Both sides rest after jury sees emails from Speaker Madigan’s son in bribery trial of ex-AT&T boss

When AT&T Illinois boss Paul La Schiazza received an email from the son of Illinois House Speaker Michael Madigan asking for a charitable contribution in 2017, he forwarded it immediately to a member of his government relations team with a note that reads almost like a weary sigh.

“Here we go … this will be endless,” La Schiazza wrote about the request from Andrew Madigan. The assistant, Bob Barry, responded, “I suspect the ‘thank you’ opportunities will be plentiful.”

“Yep … we are on the friends and family plan now,” La Schiazza replied.

Those words were displayed for jurors at La Schiazza’s bribery trial Monday, where prosecutors allege they show his state of mind in the weeks after Madigan helped shepherd AT&T’s bill ending mandated landline service — known by the acronym COLR — through the General Assembly.

In his donation request, Andrew Madigan made clear that “our good friend Mike McClain” had suggested he reach out to AT&T. McClain, according to prosecutors, was at the center of a scheme to have AT&T funnel payments to former state Rep. Eddie Acevedo, a Madigan ally, to help win the speaker’s support.

In the email exchange shown to jurors, Barry told La Schiazza “We are” on the friends and family plan with Madigan, “and there is a sensitivity in that office about us going away now that we got COLR.”

“That is something to keep in mind in rest (of) 17 and in 18 regarding budget and profile with the Speakers office,” Barry wrote.

La Schiazza responded by noting they still had other pending legislation that would require the speaker’s assistance.

“I will emphasize that to leadership. … Especially if we expect to pass a small cell bill,” La Schiazza wrote.

AT&T wound up donating $2,500 to Andrew Madigan’s charity, according to evidence presented in court Monday.

Andrew Madigan is not accused of wrongdoing.

Shortly after presenting the emails, prosecutors rested their case after calling a total of 14 witnesses over four days of testimony. After a short sidebar with the judge, the defense also rested its case without putting on evidence. La Schiazza declined to testify in his own defense after being informed about his rights in a sidebar.

U.S. District Judge Robert Gettleman told the jury to return at 9:30 a.m. Tuesday for closing arguments.

La Schiazza, 66, was charged in an indictment returned by a federal grand jury in October 2022 with conspiracy, federal program bribery and using a facility in interstate commerce to promote unlawful activity. The most serious counts carry up to 20 years in prison if convicted. He has pleaded not guilty and has been free on bond while his case is pending.

According to prosecutors, Acevedo was paid a total of $22,500 over nine months for doing little or no work for AT&T, even though he ostensibly was supposed to produce a report on the Latino caucuses in Springfield and Chicago’s City Hall.

The final prosecution witness, FBI Special Agent Kyle Scherrer, testified Monday he searched the more than 200,000 documents produced by AT&T in response to a federal grand jury subpoena, as well as other records turned over by Acevedo, looking for evidence that Acevedo did any work pursuant to the contract.

Scherrer said he found nothing.

La Schiazza’s lawyers contend that Acevedo’s hiring was nothing more than the typical relationship building that is necessary in politics, especially when a company is trying to get lawmakers to consider its agenda. They also told the jury there was no evidence that La Schiazza thought what he was doing was improper — an element that prosecutors have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt.

The trial, which proceeded far quicker than the original three-week estimate, has offered a sneak peek at evidence that will be presented at Madigan’s own racketeering trial, which kicks off in three weeks.

Earlier Monday, La Schiazza’s attorney, Tinos Diamantatos, had a chance to cross-examine Tom Cullen, a lobbyist and former aide to Speaker Madigan who allegedly acted as the go-between for the payments from AT&T to Acevedo.

Cullen, who was granted a “non-target” letter from the government, testified on direct examination Friday that he was just trying to be a “team player” when he agreed in 2017 to take on Acevedo as an off-the-books consultant as a favor for AT&T, one of his top clients.

But Cullen told the jury Acevedo was not very pleased with AT&T’s $2,500-a-month offer, even though the job called for little or no work. In fact, Cullen said, after a meeting about the proposal, Acevedo called him and blew his stack.

“He basically said, ‘What the F is goin’ on here? I’m worth more money,’” Cullen testified, adding that his recollection was that Acevedo demanded double what was being offered.

When the prosecutor asked Cullen to use Acevedo’s exact words, Cullen quoted Acevedo as saying, “F— AT&T, they can kiss my ass.’”

Cullen told the jury he never would have hired Acevedo if AT&T hadn’t asked him, citing the Chicago Democrat’s inexperience and penchant for carousing after legislative sessions.

“I didn’t think that he was a serious lobbyist,” Cullen said. “He was brand new, potentially liked to go out and party and drink a lot, so he just wasn’t somebody I wanted to hire.”

On cross, Diamantatos pointed out that even though Cullen was protected by a non-target letter, it was up to the U.S. attorney’s office to determine if that changed — which could be any time.

“Those meetings with the government are pretty intimidating, aren’t they?” Diamantatos asked.

“They’re not fun,” Cullen agreed.

Diamantatos also pointed out repeatedly that there were no emails between Cullen and La Schiazza about the alleged scheme to hire Acevedo, and that Cullen had no direct knowledge that Madigan had requested AT&T hire him.

Cullen testified he knew La Schiazza only casually through the years.

“Would it surprise you to know that between 2015 through 2019, there were zero calls between yourself and my client, Mr. Paul La Schiazza?” Diamantatos asked.

“No,” Cullen responded.

While Cullen was testifying, his former boss, Madigan, was by happenstance appearing in a courtroom five floors below, where U.S. District Judge John Robert Blakey was holding a final pretrial conference in the case against Madigan and McClain, which begins with jury selection on Oct. 8..

In the marathon, seven-hour hearing, Blakey made series of evidentiary rulings siding with Madigan and McClain’s defense, including barring prosecutors from playing a recorded call where Madigan tells McClain some of their friends “have made out like bandits, Mike.”

McClain responded: “Oh my god, for very little work too.”

The defense argued the conversation was about labor consultant Dennis Gannon, who is not one of the ComEd subcontractors who are part of the Madigan indictment, and that Gannon told investigators Madigan had nothing to do with his hiring at the utility.

But Blakey maintained the danger of confusing jurors outweighs the government’s effort to show Madigan knew his allies who got jobs at ComEd did little or no work. The judge said he was willing to revisit the issue depending on how the evidence shakes out.

Blakey also barred specific mention of other people that former Ald. Daniel Solis cooperated against during his turn as an FBI mole, including the now-convicted former Ald. Edward Burke.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Amarjeet Bhachu argued the jury should hear that Solis’ deferred prosecution deal with the government, which means he will be free of any criminal conviction when his cooperation is over, was the result of much more that simply cooperating against Madigan and McClain.

Bhachu said Solis was “going to raked over the coals” by the defense about the unprecedented nature of the deal, so jurors should have the full context for what he did.

The judge ruled that for now, Solis could testify he cooperated against other “prominent” politicians, though that could change depending on how far the defense goes on cross-examination.

Blakey did agree to allow evidence about McClain helping arrange contracts to help Kevin Quinn after Madigan ousted the longtime aide over sexual harassment of a campaign worker.

But Blakey ruled that references to sexual harassment should be eliminated from recordings of conversations and transcripts about the activities. The judge said references to misconduct could remain in evidence, but that the nature of the misconduct was not necessary.

The prosecution wanted references to misconduct brought into evidence to undercut defense arguments that Madigan and McClain helped out people based on more than qualifications.

jmeisner@chicagotribune.com