A mistrial was declared today in the trial of former AT&T Illinois President Paul La Schiazza, who was accused of bribing the ally of a powerful state legislator to secure legislation favorable to AT&T's business.
“The jury reports that they have reached an impasse and are unable to reach a unanimous verdict. For the reasons set forth in the record, the court declares a mistrial,” U.S. District Judge Robert Gettleman wrote today in an order following the trial in the Northern District of Illinois.
La Schiazza could face new trial. AT&T itself agreed to pay a $23 million fine in 2022 to resolve a federal criminal investigation into alleged misconduct related to efforts to influence former Illinois House Speaker Michael Madigan. AT&T “admitted that in 2017 it arranged for an ally of Madigan to indirectly receive $22,500 in payments from the company,” the Justice Department said in October 2022.
The payment to former state Rep. Edward Acevedo was intended to influence a 2017 vote on Carrier of Last Resort (COLR) legislation that would “terminate the government's rights to the Carrier of Last Resort area.”[d] AT&T Illinois' costly obligation to provide landline telephone service to all Illinois residents,” AT&T's deferred prosecution agreement states.
“Intention” required
Madigan was indicted in 2022 on federal racketeering and bribery charges and is scheduled to go to trial in October. After La Schiazza's mistrial was declared, “Gettleman told attorneys in the case to return to his courtroom Tuesday to discuss next steps. Any retrial would almost certainly take place after Madigan himself appears in court early next month,” the Chicago Tribune reported.
On Wednesday, the jury reportedly sent the judge a letter that read: “The government indicates that bribery only requires 'intent' and no exchange. Is this in accordance with the law?”
As the Tribune article put it, “This question seemed to go to the heart of the case. Gettleman called the jury back and reread several pages of the jury instructions dealing with the elements of the bribery, then urged them to read it again in the jury room.”
The 46-page instructions to the jury stated that bribery occurs when a person gives, offers or agrees to give anything of value to another person and does so corruptly with the intent to influence or reward an agent of the state government in exchange for an official act concerning a particular matter or transaction.
La Schiazza faced one count of bribery and one count of conspiracy to commit bribery. He also faced three counts of using an interstate facility in furtherance of unlawful activity. The interstate facility was e-mail.
US: Suspect 'paid for the outcome he wanted'
In an internal email sent to an AT&T employee, La Schiazza allegedly described the company's arrangement with Madigan as “the friends and family scheme.” La Schiazza and other AT&T employees also discussed in the emails their desire to receive “credit” for the bribe payments, the government said. Acevedo was paid “for purported consulting services,” but in reality “did not perform any work in exchange for the payments,” the government said.
La Schiazza did not testify. In his closing arguments Tuesday, Assistant U.S. Attorney Sushma Raju said that instead of “a fair, transparent and honest legislative process,” the people of Illinois received “a legislative process that was tainted by this defendant, who paid for the outcome he wanted. It wasn't lobbying … it was a crime and Paul La Schiazza knew it,” the Tribune reported.
Defense attorney Tinos Diamantatos reportedly told the jury that the COLR legislation took “years of legitimate, tireless hard work,” and “It was a team effort by AT&T to get something done in a lawful and appropriate manner, as the law allows them to do. This was not a bribe… The government failed to meet its burden. It didn't even come close.”
La Schiazza argued before the trial that the charges should be dropped because the “government has not alleged that AT&T hired Acevedo in exchange for a specific official act, i.ethat Mr. La Schiazza bribed Madigan.” There were no “factual allegations supporting the existence of a quid pro quo or that Mr. La Schiazza understood that he was acting unlawfully in offering Madigan a swap,” the motion to dismiss said.
The US response states that the law “does not require an agreement between the bribe payer or the bribe recipient; in a lawsuit, the government is only required to [to] prove that the defendant intended to make a quid pro quo.” Judge Gettleman sided with the U.S. and denied the motion to dismiss.
