CHICAGO — Just hours after hearing arguments, a Chicago federal appeals court on Tuesday announced it will grant new trials to former ComEd CEO Anne Pramaggiore and lobbyist Michael McClain and ordered them released from prison on bond.

The extraordinary development comes nearly three years after Pramaggiore and McClain were convicted as part of the landmark “ComEd Four” case alleging a conspiracy to bribe then-House Speaker Michael Madigan.

“Both Pramaggiore and McClain are entitled to release,” the order from the 7th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals said. “The United States must make arrangements to release Pramaggiore and McClain from federal custody forthwith.”

The appeals court said a written opinion on the order for a new trial will be filed at a later date. It’s unclear whether the U.S. attorney’s office would go forward with the case, given the new legal landscape and the age of the defendants.

A spokesman for the U.S. attorney’s office had no immediate comment.

In an emailed statement, Pramaggiore’s spokesman, Mark Herr, thanked the 7th Circuit for its swift decision to order her release pending the written opinion.

“It has never made sense that Ms. Pramaggiore has served a single day in prison, much less the three months she has served — for ‘crimes’ the Supreme Court said did not exist,” Herr said.

Joel Bertocchi, McClain’s lead appellate attorney, told the Tribune: “We are pleased by the court’s order and look forward to receiving the court’s opinion.”

The rapid-fire decision came after consolidated arguments for McClain and Pramaggiore before the 7th Circuit, Tuesday. The three-judge panel had tough questions for a government lawyer about how the conspiracy conviction could stand after the high court said “gratuities” given to elected officials with no direct tie to official actions are not illegal.

After that ruling, a district court judge threw out underlying bribery convictions in the “ComEd Four” case — which alleged a massive conspiracy by the utility to influence then-House Speaker Michael Madigan — but left intact the main conspiracy count as well as guilty verdicts on other counts of falsifying ComEd’s books and records.

Paul Clement, the lead attorney for Pramaggiore, argued that there was no possible way for the court to know that the jury didn’t convict the defendants based on the government’s bribery theories — and therefore a new trial was inevitable.

“I think everybody acknowledges that the (bribery) counts were the dog and the books-and-records counts were the tail,” said Clement, a former U.S. solicitor general who has represented dozens of clients before the Supreme Court.

At least two of the three judges on the panel appeared to agree.

“Here’s the problem,” Judge Thomas Kirsch II said to Assistant U.S. Attorney Irene Hickey Sullivan just moments after she stepped to the podium. “When you charge the case and try it as a bribery case, what’s to say the jury just didn’t consider the illegal bribery object and stop right there?”

Sullivan argued the evidence in the case overwhelmingly showed the defendants’ motive to falsify records was to hide the nature of illicit subcontractor payments to political friends of Madigan who did little or no actual work for ComEd.

But another member of the panel, Judge Joshua Kolar, appeared to also have major issues with trying to determine what prongs of the conspiracy counts the jury considered proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

The very first prong listed in the counts was bribery, Kolar noted.

“How do we know that the jury didn’t just say, ‘Welp, we agree with that, we don’t need to go on. That’s it,'” he asked.

Another Supreme Court decision in the case against former Chicago Ald. Patrick Daley Thompson, who was convicted of lying to banking regulators, also factored heavily into the discussion Tuesday. That ruling said the law does not criminalize statements that are misleading but true.

In his argument, Bertocchi said witnesses at trial testified ComEd was not interested in listing subcontractor payments in records and the defendants should not have been convicted of falsifying records by simply omitting them.

“You can’t make a false records count out of the omission of information that was neither asked for nor expected,” Bertocchi said. “If ComEd thinks its books and records are accurate without listing subcontractors … then no defendant in this case is going to question their judgment.”

Kolar, however, remarked that such a circumstance would seem to be “a roadmap for corruption.”

Near the end of the arguments, Clement went so far as to tell the judges he felt like he was “in pretty good shape on a new trial,” and asked that if they were to vacate the convictions if the defendants would be granted a bond.

