CHICAGO – As the verdict was read inside a second-floor courtroom, former House Speaker Michael Madigan – once the hegemon of Illinois politics – was still. Very still.
He looked down, showing little emotion as the judge read the split verdict – guilty on 10 counts including bribery and conspiracy, not guilty on seven others, and with the jury at an impasse on six other charges, including racketeering.
Madigan, the longest serving Illinois House Speaker, left the courtroom flanked by one of his daughters. They spent several minutes in a small room across the courtroom before being escorted outside the Dirksen federal courthouse by U.S. Marshals.
Flanked by reporters and cameras, Madigan was asked how he was feeling?
“How are you? You are the one we’re concerned about," he said.
And with that, he was led away into the Monadnock building across the street.
Local
Nearby, a juror who identified himself as Malik, agreed to share his insight into how jurors came to their decision after more than 60 hours of deliberations in this four-month long trial.
Malik said in his view “the evidence added up. In terms of the deliberations the way individuals saw it – it wasn’t clicking” adding that people saw it different ways.
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.
Specifically, he said jurors were able to come to a consensus with a guilty verdict on count 2 – a conspiracy charge involving Madigan. He was also convicted on two other bribery counts among other charges.
“I think the way that we did it for each particular count – especially for count 2 (conspiracy) – when it pertains to bribery – that was absolutely there as the government presented that evidence. But in terms of count 1, (large racketeering conspiracy charge that alleged criminal enterprise) – I think we were all really on the fence, so we didn’t come to a decision on that one,” Malik said.
When asked what was the most challenging part of jury’s deliberations, he said it was the struggle to get to a consensus that taught him the most.
“Personally, what I’ve learned is that individuals are coming from a different perspective in terms of the way they view the evidence the way it was presented. So that was probably the most challenging part was coming to a consensus of what everybody seen , the words that is in the instructions from the judge," he said.
Prosecutors alleged that Madigan used his influence as Illinois House Speaker to enrich himself and others – alleging that he traded jobs and favors in exchange for favorable votes in Springfield.
In making their case, prosecutors leaned on more than 150 tapes, wiretaps and transcripts.
“Michael Madigan breached and violated that trust… he abused public office,” Acting U.S. Attorney Morris Pasqual for the Northern District of Illinois told reporters Wednesday afternoon.
Madigan – who at one point took the stand in his own defense – defended his conduct along with his legal team, who argued he was a politician trying to help others.
Malik said there were two holdouts on the jury – but declined to identify who they were or with what counts.
The U.S. Attorney's Office said Wednesday that no decision had been made yet on whether it will retry the counts where jurors were deadlocked.
A sentencing hearing for Madigan is expected at a later date.
