Case: 1:20-cr-00812 Document #: 159 Filed: 03/08/23 Page 1 of 7 PageID #:1657

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

v. Case No. 20 CR 812

MICHAEL McCLAIN, ANNE Judge Harry D. Leinenweber

PRAMAGGIORE, JOHN HOOKER,
AND JAY DOHERTY,

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

I. BACKGROUND

In this case, the Government has charged the Defendants with

violating and conspiring to violate 18 U.S.C. § 666 by corruptly

providing things of value to Michael Madigan (“Madigan”), former

Speaker of the Illinois House of Representatives, with “intent to

influence or reward” in connection with an exercise of his official

duties. In carrying out the conspiracy, the Indictment charges

that, between 2012 and 2019, the Defendants, who were employees

and agents of Commonwealth Edison Company (“ComEd”), conspired to

bribe Madigan by “arrang[ing] for various associates of [Madigan],

including [his] political allies and individuals who performed

political work for [him], to obtain jobs, contracts, and monetary

payments associated with those jobs and contracts from ComEd and

its affiliates, even in instances where such associates performed

little or no work that they were purportedly hired to perform for

-1-
 Case: 1:20-cr-00812 Document #: 159 Filed: 03/08/23 Page 2 of 7 PageID #:1658

ComEd.” (Dkt. 1 at 12-13.) Specific legislation, that benefited

ComEd and was passed by the Illinois House during the period in

question is identified in the Indictment.

In support of its case, the Government has tendered Dick W.

Simpson, Professor Emeritus of the University of Illinois at

Chicago, who serves as the former head of its Political Science

Department and its Director of Undergraduate Studies in Political

Science, as an expert witness. Professor Simpson proposes to define

a “political machine,” for example:

• “In a political machine, . . . what primarily

motivates the voter and political worker is what the
voter and political worker is getting in return for
his/her vote, such as a job.”

• “In turn, public officials in the machine have a need

to award material incentives (such as jobs) to
precinct captains, political allies, and the like in
order to maintain power.”

(Simpson Expert Disclosure, Dkt. 139, Ex. A at 5.) He will also

give a history of the political machine in Chicago, for example:

• “The Chicago political machine has dominated

Democratic politics in Chicago since 1933 and
continues to do so.”

• “Since the Shakman decrees went into effect in the

1970s and 1980s, the [Chicago] political machine has
made efforts to circumvent the controls on the
patronage system.”

Id.

2
 Case: 1:20-cr-00812 Document #: 159 Filed: 03/08/23 Page 3 of 7 PageID #:1659

The Defendants seek to exclude Professor Simpson’s testimony.

They contend that his testimony is unreliable, will not assist the

trier of fact, and any probative value is outweighed by prejudice.

In opposition to the Motion, the Government says that the topics

Professor Simpson will address are relevant to the trial and will

explain matters that would be unfamiliar to the jury.

III. LEGAL STANDARD

Expert testimony is permitted under Federal Rule of Evidence

702. The Court considers whether the testimony is based on

“sufficient facts or data . . . [and] is the product of reliable

principles and methods . . . [which have been] applied to . . .

the facts of the case.” FED. R. EVID. 702. The Court must conclude

that the testimony is relevant such that it will “will assist the

trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in

issue.” Myers, 629 F.3d at 644. “The party seeking to offer expert

testimony has the burden of establishing that the pertinent

admissibility requirements are met by a preponderance of the

evidence.” Rasmusen v. White, 970 F.Supp. 2d 807, 813 (N.D. Ill.

2013).

V. DISCUSSION

The Court grants the Motion.

According to the Government, Professor Simpson will explain

to the jury why political workers, such as precinct committeemen

3
 Case: 1:20-cr-00812 Document #: 159 Filed: 03/08/23 Page 4 of 7 PageID #:1660

and precinct captains respond to incentives to work to get out the

vote and that those incentives are the expectation of material

benefits. The Court does not find that the subject of this proposed

testimony is so enigmatic to require expert testimony.

Neither does the Court see how testimony of the history of

the Chicago Machine helps the jury determine a fact at issue in

this present case. The Court does see, however, how emphasizing

the history of corruption and election fraud that marked the early

years of the machine could prejudice Defendants. The Government

states that the testimony is relevant regarding incentives to get

out the vote because it will allow the jury to appreciate the

importance to Madigan for his friends and political aides to

receive payments from ComEd even though they performed little or

no work for ComEd. The Government does not explain how Professor

Simpson will convey this to the jury without having reviewed the

records or conducted any investigation into the facts of this case.

