Defense attorneys in the corruption trial of former House Speaker Michael Madigan on Wednesday attacked the credibility of a key prosecution witness, questioning his motives for cooperating with the FBI and grilling him over attempts to hide money in a divorce and his recent attempted purchase of a gun to shoot rattlesnakes.
Fidel Marquez, the former vice president of external affairs at ComEd, began working with the FBI in early 2019 after agents confronted him at his mother’s home and played incriminating calls captured on a secret wiretap.
He went on to make multiple undercover recordings of his own, both audio and video, that have been played for the jury laying out the stream of benefits the utility allegedly extended to Madigan and his allies, mostly through requests relayed by his co-defendant, Michael McClain.
Near the end of his cross-examination Wednesday morning, McClain’s attorney, Patrick Cotter, focused on Marquez’s attempts in 2014 to hide $400,000 in assets from his wife during their contentious divorce, a fact that he did not voluntarily disclose to federal investigators when he began cooperating.
“I tried to hide that money, yes,” Marquez acknowledged.
Cotter asked whether he was ever prosecuted for it.
“Uh, no because I returned the money,” Marquez said.
So after you hid it, you revealed it later? Cotter shot back.
“Yes,” Marquez said.
Madigan’s attorney, Tom Breen, picked up on that same issue when he began his cross shortly before the lunch break, asking Marquez about his living situation on the morning of Jan. 16, 2019, when FBI agents showed up at his mother’s home in northwest Indiana.
Marquez said he was staying there at the time to help take care of his mother, who was ill. But he also had a place in the South Loop where he lived with a girlfriend, he said.
Breen asked if this was the same woman whom Marquez had suggested transferring the $400,000 to during his divorce. After an awkward pause, Marquez said, no, “I suggested that to another person.”
“Male or female?” Breen asked.
“Female,” Marquez answered.
Breen also pressed Marquez on what agents told him the morning they confronted him, contradicting his hazy memory of the event with Marquez’s seemingly clear recollection of dozens of other conversations that prosecutors asked him about.
Did the FBI tell him they believed he’d committed a crime? Breen asked Marquez.
“When the FBI comes knocking at the door at six in the morning, it’s obviously for something,” Marquez said. “I don’t know if they said I was in trouble, but they played the tapes for me (and) I was sure it was not for something good.”
After the agents played him several recordings, they drove to a nearby strip mall parking lot to talk more in private, Marquez said. It was during that 45-minute session in the agents’ car that Marquez agreed to wear a wire and secretly record his colleagues.
Marquez acknowledged he was scared. When Breen asked when the FBI had brought up the prospect of prison, Marquez said he could not recall, but noted, “You know, it was a pretty sobering moment.”
“I can imagine it would be, and I can imagine you might have a perfect recollection of what was said,” Breen responded. “So I’ll ask you again.”
Marquez again said he did not remember precisely when the idea of prison time was first brought up.
Breen also pointed out that Marquez was close with the people he’d agreed to cooperate against, including McClain — whom he considered a good friend — and then-ComEd CEO Anne Pramaggiore, lobbyist John Hooker, and Jay Doherty, a consultant and head of the City Club of Chicago.
“You were in the ComEd family, weren’t you?” Breen said. “You celebrated birthdays together, drank together … You’d tell them about your problems, they’d share some of their personal problems … and you agreed, without any consideration, that’s your testimony, to wear wires on your ComEd family, correct?
“Yes,” Marquez said.
Breen’s cross-examination was delayed by the last-minute introduction of a document from Marquez’s divorce proceedings showing he had been found to be in civil contempt of court in 2022 for failing to turn over some shares of stock to his ex-wife.
The records, which Madigan’s attorneys said they had just found Tuesday night, showed that the judge in the divorce case threatened Marquez with jail if he did not turn over the stock.
Madigan’s defense wanted to bring it up to question Marquez’s credibility, noting that he failed to disclose it to the government even though he is an active cooperator who has yet to be sentenced.
Blakey ultimately said Breen could question Marquez about the incident, but jurors could not see the civil contempt order itself.
“He’s hiding things from the government, that’s enough for the question and answer,” Blakey said. “I don’t expect 20 minutes on that area.”
In Cotter’s cross-examination earlier Wednesday, he asked Marquez about his attempt to purchase a firearm last year at a pawn shop to shoot rattlesnakes outside his Tucson home. In filling out an online form at the store, Marquez checked “no” to questions that asked if he was currently “under indictment or information” or had been convicted of any felony.
At the time, he’d already pleaded guilty to a felony count of bribery conspiracy and knew he faced up to 5 years in prison.
Asked about his answer on the form, Marquez started to answer, “I’m not a lawyer… I didn’t think –” but Cotter cut him off.
“How many masters degrees do you have, Mr. Marquez?”
“Two.”
Marquez often wavered in his answers about why he filled out the form the way he did, saying at one point, “the word ‘information,’ as I read this form, it just didn’t resonate that I was under information.”
Cotter jumped all over that, asking: “Did the word felony resonate with you? That part of the court proceeding … Did you remember the five years?”
Cotter’s made the point that Marquez had just testified about his recall of lunches, fundraisers, what people said years ago in dozens of events and conversations, and what he understood McClain meant when he said certain things, yet he’d failed to remember he pleaded guilty to a felony.
Cross-examination of Marquez is expected to spill into Thursday.
Madigan, 82, of Chicago, who served for decades as speaker of the Illinois House and the head of the state Democratic Party, faces racketeering charges alleging he ran his state and political operations like a criminal enterprise.
Both Madigan and McClain, 77, a former ComEd contract lobbyist from downstate Quincy, have pleaded not guilty and denied wrongdoing.
Marquez pleaded guilty in 2020 to conspiracy to commit bribery. In exchange for his truthful testimony, prosecutors have said they will recommend a sentence of probation instead of prison time.
During Marquez’s four days of direct testimony, jurors heard and saw McClain’s relentless requests — allegedly on behalf of Madigan — that ComEd hire Madigan’s favored associates.
Over and over, Marquez testified that he and other ComEd insiders complied with the requests so that Madigan would look favorably upon ComEd-friendly legislation in Springfield.
jmeisner@chicagotribune.com
mcrepeau@chicagotribune.com
Originally Published:
