Associated Press photo
By Brett Rowland | The Center Square
Defense attorneys for the four former Commonwealth Edison executives and lobbyists convicted of bribing one of the state’s most powerful politicians have asked a judge to drop the case.
The four defendants, who have not be sentenced, want Judge Manish Shah to dismiss the indictment against them and issue an acquittal after a U.S. Supreme Court ruling on the federal bribery statute.
In June, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down part of a federal bribery statute that makes it a crime for state and local officials to accept gifts valued at over $5,000 from a donor who had previously been awarded contracts or other government benefits thanks to the official’s efforts. The 6-3 decision could affect how prosecutors across the country pursue public corruption cases.
On May 2, 2023, an Illinois jury convicted former state lawmaker and lobbyist Michael McClain, former ComEd CEO Anne Pramaggiore, former ComEd lobbyist John Hooker and former contract lobbyist Jay Doherty. The case involved a conspiracy to bribe former Illinois House Speaker Michael Madigan with $1.3 million in no-show jobs, contracts and payments to associates in exchange for support with legislation that would benefit the utility’s bottom line.
This week, defense attorneys called the entire case “rotten.”
“On that foundation, the Government built an edifice of overlapping charges. But as with all structures, if the foundation is rotten, the structure will fall,” defense attorneys wrote in a memo in support of their request. “And in Snyder v. United States, the Supreme Court confirmed that the Government’s theory has been rotten from the start.”
Prosecutors have said the high court ruling in Snyder doesn’t require a new trial, but they have yet to respond to the latest motion from the defendants.
“Acquittal is the appropriate remedy for the Government’s strategic decision to rest its case on a rotten foundation,” defense attorneys wrote. “Defendants recognize that it is unusual to request a judgment of acquittal following a jury verdict based on a change in the law. But this is no ordinary case. Defendants in this case have been protesting their innocence from the start precisely because there was no quid pro quo that could form the basis of criminal liability.”
Story continues here, including PDF’s of filings.
Leave a Reply