Jury stalemate, mistrial in case of former AT&T chief accused of bribing Madigan

The jury deliberated for nearly 15 hours before announcing a stalemate on all counts

By HANNAH MEISEL
Capitol News Illinois
[email protected]

CHICAGO – A federal judge declared a mistrial Thursday after a deadlock in jury deliberations on whether former AT&T Illinois President Paul La Schiazza bribed longtime Illinois House Speaker Michael Madigan by offering the speaker's political ally a non-employment contract.

After nearly 15 hours of deliberations over three days, the jury forewoman told U.S. District Judge Robert Gettleman that she was “absolutely certain” that she and her fellow jurors could not find a way out of the deadlock.

“We're all disappointed in some ways,” Gettleman said as he dismissed the jury. “That's the way it goes. We need a unanimous verdict and sometimes we don't get it.”

Read more: Case of former AT&T boss accused of bribing Madigan goes to trial

The parties will meet again early next week to decide next steps, including whether there will be a retrial. La Schiazza, who retired from AT&T in 2019 and now lives out of state, stood stoically at the defense table as the jury told Gettleman it had not yet made a decision.

La Schiazza was charged nearly two years ago in a five-count indictment alleging he participated in a conspiracy to bribe Madigan in 2017. Prosecutors alleged he did so by arranging for AT&T to indirectly pay recently retired state Rep. Eddie Acevedo $22,500 over a nine-month period when Acevedo was not working for the company.

In return, the government said, Madigan pushed a bill through the Illinois House of Representatives that AT&T had been pushing for years, ultimately saving the company hundreds of millions of dollars annually. At the time, Illinois was one of only two states that still had laws dating back to the 1930s that required AT&T to maintain its aging copper wireline system. The company wanted to invest the money instead in newer technologies like broadband and wireless, as its competitors could do.

The first indication that the jury might have trouble reaching a decision came Wednesday, when the foreman sent Gettleman a note asking for clarification on whether federal bribery law actually requires proof of an exchange or just intent for a conviction. The judge did not answer the question directly, but reread the instructions he had given the jury earlier. On Thursday morning, the jury sent another note indicating a stalemate, and Gettleman read the detailed instructions again, asking jurors to try again.

Before the jury returned to the courtroom Thursday afternoon, the judge told the parties that they had “really tried hard” considering the volume of conversations that could be heard through the jury room door.

Prosecutors wanted to send the jury a note reminding them that they could enter a partial verdict, but Gettleman agreed with La Schiazza's lawyers that such an instruction could unduly influence the jury.

“I respect the jury too much to say they got it wrong,” he told the parties before the jury re-entered the courtroom. “There may be people who say, 'I can't convict this guy,' or 'I'm going to convict him on all counts because I don't like the way things are going in Springfield.'”

After being dismissed, the jury agreed to speak with La Schiazza's lawyers, who took notes at the defense table and asked about the specific arguments they made in the case. The jurors also discussed their testimony with prosecutors in a conference room across the courtroom.

During the trial, jurors were not told that AT&T had agreed to a $23 million deferred settlement when La Schiazza was charged, meaning the company admitted to the bribery, nor were they told that Madigan is due in court next month on related charges.

Read more: Madigan case expands as AT&T agrees to $23 million fine | One month after Supreme Court bribery ruling, Madigan-related corruption cases move forward

Throughout the trial, La Schiazza's lawyers insisted that AT&T's government affairs team had invested more than seven years in a sophisticated lobbying strategy and that La Schiazza and his colleagues had begun to reap the fruits of their labor in 2015, long before Acevedo's contract.

Both sides agreed that Madigan's close aide Mike McClain, a recently retired Statehouse lobbyist, suggested to an AT&T lobbyist that the company find “a small contract” for Acevedo in early 2017. But La Schiazza's lawyers stressed that it was not unusual for lobbyists to be approached about jobs and contracts, and that AT&T's government affairs team wanted to “reach out” to those in Madigan's orbit so as not to “cause a ruckus” with the powerful speaker.

In addition, they claimed that none of the evidence presented during the trial established that McClain, who was known for boasting about his relationship with the speaker, was hired by Madigan to find Acevedo a contract with AT&T.

Federal authorities asked the jury to consider the timing of McClain's email to AT&T lobbyist Robert Barry asking about a contract for Acevedo. That email, dated Feb. 14, 2017, they pointed out, came just four hours after La Schiazza and his colleagues received good news in a separate email informing them that Madigan had agreed to a meeting to discuss the AT&T bill.

Two days later, La Schiazza spoke with McClain, who told the AT&T chief, according to an email La Schiazza sent to his colleagues after the call, that the spokesman had assigned the company's bill to McClain as a “special project.”

“The game begins,” he wrote in the note.

During four days of testimony from more than a dozen witnesses – including several FBI agents – prosecutors showed the jury dozens of emails between La Schiazza and AT&T Illinois' executive team, many of which dated back to 2017, when lobbyists arranged the Acevedo contract and La Schiazza approved it.

La Schiazza's lawyers declined to call defense witnesses, and La Schiazza did not take the stand. But his legal team conducted extensive cross-examination of government witnesses, particularly retired AT&T lobbyist Steve Selcke, who appeared under an immunity agreement with authorities.

Read more: Prosecutors drop case against former AT&T boss from Illinois who allegedly bribed Madigan | Former AT&T lobbyist describes on the witness stand how Madigan's ally got a $22,500 contract

In emails shown during the trial, Selcke suggested to La Schiazza and the rest of the lobbying team that registering Acevedo as a lobbyist for AT&T would cause problems with Republicans whose votes the company was counting on. Another email to La Schiazza from lobbyist Brian Gray suggested that he and Selcke had agreed that a better way would be to pay Acevedo indirectly through an existing contract with AT&T's outside lobbyist, Tom Cullen.

In the same email chain, Gray and La Schiazza discussed how to get AT&T “credit” for the Acevedo contract. But under questioning by prosecutors and La Schiazza's lawyers last week, Selcke said he did not believe the Acevedo contract had anything to do with AT&T's legislation and did not constitute bribery.

La Schiazza's lawyer, Jack Dodds, asked Selcke if “credit” was a “code word for bribery,” to which Selcke replied no.

“Because that wasn’t what you wanted to do, was it?” asked Dodds.

“It wasn’t that,” he said.

After defense attorneys pointed to that part of Selcke's testimony during their closing arguments Tuesday, prosecutors attempted to downplay the potential significance of that exchange to the jury by telling jurors during rebuttal that “what Mr. Selcke believed does not indicate what the defendant believed.”

During the trial, the jury also heard Cullen testify that he had little to do with Acevedo other than acting as a facilitator for AT&T's payments to the retired congressman. Unlike Selcke, Cullen was clearly convinced that Acevedo did not work for AT&T during the nine months that Cullen wrote him monthly checks for $2,500.

Acevedo has already served a six-month prison sentence after pleading guilty to tax evasion related to his lobbying activities.

The government also claimed that the assignment Acevedo received – a report on the internal political dynamics of the Latino factions of the Illinois General Assembly and the Chicago City Council – was fabricated to make the contract appear more legitimate, which was confirmed by Cullen's testimony.

“Hey, have you seen the report?” Cullen jokingly asked an AT&T lobbyist in late 2017. “I don't think any of us expected there would be a report.”

Capitol News Illinois is a nonprofit, nonpartisan news service that covers state government. It is distributed to hundreds of newspapers, radio and television stations statewide. It is funded primarily by the Illinois Press Foundation and the Robert R. McCormick Foundation, with major contributions from the Illinois Broadcasters Foundation and the Southern Illinois Editorial Association.