Ex-AT&T Illinois CEO Paul La Schiazza’s bribery case dismissed against Mike Madigan

CHICAGO— A federal judge declared a mistrial Thursday after the jury could not reach an agreement on whether former A.T.Illinois State President Paul La Schiazza bribed longtime Illinois House Speaker Michael Madigan by offering him a job contract that his political ally could not accept.

ABC7 Chicago is now available to watch 24/7. Click here to watch

After nearly 15 hours of deliberations spread over three days, the jury forewoman told U.S. District Judge Robert Gettleman that she was “absolutely certain” she and the other jurors would find no way to break the impasse.

“We’re all kind of disappointed,” Gettleman said as he dismissed the jury. “That’s how it works. We need a unanimous verdict, and sometimes we don’t get it.”

SEE ALSO: Former AT&T IL president in big trouble over ‘small contract’ for Mike Madigan ally; jury selection begins

The parties will meet again early next week to decide on next steps, including whether there will be a retrial. La Schiazza, who retired from AT&T in 2019, who now lives out of state, stood stoic at the defense table as the jury informed Gettleman of its lack of a decision.

La Schiazza was indicted nearly two years ago in a five-count indictment accusing him of conspiring to bribe Madigan in 2017. Prosecutors said he did so by organizing an AT&T indirectly paid recently retired state representative Eddie Acevedo $22,500 for a nine-month period during which Acevedo did not do any work for the company.

In return, federal authorities accused Madigan of authorizing legislation that&T had been pushing for years to pass the Illinois House of Representatives, which ultimately saved the company hundreds of millions of dollars a year. At the time, Illinois was one of only two states that still had laws on the books from the 1930s requiring AT&T is supposed to keep its aging copper landline system. The company wanted to be able to invest that money in newer technologies like broadband and wireless instead, just as its competitors could.

The first sign that the jury might have trouble reaching a conclusion came Wednesday when the presiding judge sent Gettleman a note asking for clarification on whether federal bribery law actually requires proof of an exchange or merely intent to convict. The judge did not respond directly to the inquiry, but reread instructions he had previously given the jury. On Thursday morning, the jury sent another note indicating an impasse, and Gettleman reread the lengthy instructions and asked jurors to try again.

Before the jury returned to the courtroom Thursday afternoon, the judge told the parties that, judging by the volume of conversations heard through the jury room door, they had “tried very hard.”

Prosecutors wanted to send a note to the jury reminding it of the possibility of a partial verdict, but Gettleman agreed with La Schiazza’s lawyers that such an instruction could have undue influence on the jury.

“I have too much respect for the jury to suggest they didn’t do it right,” he told the jury before the jurors reentered the courtroom. “There may be some people who say, ‘I can’t convict this guy,’ or ‘I’m convicting him of everything because I don’t like the way things are going in Springfield.’”

After being released, jurors agreed to speak with La Schiazza’s lawyers, who took notes as they sat at the defense table, asking about specific arguments they had used in the case. Jurors also dismissed prosecutors in a conference room across the hall from the courtroom.

During the trial, the jurors were not informed that AT&T agreed to a $23 million deferred prosecution when La Schiazza was charged, meaning the company admitted to bribery. It also was not told that Madigan would go on trial on related charges next month.

Throughout the trial, La Schiazza’s lawyers maintained that&T’s government relations team has spent more than seven years developing a sophisticated lobbying strategy, and La Schiazza and his colleagues began seeing the fruits of their labor in 2015 — long before Acevedo was signed.

Both sides agreed that Madigan’s close confidant, Mike McClain, a recently retired state Capitol lobbyist, suggested ATA&T lobbyist said the firm found a “small contract” for Acevedo in early 2017. But La Schiazza’s lawyers stressed that it is not unusual for lobbyists to be asked about jobs and contracts, and that A&T&T’s government relations team wanted to be “responsive” to the needs of those around Madigan so as not to “disturb the peace” in their dealings with the influential speaker.

They further argued that none of the evidence presented at trial proved that McClain, known for bragging about his relationship with the speaker, was instructed by Madigan to find Acevedo a contract with A.T.&T.

Federal authorities urged jury to consider timing of McClain’s email to AT&T lobbyist Robert Barry asks about Acevedo’s contract. They pointed out that this email, dated Feb. 14, 2017, came just four hours after La Schiazza and his colleagues heard the good news in a separate email informing them that Madigan had agreed to a meeting to discuss ATBill &T.

Two days later, La Schiazza spoke with McClain, who informed ATThe &T chief said the chairman had tasked McClain with considering the company’s proposed legislation as a “special project,” La Schiazza said in an email to his aides after the call.

“The game is on,” he wrote in the note.

During four days of testimony from more than a dozen witnesses, including several FBI agents, prosecutors showed jurors dozens of emails exchanged between La Schiazza and AT’s management team.&T Illinois. Many of them dated back to 2017, when lobbyists secured Acevedo’s contract and La Schiazza approved it.

La Schiazza’s lawyers declined to call defense witnesses, and La Schiazza did not testify. However, his legal team conducted lengthy cross-examination of government witnesses, most notably retired AT&T lobbyist Steve Selcke, who appeared under an immunity agreement with federal authorities.

In emails shown at trial, Selcke suggested to La Schiazzie and the rest of the lobbying team that Acevedo register as an AT lobbyist.&T would cause problems with Republicans the company was counting on to secure votes. Another email to La Schiazza from lobbyist Brian Gray indicated that he and Selcke agreed that a better path forward would be to pay Acevedo indirectly through an existing contract with A.T.&T outside lobbyist Tom Cullen.

In the same email chain, Gray and La Schiazza discussed making sure AT&T will receive “credit” for the Acevedo contract. But under questioning by prosecutors and La Schiazza lawyers last week, Selcke said he did not believe the Acevedo contract had anything to do with ATdid not comply with A&T legislation, nor did it constitute a bribe.

La Schiazza’s attorney, Jack Dodds, asked Selcke if “credit” was “code for bribe,” to which Selcke replied it was not.

“Because you didn’t think you were doing it, did you?” Dodds asked.

“No, no,” he said.

After defense attorneys addressed that part of Selcke’s testimony during closing arguments Tuesday, prosecutors sought to lessen the potential burden of the exchange on jurors by telling jurors during rebuttal that “what Mr. Selcke believed is not what the defendant believed.”

The jury also heard testimony from Cullen during the trial, who testified that other than acting as a go-between for AT, he had little involvement with Acevedo.&T payments to retired lawmaker. Unlike Selcke, Cullen was unequivocal in his belief that Acevedo did no work for AT&T during the nine months during which Cullen paid him monthly checks of $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 alleged that the assignment Acevedo received — a report on the internal political dynamics of Latino factions in the Illinois General Assembly and the Chicago City Council — was made up to make the contract seem more credible, a claim Cullen testified.

“Hey, have you seen this report?” Cullen recalled jokingly asking AT.&T lobbyist in late 2017. “I don’t think any of us expected there would be a report like this.”

Capitol News Illinois is a nonprofit, nonpartisan news service covering state government. It is distributed to hundreds of print and broadcast stations throughout the state. 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.