A mistrial was declared Thursday in the case of former AT&T Illinois President Paul La Schiazza after jurors informed the court that unanimous verdicts could not be reached.
La Schiazza was accused of bribing former Illinois House Speaker Mike Madigan to land the “white whale” that the utility and its top executive “had desperately wanted for the better part of a decade,” a federal prosecutor told jurors Tuesday. La Schiazza's attorneys insisted there was no bribe.
A jury of eight women and four men was tasked with deciding whether La Schiazza entered into a corrupt deal at the Illinois State Capitol in 2017. The panel began deliberating Tuesday after hearing three hours of closing arguments in La Schiazza’s bribery trial.
The jury took up the case around 2:40 p.m. and left the courthouse for the day at 4:10 p.m. Deliberations resumed Wednesday and Thursday, with a mistrial being declared by jurors late Thursday afternoon.
Prosecutors say La Schiazza bribed Madigan by steering $22,500 over nine months to former state Rep. Edward “Eddie” Acevedo, a Madigan ally and fellow Southwest Side Democrat, while AT&T Illinois was trying to pass legislation it believed was worth millions to its bottom line.
Madigan faces his own separate indictment, including charges related to the AT&T allegations, and is set for trial Oct. 8.
Defense attorney Tinos Diamantatos mocked the prosecutors’ case in his closing argument Tuesday, referring to the feds’ “dark and stormy night”interpretation of evidence and at one point calling his client “Mr. Unethical Bribester.” The reality, he said, is that there is no evidence that La Schiazza exchanged Acevedo’s money for AT&T’s legislative success.
Local
“That’s the critical piece in this case, and that’s what’s missing,” Diamantatos said.
But assistant U.S. attorneys Sushma Raju and Timothy Chapman said that very exchange is revealed in emails La Schiazza sent weeks after AT&T Illinois’ bill became law — and after Madigan’s son reached out asking for a donation to a nonprofit.
Feeling out of the loop? We'll catch you up on the Chicago news you need to know. Sign up for the weekly Chicago Catch-Up newsletter.
La Schiazza griped to a colleague at the time that such requests “will be endless” and “we are on the friends and family plan now.”
“That’s the Madigan friends and family plan,” Raju insisted Tuesday. She called the emails an “after-the-fact discussion of what [La Schiazza] did and why he did it.”
“It’s not building goodwill,” Raju said. “It’s not just kissing up to Madigan. These are acknowledgments that [La Schiazza] and AT&T were of the mindset that they needed to bribe Madigan” to move their bill forward.
Jurors heard from more than a dozen witnesses over four days of testimony.No one at AT&T Illinois was particularly interested in hiring Acevedo after his retirement from the Legislature in 2017, jurors were told.
However, that attitude changed with a request from longtime lobbyist Michael McClain, according to trial testimony.
The request came at a time when AT&T Illinois sought to secure a key legislative victory that had eluded it for years. The utility hoped to finally end its costly obligation to provide landline phone service to all Illinois residents.
It was known as its Carrier of Last Resort, or COLR, obligation.
Meanwhile, La Schiazza saw Madigan as all-powerful in Springfield. Emails showed that he referred to the speaker as “King Madigan” and complained that “the system is rigged.”
McClain was widely seen as Madigan’s emissary at the Capitol. And after McClain reached out seeking a job for the recently retired Acevedo, La Schiazza asked his team to “move quickly.”
AT&T Illinois funneled the payments to Acevedo through a firm belonging to lobbyist Tom Cullen. A separate AT&T lobbyist, Stephen Selcke, said he suggested such an arrangement because Republicans had promised to vote against AT&T if it hired Acevedo.
The COLR bill became law around July 1, 2017, with Madigan’s support. The request from Madigan’s son, Andrew Madigan, came less than two weeks later.
Diamantatos questioned Tuesday whether Madigan even knew about the job for Acevedo. And he noted that, at one point, La Schiazza wrote in an email he wanted to make sure AT&T had “legal approval to engage [Acevedo] this way.”
The defense attorney also insisted that, to agree with prosecutors, jurors would have to believe that Madigan ignored political considerations and changed his position on a bill because of a nine-month, $22,500 contract for Acevedo.
However, Chapman stressed to jurors that a bribe doesn’t need to be successful to be criminal. And he said AT&T Illinois’ lobbying team was “far too savvy” to hire Acevedo if it would alienate Republicans and endanger its bill.
The only way Acevedo’s hiring made sense, Chapman said, is if it was “100% linked to COLR.”
