Judge delays corruption trial of Michael Madigan while Supreme Court considers case in Indiana

A federal judge agreed Wednesday to delay the racketeering trial of former Illinois House Speaker Michael J. Madigan for six months while the Supreme Court considers a Northwest Indiana corruption case revolving around a key statute at play in Madigan’s case.

U.S. District Judge John Blakey rescheduled Madigan’s highly anticipated trial for Oct. 8. He cited the risk of a retrial if he pushed ahead before the high court rules. And he said that result would be unfair to all parties, including the “unsung” hero jurors who would end up sitting through a lengthy trial all for naught.

“I don’t do this lightly,” Blakey said. “I do it reluctantly, I’ll say that. But it’s better to do it right than to do it twice.”

The judge handed down his ruling as Madigan made his first courtroom appearance as a criminal defendant at the Dirksen Federal Courthouse. Though Blakey had given Madigan the option of appearing by video for the 2 p.m. hearing, Madigan instead walked into the building shortly after 1:30 p.m.

He took a seat in the front row of Blakey’s courtroom but later sat at a defense table. When Blakey asked Madigan if he agreed to the delay in his trial, Madigan stood at a podium and replied, “Yes I do, your honor.”

Madigan’s trial had been set for April 1. He is accused of leading a “criminal enterprise” for nearly a decade designed to enhance his political power and generate income for his allies and associates.

Michael McClain, Madigan’s co-defendant, appeared Wednesday by video. Also present in the courtroom was attorney Scott Lassar whose client, former ComEd CEO Anne Pramaggiore, was convicted with McClain in a separate case amid a series of trials in 2023.

The trials last year largely went the feds’ way. But the Supreme Court has now slowed their momentum — and delayed the biggest Chicago corruption trial since former Gov. Rod Blagojevich’s — by picking up the case of James Snyder, a former mayor of Portage, Indiana.

The high court’s ruling in the Snyder case is unlikely to seriously damage the case against Madigan. Still, Blakey said even a nuanced decision could have some effect. He described the danger of pressing forward in April by recalling the days when one of his small children would leave a Lego block on the floor for him to step on in the dark.

He told attorneys he feared the “Supreme Court’s going to give us a Lego.”

Meanwhile, he noted that some of the best prosecutors and defense attorneys in town would be wrapped up for months with a complicated criminal case, while “hundreds” of people are summoned out of their normal routines to possibly serve as jurors.

And, he said, “it’s fair to the defendants to know what the rules are before they have to fight for their life.”

But Madigan’s trial is now scheduled to play out around the holiday season — one year after the trial of ex-Ald. Edward M. Burke pushed right up against Christmas. Not only that, but this year’s presidential election is now set to occur right in the middle of Madigan’s two-month trial.

The Snyder case revolves around a bribery statute dealing with programs receiving federal funds. The question before the Supreme Court is whether it criminalizes so-called “gratuities” or rewards — described as “payments in recognition of actions the official has already taken or committed to take” — without any quid pro quo agreement.

Madigan’s attorneys asked Blakey to put the former speaker’s case on hold last month while the high court considered that question. In doing so, they pointed out that Madigan faces seven counts related to the statute at issue in the Snyder case.

They also argued that, in addition to the central question in the Snyder case, they believe the Supreme Court could also resolve whether a quid pro quo is required to prove bribery under the statute. Prosecutors have argued it is not.

The feds also insisted they were prepared to take Madigan to trial while working around the contested issue.

The Supreme Court is expected to rule by summer. A brief from Snyder’s attorney is due by Feb. 5.

Meanwhile, another domino could soon fall in Chicago’s federal courthouse as a result of the Snyder review. McClain had been set to face sentencing next week for his conviction last year in the separate case involving Pramaggiore. The defendants in that case asked for it to be put on hold after the Supreme Court picked up the Snyder matter.

An emergency judge took those sentencing hearings off the calendar. But U.S. District Judge Harry Leinenweber, who presides over the case, has called a hearing Thursday. Pramaggiore’s attorney previously warned Leinenweber there’s a “significant chance that we may be trying this case again.”

Convicted in that case with McClain and Pramaggiore were former ComEd lobbyist John Hooker and onetime City Club President Jay Doherty.