Nearly 6 years after indictment, plug not being pulled on 'ComEd Four' case just yet

CHICAGO — Nearly six years after the ComEd Four case was indicted, the plug isn’t being pulled just yet.

At the first court hearing since the landmark conviction was overturned for former ComEd CEO Anne Pramaggiore and lobbyist Michael McClain, prosecutors said Thursday no decision had been made on whether to retry the case — though if it does go forward they would be ready as soon as early next year.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Diane MacArthur proposed that both sides come back in two months, which would give Pramaggiore’s new legal team time to review the extraordinarily large volume of evidence in the case, which includes millions of documents, wiretaps, undercover videos and emails.

U.S. District Judge Manish Shah set a status hearing for Oct. 29, when it could either be set for trial or a deal to resolve the case short of trial could be announced. But the judge warned the parties he was not interested in any lengthy delays.

“I want you to be thinking about February 2027 (for a trial),” Shah said. “It’s obviously a case of some vintage. It has been tried before, so in theory, people could get prepared and be ready for it.”

Among the members of Pramaggiore’s new high-powered legal team is Markus Funk, a former federal prosecutor who worked closely with now-U.S. Attorney Andrew Boutros.

Pramaggiore has also hired longtime Chicago white collar defense attorney Carolyn Gurland, who was part of teams that represented former Govs. George Ryan and Rod Blagojevich, and Brent Wible, the former head of the Department of Justice’s Criminal Division.

Funk, who helped lead the legendary “Family Secrets” investigation against Chicago Outfit bosses, told the judge more than 5 million documents were just dumped on his team by the U.S. attorney’s office this week.

“So the idea of an early 2027 trial date, while ambitious, it’s difficult to see how we could be prepared at this point,” Funk said.

The hearing came two months after the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals issued its written opinion vacating the convictions of Pramaggiore and McClain in a scheme to influence then-House Speaker Michael Madigan, saying recent rulings by the U.S. Supreme Court curtailed the use of federal statutes involving bribery and making false statements.

But the opinion also was clear the government had presented “significant and compelling evidence” in the case, and rejected arguments from the petitioners that they should be acquitted outright.

“Do not misread our opinion,” the judges said at the conclusion of the ruling. “We are not suggesting that Pramaggiore and McClain are innocent, only that their convictions were flawed and that they have a right to see their sentences vacated.”

Both Pramaggiore and McClain were ordered released from prison by the 7th Circuit in April a day after oral arguments in the case. They will remain free on bond pending the outcome of the case, and their appearances were waived for Thursday’s brief hearing.

If a retrial does go forward, it would likely be under counts related to falsifying ComEd’s books and records to further the scheme, rather than bribery. Prosecutors could also try to negotiate a deal with the defendants that would resolve the case short of trial, such as a plea to lesser counts or deferred prosecution agreement.

Or prosecutors could drop the matter altogether, given the age of the defendants, the costs and court resources that would have to be expended, and the fact that all four of the original defendants have served at least some time in prison.

U.S. Attorney Andrew Boutros said in a statement in June there was significant evidence and that a “properly instructed jury” could have decided to convict.

“Because the Seventh Circuit has stated that the government is ‘entitled to retry’ both defendants ‘at its discretion,’ we are weighing our options and will advise the district Court of our decision at the appropriate time,” Boutros said.

Pramaggiore, 68, and McClain, 78, were convicted along with two other colleagues in what became known as the “ComEd Four” case, which grew into one of the biggest political corruption scandals in state history.

Prosecutors alleged a conspiracy to influence Madigan by funneling payments to do-nothing subcontractors and other political perks to the speaker and then washing it from the utility’s books.

Both Pramaggiore, a onetime rising star in Chicago’s corporate world, and McClain, who was a top lobbyist for the utility and one of Madigan’s closest confidants, were sentenced to two years behind bars and had been scheduled for release in August 2027.

The two other defendants, ex-ComEd executive John Hooker and former City Club of Chicago head Jay Doherty, did not appeal their convictions and have already served prison sentences.

The Supreme Court changed the legal landscape a year after the verdict, first with its decision in the bribery case of former Portage, Indiana, Mayor James Snyder, ruling that “gratuities” given to elected officials with no direct tie to official actions are not illegal under the statute known as “666,” its number in the criminal code, which was also used to prosecute the ComEd Four.

Another Supreme Court decision followed in the case against former Chicago Ald. Patrick Daley Thompson, who was convicted of lying to banking regulators. That ruling said the law does not criminalize statements that are misleading but not demonstrably false — which had bearing in the ComEd Four counts involving the alleged falsification of the utility’s books and records.

The case was upended after consolidated arguments for McClain and Pramaggiore before the 7th Circuit, where a three-judge panel had tough questions for a government lawyer about how the conspiracy conviction could stand after the high court said “gratuities” given to elected officials with no direct tie to official actions are not illegal.

Madigan, meanwhile, was convicted in a separate trial of an array of schemes that included the ComEd bribery payments. He was sentenced to 7½ years in prison, and recently lost his appeal before a different 7th Circuit panel.

McClain also stood trial with Madigan but was not convicted on any of the counts against him in that case.

Madigan has since petitioned the Supreme Court to hear his case, a request that is pending.

____