CHICAGO — A federal judge on Thursday postponed the retrial of of ex-AT&T Illinois boss Paul La Schiazza on bribery counts related to former House Speaker Michael Madigan, allowing the new U.S. Attorney in Chicago to consider next steps in the case and avoiding the possibility that Madigan would be sentenced in the same same courthouse while La Schiazza’s jury was deliberating.

The abrupt move came as the parties met for a pretrial conference before U.S. District Judge Robert Gettleman in advance of La Schiazza’s retrial, which had been set for June 3.

Instead, Assistant U.S. Attorney Timothy Chapman advised the judge that both sides were in agreement that the trial should be delayed at least until fall, in large part to give prosecutors “more time to consider our position, especially with our new U.S. attorney (Andrew Boutros) coming on board.”

“He’s basically drinking from a firehose right now in the first few weeks since his arrival,” Chapman said.

La Schiazza’s attorney said he was in agreement with the delay.

In his first interview with reporters earlier this week, Boutros referenced a series of corruption cases over the past eight months that have ended with the jury deadlocked on some or all counts, most recently last week when a jury failed to reach a verdict on any counts against state Sen. Emil Jones III.

Boutros said his office is looking closely at those cases to see if there are any lessons going forward. He said he suspects some of it “transcends the office and the work that we are doing,” and could have more to do with societal or cultural shifts, such as the “‘CSI’ phenomenon” from years ago where jurors who watched crime dramas on TV expected prosecutors in real life to always have DNA or other forensic evidence to prove a crime.

“I think these are all learning opportunities,” Boutros said. “We have to study what is going on. Why are we hanging on some of these counts? We don’t want to do the same thing over and over again if there has been a change.”

Moving La Schiazza’s trial also avoids any conflict with Madigan’s sentencing, which is currently set for June 13 before U.S. District Judge John Robert Blakey. The jury in Madigan’s case deadlocked in February on the lone charge related to La Schiazza, but convicted the former Democratic speaker on host of other corruption charges involving a similar bribery scheme by ComEd.

Gettleman noted that having both proceedings unfolding at the same time “was a real concern” and that he’d already been considering moving the start of La Schiazza’s trial until after Madigan’s sentencing was complete.

Also Thursday, Gettleman said Thursday he’s still considering a revamp of the jury instructions in La Schiazza’s case, which, like many bribery-related cases, are in flux after the U.S. Supreme Court raised the bar in a ruling last year on what prosecutors have to prove.

“I think we’ve seen juries hang lately — including ours– because i think these instructions are inherently confusing,” Gettleman said. “…I don’t want another hung jury. And I don’t think anybody does. I want these to be as plain as possible”

In the end, Gettleman settled on a new trial date for La Schiazza for Jan. 22, 2026.

“Well, I guess that’s all we do today,” he told both sides “Have a nice June, I guess. Find something else to do.”

La Schiazza, 67, 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 charges alleged La Schiazza agreed in 2017 to pay $2,500 a month to former state Rep. Edward Acevedo, Madigan’s onetime assistant majority leader, through the lobbying firm of longtime Madigan political aide Tom Cullen.

In exchange for the payments, the speaker helped shepherd AT&T’s bill ending mandated landline service through the General Assembly, giving La Schiazza a career notch on his belt and saving the telecommunications giant millions of dollars, according to prosecutors.

La Schiazza’s attorneys argued it was nothing more than legal lobbying, and that there was no evidence that Acevedo’s hiring was tied to any official action by Madigan.

The trial in September was seen as a sort of litmus test for prosecutors in the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision last June that the federal 666 bribery statute required an advance agreement by both sides to exchange an official act for something of value, rather than a “gratuity” given after the fact.

After a weeklong trial, including three days of deliberation, Gettleman declared a mistrial when the jury announced it had deadlocked. The panel was overwhelmingly leaning toward a conviction, juror Jocelyn Duran told the Tribune, but a lone holdout was not convinced and said there was nothing that could change their mind.

One juror who stayed behind to talk to lawyers in the case in open court, a 62-year-old man from Naperville, told the defense panel that the discussions bogged down over whether there had been an “exchange” between La Schiazza and Madigan and if La Schiazza knew that it was improper.

“We really struggled with (La Schiazza’s) intent,” he said.

Madigan, meanwhile, was convicted on 10 of 23 counts, including one count of conspiracy related to a multipronged scheme to accept and solicit bribes from utility giant Commonwealth Edison. Jurors also convicted him on two counts of bribery and one Travel Act violation related to payments funneled to Madigan associates for do-nothing ComEd subcontracts.

Madigan also was convicted on six out of seven counts — including wire fraud and Travel Act violations — regarding a plan to get ex-Ald. Daniel Solis, a key FBI mole who testified at length in the trial, appointed to a state board.

But the jury’s final verdict was mixed, deadlocking on several counts — including the AT&T related count and the marquee racketeering conspiracy charge — and acquitting Madigan on numerous others. Jurors also deadlocked on all six counts related to Madigan’s co-defendant, Michael McClain.

Unlike in La Schiazza’s first trial, prosecutors in Madigan’s case called Acevedo, who suffers from dementia and various other ailments, to the witness stand to testify about the payments he received from AT&T through Cullen.

Prosecutors fought hard to get Acevedo in the courtroom. He’d initially invoked his Fifth Amendment right not to testify, but the U.S. attorney’s office secured a grant of immunity that compelled him to take the stand.

Acevedo’s attorney Gabrielle Sansonetti then argued strenuously that Acevedo’s dementia diagnosis means he is not competent to testify reliably. Blakey determined that Acevedo could take the stand only after interviewing him at length in chambers.

In the end it was unclear whether Acevedo’s testimony helped the government. He testified that he never asked anyone for a no-show job and even talked about his assignments with AT&T lobbyist Michael Lieteau at the “rail,” a popular gathering spot in the state Capitol. Acevedo also said that his sons had actually done some work for AT&T, and when he was getting paid he believed he was acting in conjunction with them.

“We worked as a team,” Acevedo said.

Lieteau, however, later testified that he did not ever recall asking Acevedo questions at the rail.

“Any work that he was performing for AT&T, I was not aware,” Lieteau said.

Prosecutors have not publicly revealed whether they planned to call Acevedo in La Schiazza’s second trial. A witness list filed earlier this month remains under seal.

____

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