CHICAGO — After an extended 18-day holiday break in testimony, attorneys for ex-House Speaker Michael Madigan on Monday unveiled a new prong of their defense: that the speaker had long-established protocols to prevent conflicts of interest between his government work and his private law practice.

The defense also called witnesses intended to rebut other elements of the prosecution’s case, including that Madigan’s aides helped carry ComEd legislation across the finish line in 2016 and that the speaker had told a longtime precinct captain in 2018 to keep working on political campaigns even though he was being paid as a subcontractor by the utility.

It amounted to a disjointed day of testimony in the trial, which began Oct. 8 and is inching toward a conclusion, with closing arguments possible as soon as next week.

Before the jury was sent home for the holidays Dec. 19, the case’s spotlight had finally turned to Madigan’s defense team, whose witnesses so far have offered a far different picture of the powerful Democratic speaker than the image painted by prosecutors of a conniving and opportunistic political machine boss.

On Monday morning, Madigan’s attorneys told U.S. District Judge John Robert Blakey that they intended to disprove prosecutors’ allegations that Madigan supported legislation to transfer a parcel of land in Chinatown because he anticipated getting business from the land’s would-be developers.

Madigan attorney Daniel Collins called it a “false narrative,” saying the defense hopes to introduce proof of the law firm’s long-established protocols to prevent conflicts of interest.

“This goes to the heart of why Mr. Madigan felt comfortable answering questions on Chinatown, because he was never going to get that business,” Collins said. “… He knew he was not going to be taking this work and therefore acted the way he did.”

Prosecutors objected strenuously to the inclusion of the evidence, but ultimately Blakey allowed it in.

“There is independent evidentiary significance to the fact that the firm, not the defendant but the firm, had a procedure in place which would present an obstacle to the taking on of a particular type of work or a particular project that would present a conflict of interest,” Blakey said.

Defense attorneys said they intend to call Madigan’s former law partner, Vincent “Bud” Getzendanner, to the stand Tuesday to testify about the firm’s safeguards against conflicts of interest.

But the subject also was introduced Monday through the testimony of Justin Cox, formerly a top lawyer for the speaker’s office. As chief counsel, Cox would meet with Madigan and Getzendanner twice a year to go through their client list, he testified.

“So I would be aware if there was a potential conflict, and we could flag that and make sure the speaker would not vote on a bill there may be a conflict on,” Cox said.

Cox also was asked about a wiretapped phone call from May 2018 in which Michael McClain, Madigan’s longtime confidant and co-defendant, told Cox to make sure Madigan voted “present” on the Chinatown land transfer bill.

Cox said he remembered that call but didn’t find it particularly notable because Madigan routinely refrained from voting on land transfer legislation.

“(McClain) mentioned the speaker should be not voting on the bill because it related to one of the developers that — it wasn’t clear if it was a client or somebody who was looking for business,” Cox said.

Madigan, 82, a Southwest Side Democrat, and McClain, 77, of downstate Quincy, are charged in a 23-count indictment alleging that Madigan’s vaunted state and political operations were run like a criminal enterprise to amass and increase his power and enrich himself and his associates.

In addition to bribery schemes involving ComEd and AT&T Illinois, the indictment alleges Madigan pressured developers to hire the speaker’s law firm and tried to win business by secretly supporting legislation to transfer state-owned land in Chinatown to the city so developers could build a high-rise.

Both Madigan and McClain have denied wrongdoing.

Later Monday, the defense called longtime 13th Ward precinct captain Steven Hensley to the stand to rebut testimony from another ward insider, Edward Moody, a legendary precinct captain who testified for prosecutors in November.

Prosecutors allege Moody was rewarded for his political work with a series of cushy subcontracts, through which ComEd paid him thousands of dollars to do little or no work. ComEd allegedly paid Moody and other do-nothing contractors as a way to curry favor with Madigan.

Moody testified that at one point in March 2018 he was canvassing for a county commissioner candidate near Madigan’s Southwest Side home and bumped into the speaker. Moody said he was across the street as Madigan pulled up in his car, and that he told the speaker he was concerned that he hadn’t heard about getting any actual work assignments from ComEd.

In response, Madigan told him “what you’re doing right now is what I want,” according to Moody’s testimony.

In an effort to cast doubt on that story, Madigan’s defense attorneys presented jurors a series of photos of the area around Madigan’s home at 64th Street and Keeler Avenue, implying that the driveways do not face the part of the street where Moody would have been working.

Hensley also testified it was unlikely someone would have been assigned to that precinct without his knowing about it.

But on cross-examination, prosecutors noted that the houses across the street from Madigan’s home were indeed within the boundaries of the district where Moody’s county commissioner candidate was running.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Amarjeet Bhachu also took Hensley through the considerable list of personal and financial benefits he’d received from Madigan over the years, including a series of public-sector jobs at Moraine Valley Community College, the CTA and the Cook County sheriff’s office.

Bhachu also noted that Hensley has in the past donated generously to the 13th Ward organization and to Madigan’s daughter Lisa, the former state attorney general, and that Hensley’s son received a $32,000 scholarship for a highly competitive spot at the University of Illinois — all issues the Tribune reported in a 2010 investigative story about Madigan’s clout.

The Tribune reported at the time that Madigan and other state officials came under fire for helping multiple U of I applicants get preferential treatment through a secret admissions clout list.

On questioning about the college admissions matter, Hensley grew quiet and appeared to be cagey.

He had declined in 2010 to speak to a Tribune reporter who reached him at work, and a woman who answered the phone then at Hensley’s listed address threatened to call police if a reporter called again.

But on Monday, he said he didn’t know whether Madigan helped his son get the five-figure scholarship and said he never talked to reporters about the matter — and didn’t remember if anyone at his home threatened to call the police on a reporter.

Bhachu also asked Hensley about a $1,000 campaign donation he made in 2009 to then-Cook County Democratic boss Joseph Berrios, a longtime Madigan ally. Hensley said he didn’t remember the donation — and testified Monday that he wasn’t sure who Berrios was, “just that he was an elected official of some kind.”

Later in the day, Madigan’s team called Craig Willert, once Madigan’s political point man on the House government staff, who testified at length about his involvement with passage of the 2016 Future Energy Jobs Act legislation at the heart of the indictment.

Willert testified that unlike previous testimony by prosecution witnesses, there were no marching orders from Madigan to get the controversial legislation passed. In fact, he said, much of his work involved deciding which House Democrats should vote “no” on the bill because they were in contested “target” districts where a controversial “yes” vote could undermine their reelection.

Willert said he was also instructed to substitute certain Democrats out of committees so another representative from a non-competitive district could help Democratic lawmakers move the bill to the House floor — a common legislative practice in Springfield.

Like other defense witnesses, Willert has also offered a competing narrative about Madigan as a leader. Asked by Collins what he thought about Madigan’s work ethic, Willert said, “It was second to none.”

“It was well known in Springfield that he read every bill,” Willert said. “He was thorough. He looked at all of them.”

Did you have respect for him? Collins asked.

“The utmost,” Willert said.

_____

©2025 Chicago Tribune. Visit chicagotribune.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.