CHICAGO — Attorneys for ex-House Speaker Michael Madigan unveiled a key point in their defense case Monday morning, saying they intend to show proof that Madigan’s offices had long-established protocols intended to prevent conflicts of interest between his government work and his private law practice.

That claim, the defense says, would rebut prosecutors’ allegations that Madigan supported legislation to transfer a parcel of land in Chinatown because he anticipated getting business from the land’s would-be developers.

That is a “false narrative,” defense attorney Daniel Collins said in court Monday.

“This goes to the heart of why Mr. Madigan felt comfortable answering questions on Chinatown, because he was never going to get that business,” Collins said. “… He knew he was not going to be taking this work and therefore acted the way he did.”

The attorneys’ argument Monday took place before jurors took their seats for the first time since an 18-day break for the holidays. Before the panel was sent home Dec. 19, the trial’s spotlight had finally turned to Madigan’s defense team, whose witnesses so far have offered a far different picture of the powerful Democratic speaker than the image of a conniving and opportunistic political machine boss painted by prosecutors.

Prosecutors on Monday objected strenuously to the inclusion of evidence about Madigan’s law firm protocols, but ultimately U.S. District Judge John Robert Blakey allowed it in.

“There is a independent evidentiary significance to the fact that the firm, not the defendant but the firm, had a procedure in place which would present an obstacle to the taking on of a particular type of work or a particular project that would present a conflict of interest,” Blakey said.

Defense attorneys intend to call Madigan’s former law partner, Vincent “Bud” Getzendanner, to the stand later this week to testify about the firm’s safeguards against conflicts of interest. But the subject was also introduced Monday through the testimony of Justin Cox, formerly a top lawyer for the speaker’s office.

As chief counsel, Cox would meet with Madigan and Getzendanner twice a year to go through their client list, he testified.

“So I would be aware if there was a potential conflict, and we could flag that and make sure the speaker would not vote on a bill there may be a conflict on,” Cox said.

In arguing that jurors should not be allowed to hear about the conflict checks, prosecutors mentioned a wiretapped phone call between Cox and Michael McClain, Madigan’s co-defendant, in which McClain told Cox to make sure Madigan does not vote “yes” or “no” on the Chinatown land transfer bill.

“That is a reflection that Mr. Madigan was going to take this business,” Assistant U.S. Attorney Sarah Streicker said.

On the stand Monday, Cox said he remembered that phone call, but didn’t find it particularly notable because Madigan routinely refrained from voting on land transfer legislation.

“(McClain) mentioned the speaker should be not voting on the bill bc it related to one of the developers that – it wasn’t clear if it was a client or somebody who was looking for business,” Cox told the jury. “… It was our normal process for the speaker to not vote on land transfer bills so I didn’t view it as particularly concerning.”

Before Cox took the stand, jurors heard again from David Ellis, the Illinois appellate court justice and former top counsel to Madigan, who testified before the break that the speaker used his political power to stand up for labor interests and blue-collar families and rein in greedy companies such as utility giant Commonwealth Edison.

Prosecutors allege ComEd officials participated in a long bribery scheme to win Madigan’s influence by funneling no-work consulting jobs to his cronies, hiring a law firm run by Madigan’s ally, and putting Madigan’s choice on the utility’s board of directors.

Ellis, however, said that during his time in the speaker’s office, he was instructed by Madigan to hold ComEd’s feet to the fire, insisting on job creation for Illinois residents, rate caps and a sunset provision that would ensure the company had to come back to the General Assembly and show it had kept its word.

“They didn’t like anything I was doing,” Ellis testified. “I wouldn’t have expected them to.”

Ellis continued his testimony Monday with cross-examination from prosecutors, who established that Ellis had little to no experience with the political side of Madigan’s operation.

Another witness Madigan’s defense team has said they intend to call is the accountant for star prosecution witness Daniel Solis, the former 14th Ward alderman who made secret recordings of Madigan during his turn as an FBI mole but was also accused in cross examination of cheating on his taxes during his cooperation.

Madigan’s lawyer also said they want to call a former IRS official to offer analysis of Solis’ alleged tax malfeasance.

Both sides have told Blakey that there are likely two to three more days worth of witnesses in Madigan’s defense case, followed by what likely will be a short prosecution rebuttal. The case would then proceed to the final phase of closing arguments and jury deliberations.

But the trial, which has run longer than expected, is about to encounter another unforeseen delay as the Dirksen U.S. Courthouse will be closed Thursday as part of a national day of mourning for President Jimmy Carter, who died Dec. 29.

That means closing arguments in the case will likely not occur until next week at the earliest.

Madigan, 82, a Southwest Side Democrat, and his longtime confidant, Michael McClain, 77, of downstate Quincy, are charged in a 23-count indictment alleging Madigan’s vaunted state and political operations were run like a criminal enterprise to amass and increase his power and enrich himself and his associates.

In addition to bribery schemes involving ComEd and AT&T Illinois, the indictment alleges Madigan pressured developers to hire the speaker’s law firm and tried to win business by secretly supporting legislation to transfer state-owned land in Chinatown to the city so developers could build a condo tower.

Both Madigan and McClain have denied wrongdoing.

Meanwhile, before the case can go to closing arguments, there will be more work to do among the parties on the all-important jury instructions, which have taken on even more significance in the wake of a U.S. Supreme Court ruling last year that recast a federal bribery statute central to the Madigan indictment.

In a five-hour conference last week, attorneys for both sides argued over a number of nitty-gritty legal elements, including how to define the word “corruptly” in the instructions given to the jury, which will be a key factor jurors have to weigh in determining Madigan’s intent.

The judge held off making any final rulings on the issue, giving the attorneys a chance to confer among themselves and make alternate proposals.

____

©2025 Chicago Tribune. Visit at chicagotribune.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.