Sullivan said she would have to check with her office but did not think prosecutors would oppose such a motion — which would make it very likely both Pramaggiore and McClain would be freed soon after a ruling.

Pramaggiore, 67, was sentenced in July 2025 to two years in prison. She reported to a minimum-security facility in Marianna, Florida, in January and is currently due to be released in August 2027, U.S. Bureau of Prison records show.

McClain, 78, is serving his 1 1/2-year sentence at a facility in Lexington, Kentucky, and is also scheduled for release in August 2027, records show.

The arguments Tuesday come nearly three years after Pramaggiore and McClain, as well as two colleagues, were convicted in the “ComEd Four” case, one of the biggest political corruption scandals in state history.

The two other defendants, 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 and been released to halfway houses in the Chicago area.

The bulk of the ComEd allegations centered on a cadre of Madigan allies who were paid a total of $1.3 million from 2011 through 2019 through allegedly do-nothing consulting contracts. Among the recipients were two former aldermen, Frank Olivo and Michael Zalewski, precinct captains Ray Nice and Edward Moody, and former state Rep. Edward Acevedo.

In addition, prosecutors alleged ComEd also hired a clouted law firm run by political operative Victor Reyes, distributed numerous college internships within Madigan’s 13th Ward fiefdom, and backed former McPier chief Juan Ochoa, a friend of a Madigan ally, for an $80,000-a-year seat on the utility’s board of directors, the indictment alleged.

In return, prosecutors alleged, Madigan used his influence over the General Assembly to help ComEd score a series of huge legislative victories that not only rescued the company from financial instability but led to record-breaking, billion-dollar profits.

Among them was the 2011 smart grid bill that set a built-in formula for the rates ComEd could charge customers, avoiding battles with the Illinois Commerce Commission, according to the charges. ComEd also leaned on Madigan’s office to help pass the Future Energy Jobs Act in 2016, which kept the formula rate in place and also rescued two nuclear plants run by an affiliated company, Exelon Generation.

After the jury’s verdict in May 2023, the “ComEd Four” case was beset by a series of delays, first due to the Supreme Court taking up the case of James Snyder, the former Portage, Indiana, mayor convicted of taking bribes from a garbage hauler for city contracts.

Shortly before the high court’s ruling in the Snyder case, U.S. District Judge Manish Shah took over the “ComEd Four” case due to the death of the trial judge, Harry Leinenweber.

In his ruling on post-trial motions, Shah tossed the underlying bribery counts due to the Supreme Court’s decision in Snyder, but kept intact the main conspiracy count as well as guilty verdicts for falsifying ComEd’s books and records, which were charged under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.

Madigan, meanwhile, was convicted in a separate trial of an array of schemes that included the ComEd bribery payments. He was sentenced to 7 1/2 years in prison, and his appeal is pending.

In Tuesday’s arguments before the 7th Circuit, Judge David Hamilton seemed the most skeptical of overturning the convictions. He asked Sullivan to point to evidence that the defendants were “actively trying to conceal” the scheme to benefit Madigan.

Sullivan noted the jury heard reams of wiretapped conversations between the defendants about keeping it all off the books, including one recorded call where McClain said the work the subcontactors did were just “pieces of paper,” meaning they did no work.

The jury also heard McClain advise then-ComEd executive Fidel Marquez “not to put anything in writing about the subcontractors because, in his words, ‘all that can do is hurt ya,'” Sullivan said.

The judges’ questioning also homed in on another issue of the ComEd trial: a controversial jury instruction given by Leinenweber that on the books-and-records counts that allowed jurors to hold one defendant responsible for the actions of another.

Known in legal parlance as a “Pinkerton instruction,” lawyers for Pramaggiore and McClain have argued on appeal that it was improperly included over their objections and likely wound up factoring into the ultimate findings, as the jurors sent a note about it shortly before reaching their across-the-board guilty verdicts.

In her remarks, Sullivan, the government’s attorney, said the jury note did not make it clear that they even applied Pinkerton in their decision.

“Isn’t that the problem for you?” Kirsch interrupted. “We don’t know.”

_____

©2026 Chicago Tribune. Visit chicagotribune.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.