schiazza now lives on the East Coast but court records show his presence at Thursday’s hearing has not been waived. If he is forced to fly into Chicago, he’ll have already missed testimony from former AT&T contract lobbyist Tom Cullen, who said in court he agreed to be an intermediary for Acevedo’s payments in 2017.
La Schiazza is also unlikely to cross paths with Acevedo after he was ordered to testify over objections from his lawyer and defense attorneys about his dementia diagnosis. He’s scheduled to testify on Monday.
Read more: Former Madigan ally ordered to testify in ex-speaker’s corruption trial
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.
