Chicago, IL – Amidst a sprawling federal corruption case, lawyers for Michael McClain, a former lobbyist and advisor to ex-Illinois House Speaker Michael Madigan, are making moves to separate their client’s trial from that of Madigan. In arguments presented on Friday, McClain’s legal team insists that combining the cases would unfairly prejudice their client, as they anticipate Madigan’s defense may shift blame onto McClain.
Both figures are accused of serious charges including racketeering, bribery, fraud, and attempted extortion with their trial set to commence on October 8. This joint trial stems from allegations that both men were involved in corrupt practices that bridged public offices and private gains.
The defense suggests that Madigan’s strategies could involve pointing the finger at McClain, complicating the legal battle for McClain by potentially introducing evidence and testimonies that his lawyers might not be adequately prepared to counter. This scenario, according to McClain’s lawyers, would resemble being “prosecuted by ambush” by what they termed “The Madigan Second Prosecutors.”
The plea to separate their trials underscores a significant clash of defense strategies between allies turned adversaries. McClain’s lawyers articulated concerns about the lack of constraints on Madigan’s defense team in terms of evidence disclosure, which is strictly regulated for federal prosecutors.
Throughout his career, Madigan, 82, wielded substantial influence in Illinois politics, serving as the speaker of the House for all but two years from 1971 to his resignation in 2021. His tenure marked him as a central figure in Illinois’ Democratic political arena.
McClain, 76, also boasts a significant political footprint, having served as a legislator for 10 years before his tenure as a lobbyist linked with Madigan. His relationship with Madigan has been characterized not only by their long-term professional association but also by their shared legal troubles.
In a separate but related legal development, McClain awaits sentencing in another case wherein he was found guilty of engaging in a prolonged conspiracy intended to secure legislative favors for ComEd by influencing Madigan. This case also involves other prominent figures such as former ComEd CEO Anne Pramaggiore and ex-ComEd lobbyist John Hooker, all awaiting sentencing.
The legal proceedings in this high-profile corruption case were temporarily paused pending a decision by the Supreme Court on a related matter. Last month, the justices delivered a pivotal ruling in an Indiana public corruption case, which subsequently played a role in this week’s efforts by Madigan’s lawyers to dismiss several charges against him.
As the legal entanglements continue to unfold, the motion to sever McClain’s trial from Madigan’s highlights the intricate and often contentious dynamics of legal strategy, where former allies may become the greatest of liabilities. The outcome of these motions and the subsequent trials will likely have a lasting impact on the political and legal landscape in Illinois.