Federal Appeals Court Overturns Two ComEd Four Convictions in Illinois Corruption Case

A federal appeals court ordered the immediate release of two defendants in the high-profile ComEd Four bribery case while granting them new trials.

The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals issued the order Tuesday just hours after hearing consolidated appeals arguments. The ruling affects former Commonwealth Edison CEO Anne Pramaggiore and longtime Springfield lobbyist Michael McClain, both of whom were convicted of bribing former Illinois House Speaker Michael Madigan.

Both Pramaggiore and McClain are entitled to release from federal custody forthwith, according to the three-judge panel order. They will serve a new trial on the corruption charges.

The two other defendants in the case, 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. Another former ComEd executive, Fidel Marquez, pleaded guilty and cooperated with prosecutors.

The case played a pivotal role in the precipitous end to Madigans record-breaking career at the helm of Illinois power politics. Madigan is currently serving a 7 1/2-year sentence on related bribery and other corruption charges.

Legal landscape shifted

The 7th Circuits decision comes less than a week after lawyers for Madigan made arguments to a different three-judge appeals panel for the longtime Democratic power brokers own convictions to be overturned.

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

Another Supreme Court decision followed in the case against former Chicago Alderman Patrick Daley Thompson. The unanimous opinion from the justices ruled that the law does not criminalize statements that are misleading but not false. This ruling had bearing on the ComEd Four counts involving the alleged falsification of the utility books and records.

Pramaggiore attorney Paul Clement argued in front of the 7th Circuit that the jury may have convicted on incorrect law in light of the 2024 Supreme Court decision narrowing the federal bribery statute. He rejected any notion that it was just a harmless error.

Everybody acknowledges that the bribery counts were the dog and the books-and-records counts were the tail, Clement told the judges.

Judge Thomas Kirsch II appeared to agree. He barely allowed Assistant U.S. Attorney Irene Sullivan to finish her first sentence insisting that even if there had been a legal error in the jury instructions, it did not impact the jury verdict.

How so, Kirsch asked. Here is the problem. When you charge the case and try the case as a bribery case, what is to say the jury just did not consider the illegal bribery object of the conspiracy and stop right there.

Sullivan argued that the totality of the jury convictions should point back to the evidence the government presented and the witnesses prosecutors called to testify, including ComEd executive-turned-FBI-cooperator Fidel Marquez.

The evidence at trial showed defendants knew that they were funneling payments to Madigan cronies through no-show subcontract positions, and that falsifying comments books and records and circumventing the companys internal controls was critical to hiding the true nature and purpose of the payments, she said.

Hidden subcontractor payments

Despite the reduced scope of sentencing, U.S. District Judge Manish Shah made it clear at each of the defendants hearings that he still believed they committed bribery. He told Pramaggiore during sentencing that she did participate in a quid pro quo.

The judge also referenced a February 2019 wiretapped call in which McClain told Hooker that we had to hire these guys because Mike Madigan came to us. It is just that simple.

If the simple truth was that ComEd had to hire these guys because Mike Madigan came to them, well the shareholders the market and the public had a right to know, Shah told McClain during his July sentencing. If that is how consequential decisions are made in our democracy, you shouldve disclosed that.

But on Tuesday McClain attorney Joel Bertocchi made the case that failure to disclose the subcontractors was not a crime. He leaned on the U.S. Supreme Court 2025 decision in the governments case against former Chicago Alderman Patrick Daley Thompson for lying to bank regulators.

Bertocchi also pointed to multiple witnesses who testified at trial that ComEd internal documentation system did not leave room for contracted entities to disclose subcontractors. Further some of those same witnesses also noted they signed off on not disclosing subcontractors because the lobbyists had sole discretion over how to staff up to fulfill their contracts.

You cannot make a false records count out of misleading conduct, Bertocchi argued.

The case led to ComEd admitting acts of bribery and paying a record $200 million fine. Prosecutors used extensive wiretaps, undercover videos, emails and testimony from cooperators in the investigation to win convictions for various aspects of the alleged scheme from two separate juries.

The development has left the U.S. attorneys office in the unusual position of trying to salvage one of its signature cases in a building where traditionally they rarely lose the big ones.

It also has raised questions about how the 7th Circuit might be leaning in a parallel appeal by Madigan. Although Madigans February 2025 conviction included counts related to the alleged ComEd conspiracy, it is difficult to draw any apples-to-apples comparisons. Madigans arguments on appeal vary greatly from those of Pramaggiore and McClain, because the cases were tried on different legal theories.

Madigan also was convicted on counts completely unrelated to ComEd.

At Madigans appellate arguments earlier this month, the focus was not on the application of the law, but whether there was sufficient evidence to prove the speaker entered into any quid pro quo agreements to trade official action for anything of value.

That could take months to issue an opinion on Madigans appeal. That could be the case for the ComEd Four case as well, especially since Pramaggiore and McClain have been released from prison, taking much of the pressure off a quick turnaround.

Once the ComEd Four opinion comes down, the U.S. attorneys office will have a tough decision to make. A retrial is possible, though it would have to be under different legal theories, or potentially a new indictment that could vastly change the scope of the evidence, legal observers have said.

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, a distinct possibility given the age of the defendants, the costs and court resources that would be expended, and the fact that all four have served at least some time in prison.

U.S. Attorney Andrew Boutros, who took over the Chicago office two years after the ComEd Four trial, declined to discuss next steps for now.

We intend to issue a statement after the Seventh Circuit issues its decision and we have the opportunity to review it, Boutros said in a written statement. Until then, it would be premature to comment.

Jurors perspective

Jurors from the ComEd Four trial who spoke to the Tribune after the appeals decision last week said the evidence showed a complex intertwined conspiracy was corrupt to its core.

Juror Amanda Schnitker Sayers, a veterinarian who lives in Chicago, said she understands the higher court ruling was based on the Supreme Courts decisions and appreciates the checks and balances on jury trials. It is why we have a court system, Schnitker Sayers said.

But she said she could not help feeling a little let down that the behavior that Pramaggiore and McClain engaged in was in some ways given a green light, particularly with a public utility like ComEd with so many public dollars at stake.

It absolutely does not make sense, she said. Our verdict showed that we should not stand for this behavior. It is wrong, and when people do the wrong thing, they should pay the price for it.

Pramaggiore and McClain have been released from prison, taking much of the pressure off a quick turnaround. McClain has served 3 1/2 months in a Lexington Kentucky-based facility run by the federal Bureau of Prisons for federal inmates with chronic health conditions. Pramaggiore just passed the three-month mark in a minimum-security prison in Floridas panhandle.

Both received two years in prison at their sentencing hearings last summer. Those sentences would likely have been much longer, but U.S. District Judge Manish Shah last March tossed the four bribery charges against them and granted a partial retrial based on a 2024 U.S. Supreme Court decision that narrowed the scope of federal bribery law.

However prosecutors opted instead to proceed straight to sentencing and moved to dismiss the bribery counts after each sentencing hearing. Shah based his sentences and fines of the ComEd Four on the remaining charges including an overarching conspiracy count.