Judge considers whether ex-AT&T boss should be acquitted after hung jury in corruption case

An ongoing lawsuit against Michael Madigan is looming over an alleged bribery scheme at AT&T

By ANDREW ADAMS
Capitol News Illinois
[email protected]

CHICAGO – Paul La Schiazza, the ex-AT&T Illinois boss accused of bribing a powerful politician, could be a free man next month.

After three hours of oral arguments on Thursday, a federal judge is now considering whether to grant the former telecom executive’s request for acquittal following a high-profile mistrial earlier this year.

A hung jury sent La Schiazza home in September without knowing whether the government would seek a new trial. U.S. District Judge Robert Gettleman declined to convene a meeting after the trial concluded pending his decision on this acquittal request.

La Schiazza is accused of directing more than $20,000 in AT&T funds to Eddie Acevedo over a nine-month period in 2017 for an underemployment consulting job as an AT&T subcontractor. At the time, Acevedo was a recently retired state representative and former chairman of the Latino Caucus in the Illinois House.

The appointment was proposed by Michael McClain, a longtime ally of then-Illinois House Speaker Michael Madigan, who is now his co-defendant in a separate corruption trial. In one letter seen by the jury, McClain described Madigan as his “real client,” while other witnesses testified that it was common knowledge in Springfield that McClain was acting as an intermediary for the powerful speaker.

The company, eager to pass a bill that would overturn a 1930s law that required it to maintain outdated copper telephone lines, tried to influence Madigan, who was seen as Springfield’s legislative gatekeeper.

Acevedo’s hiring for a non-work contract, which prosecutors allege constitutes a bribe under federal and state law, is at the center of La Schiazza’s legal battle.

Thursday’s hearing saw a repeat of many of the themes of the September trial, with La Schiazza’s lawyers arguing that the hiring was not an illegal bribe, but a legally protected attempt to build a “reservoir of goodwill” with Madigan to generate. In particular, they argued that direct evidence from the trial showed that there was no agreed upon “exchange” between La Schiazza and Madigan’s representatives.

“You need more,” said La Schiazza’s lawyer Tinos Diamantatos. “And in this case, when you look for that ‘more,’ it’s not there.”

Diamantatos also drew parallels between La Schiazza’s hearing and Madigan’s own corruption trial, which is taking place five floors below at the Dirksen Federal Courthouse in Chicago.

He contrasted the evidence in that case — which included secret recordings of Madigan and other elected officials — and argued that the evidence in this case does not meet the burden necessary to convict La Schiazza.

This review of the trial materials is important for these types of motions for acquittal, as La Schiazza and his attorneys must convince Gettleman that no rational juror could have found La Schiazza guilty.

Though he said nothing Thursday, La Schiazza remained intently focused on Gettleman’s podium, rarely looking away from the judge who would soon announce his fate.

In oral arguments and written statements, prosecutors attacked the defense’s request for acquittal. Assistant U.S. Attorney Tim Chapman said Thursday that La Schiazza’s defense relied on a “mythology” that Madigan must have promised something to La Schiazza because his conduct would constitute a crime.

“If the defendant thought he was influencing Madigan and Madigan had nothing to do with this, he would still be guilty,” Chapman said.

Prosecutors also reiterated some of their own arguments from the trial, including reiterating their view that Acevedo’s hiring was done with the intent to “corruptly” influence Madigan.

Chapman argued that it “would have been insane” for La Schiazza to hire Acevedo without the expectation that it would influence Madigan.

“He was definitely someone that no one wanted to hire as a lobbyist,” he said, referring to testimony during the trial of Acevedo’s bad reputation in Springfield.

But even without Madigan personally asking La Schiazza to do so, Chapman insisted that the lobbyists involved in Acevedo’s hiring knew “logically and immediately” that Madigan was behind the request.

Additionally, they repeated evidence that they say shows a rational juror could have convicted La Schiazza, such as evidence that La Schiazza concealed Acevedo’s hiring from other AT&T employees and viewed the scheme as a way to “get credit” with Madigan.

Gettleman, who acknowledged that this procedural step involved longer-than-normal briefs and an “unusually well-presented procedure,” will issue a written opinion on the order by the middle of next month.

He scheduled a hearing to explain his ruling for Dec. 19.

Capitol News Illinois is a nonprofit, nonpartisan news service that distributes state government reporting to hundreds of news outlets statewide. It is funded primarily by the Illinois Press Foundation and the Robert R. McCormick Foundation.