The decide presiding over former Illinois Home Speaker Michael J. Madigan’s corruption trial dominated Wednesday that ex-state Rep. Edward “Eddie” Acevedo should testify if referred to as by the feds — however protection attorneys warned that prosecutors summon him “at their very own peril.”
U.S. District Decide John Blakey ordered Acevedo to testify regardless of issues about Acevedo’s psychological well being. Prosecutors say they are going to doubtless name Acevedo, 61, to the stand Monday. He received’t endure a video deposition that had been thought of to safeguard his testimony.
Nonetheless, Assistant U.S. Lawyer Amarjeet Bhachu warned that Acevedo earlier made feedback in entrance of a grand jury about Madigan that weren’t prompted by a prosecutor. An identical outburst at trial might be problematic and even result in a mistrial movement.
Troublesome testimony might be edited out of a video deposition, and Blakey raised the concept earlier this week. However attorneys on each side of the case in the end selected to not pursue it. Madigan legal professional Todd Pugh warned that prosecutors name Acevedo “at their very own peril.”
“We’ll well timed object as issues come,” Pugh mentioned.
The warning didn’t appear to discourage prosecutors a bit.
Acevedo, a former assistant Home majority chief who served a six-month prison sentence for tax evasion in 2022, performs a job in two alleged schemes at problem in Madigan’s trial. Jurors heard intensive testimony about certainly one of them later Wednesday.
Madigan and Acevedo are each Democrats from Chicago’s Southwest Aspect. Madigan resigned in 2021 and is now on trial for a racketeering conspiracy. Michael McClain, his longtime ally, can also be on trial and accused of appearing as Madigan’s agent.
Blakey and the attorneys met privately with Acevedo within the decide’s chambers on Tuesday. Then, the decide heard additional arguments from the attorneys Wednesday morning. But it surely was a dizzying back-and-forth that Bhachu mentioned even left his head “spinning.”
Protection attorneys defined that their earlier assembly with Acevedo didn’t depart them fearing an outburst from the previous lawmaker. However Madigan legal professional Dan Collins advised the decide that Acevedo “lacks any sort of recollection on the info at problem.”
“That is going to be an absolute mishmash on the info,” Collins mentioned of Acevedo’s testimony.
Gabrielle Sansonetti, Acevedo’s legal professional, advised the decide that something Acevedo says will probably be compromised as a result of he’s been identified with dementia.
“All people has an curiosity on this continuing and the way it goes,” Sansonetti mentioned. “I’ve an curiosity in Mr. Acevedo. That’s my curiosity. And never placing anyone on the stand to only humiliate them. For what motive?”
In the end, Blakey referred to as Acevedo as much as a podium in entrance of his bench. Acevedo, utilizing a walker, listened because the decide advised him there’s a distinction between “credibility” and “competency.”
“Should you give truthful solutions to questions on this continuing, they can’t be used in opposition to you straight or not directly,” Blakey advised Acevedo, reiterating an immunity ruling Blakey issued final week.
The decide added, “You’ll have to testify.”
When he requested if Acevedo understood, Acevedo mentioned, “Sure sir.”
Regardless of the drama over Acevedo’s testimony, prosecutors continued to make their case to the jury, with an obvious purpose of resting subsequent week. The feds walked jurors by way of a sequence of emails and textual content messages displaying how AT&T lobbyists maneuvered in an in the end profitable bid to get a prized piece of laws handed in Springfield — and rapidly related with McClain to make it occur.
As the corporate aimed to vary a state legislation requiring AT&T Illinois to supply landline service statewide, its president Paul La Schiazza reminded his group of lobbyists in February 2017 that “no invoice can get by way of the legislature and to the Governor with out the tacit approval of the omnipotent Home Speaker Michael Madigan.”
Jurors noticed additional emails from La Schiazza reporting that Madigan had assigned their invoice as a “particular venture” to McClain, who in a separate e mail requested lobbyist Robert Barry if there was “even a small contract for Eddie Acevedo?”
The AT&T group then organized for Acevedo to be paid by way of the agency of Tom Cullen, a longtime Madigan staffer-turned-lobbyist who was additionally contracted with the telecom big.
Acevedo beforehand served as a key ally of Madigan’s as chair of the statehouse Latino Caucus, Cullen mentioned.
He and the AT&T lobbyists met within the Capitol to supply Acevedo a $2,500-per-month contract for what amounted to “busy work,” Cullen testified, however an offended Acevedo rebuffed them, complaining that he was “price extra money and AT&T was being low-cost.”
“He mentioned, ‘f— AT&T. They’ll kiss my ass,’” Cullen advised the court docket.
Acevedo later referred to as again and took the deal, Cullen mentioned.
Cullen additionally walked jurors by way of a set of funds to a different Madigan loyalist, ex-aide Kevin Quinn, who was compelled out of the speaker’s thirteenth Ward group over sexual harassment allegations, though jurors have solely been advised it was “misconduct.”
Prosecutors performed a recorded cellphone name of McClain asking Cullen to hitch “a bunch of us” in paying $1,000 per thirty days to Quinn to “maintain him afloat.”
Cullen eagerly agreed, saying “it’s not even a query.”
Requested in court docket if he had any precise want to rent Quinn, Cullen mentioned “probably not.”
So why decide to month-to-month contracts totaling $6,000 for Quinn?
“I used to be loyal to the operation,” Cullen mentioned. “I used to be loyal to Mike McClain.”