Nor does it convince the Court that Professor Simpson’s

testimony is the product of reliable principles or methods. An

extensive publishing record is not enough. Although methods vary

across fields of expertise, from no field can an expert “waltz

into the courtroom and render opinions” not based upon a recognized

method. Kirk v. Clark Equipment Co., 991 F.3d 865, 873-74 (7th

Cir. 2021) (cleaned up).

4
 Case: 1:20-cr-00812 Document #: 159 Filed: 03/08/23 Page 5 of 7 PageID #:1661

The theory of the Government is that the reduction of

patronage jobs brought about by the diminishing power of the

Chicago Machine forced the political leaders like Madigan to look

to the private sector to replace those jobs that used to be

available through political patronage. However, the Government

does not need an expert to explain this phenomenon to the jury

because it can use the Defendants’ own words to do so. The

Government gives four examples of statements made by Defendants,

the significance of which, it claims, the jury will not understand

without Professor Simpson’s expert opinion:

• McClain replied, “So, um, they’re all former ward

committeemen and aldermen. [Individual 23W-1], former
alderman. [Individual 13W-1], and this either was
number one, two, or three depending on the year, his
[Madigan’s] best precinct worker. He actually trains
other precinct workers, so—” Marquez asked, “Meaning,
mean [Individual 13W-2]?” McClain said, “[Individual
13W-2].”

• . . . from even the seventies [1970s] when, when, you

know, he [Madigan] had to name people be meter
readers, right. I mean, it’s, uh, the old fashioned
patronage system and . . .” The New CEO interjected,
“Mmhmm.” McClain continued, “. . . uh, ComEd played
it like, um, uh, he . . .” The New CEO stated, “Like
a chip.” McClain stated, “You’re a ward committeeman
and, uh, and we have seven meter readers in your, ward
and you can name four of them, [McClain laughs] you
know.” The New CEO responded “Mm-hmm.” McClain
continued, “And that’s just the way ComEd was for,
uh, years, and then, as, as we’ve kind of morphed
into, um, not being able to do that.

5
 Case: 1:20-cr-00812 Document #: 159 Filed: 03/08/23 Page 6 of 7 PageID #:1662

• And a lot of people in his ward, um, we [ComEd] morphed

into, ‘How else can we help you?’” The New CEO stated,
“Right.” McClain reiterated, “Right.”

• Because we can’t really do meter readers, we don’t

have ‘em anymore. We don’t—” The New CEO said, “Yeah.”
McClain continued, “—linemen, there’s, there’s no one
from the 13th Ward that’d linemen. So, what we have
is, um, uh, [name redacted], uh, I meant to say,
sorry, [Individual 23W-1]. Used to be an Alderman,
um, next to, and his son is chairman of the revenue
committee. Um, and, uh, [Individual 13W-2], who’s a
top three precinct committeeman. Uh, and, uh, they’re
all, they’re all good solid people.”

The jury will not need an expert witness to interpret these remarks

because the Defendants have done so themselves. For example, it is

clear from the context that Mr. McClain and the CEO understand

that the ward leaders are important in the training of other

campaign workers. McClain also explained that the elimination of

meter readers took jobs away from Mr. Madigan and the other ward

committeemen that were not and would not be replaced by other jobs

available at ComEd that a political operative would be competent

to perform. These statements will be easily understood by the jury,

especially with the Government being able to give its own spin to

them. The benefits from having Professor Simpson’s expert opinion

to reinforce the Government’s take would be mere corroboration of

other witnesses, or, as expressed by the Seventh Circuit, “to put

an ‘expert gloss’ on the conclusion the jurors are capable of

seeing for themselves.” United States v. Christian, 673 F3d 702,

6
 Case: 1:20-cr-00812 Document #: 159 Filed: 03/08/23 Page 7 of 7 PageID #:1663

710 (7th Cir. 2012). A map of the City of Chicago, and the statutory

description of a committeeman and precinct captain can be made by

stipulation or judicial notice.

VI. CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated herein, Defendants’ Motion to Exclude

the expert testimony of Professor Simpson is granted [130].

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Harry D. Leinenweber, Judge

United States District Court

Dated: 3/8/2023