Former Ald. Daniel Solis, whose unprecedented turn as an FBI mole helped the feds take down two princes of Chicago’s Democratic political machine, is expected to be called as a defense witness next week in the corruption trial of his former colleague, ex-Ald. Edward Burke.
The undercover recordings made by Solis have been the centerpiece of Burke’s ongoing trial, but Solis himself has been something of an enigma. Prosecutors opted not to call Solis as their own witness, and while Burke’s lawyers promised the judge they’d call Solis, it was not mentioned to the jury in opening statements.
The picture became clearer, however, during a scheduling discussion Thursday before testimony began, when Burke attorney Chris Gair told U.S. District Judge Virginia Kendall that Solis would be called as soon as Tuesday, although they may have to work around a funeral that Solis has to attend.
When Kendall reminded Gair that the defense was not allowed to call Solis simply to impeach his credibility, Gair assured the judge the questioning will be broad.
He said he plans to question Solis “for hours” about the recordings alone, and will also delve into Solis’ deferred prosecution deal with the U.S. attorney’s office, which will leave Solis without a criminal conviction and still collecting his $100,000 annual pension even though he will admit to corruptly accepting campaign donations from developers.
“I can guarantee you, judge, anything about what deal he got and what crimes he committed, that is going to come at the end and you will be fully satisfied,” Gair said.
In addition to recording Burke, the then-powerful chairman of the Finance Committee, Solis cooperated against House Speaker Michael Madigan, the head of the state Democratic Party, who was widely regarded as the most influential politician in Illinois.
Madigan is scheduled to go on trial on separate racketeering charges in April.
The prospect of Solis testifying in Burke’s case means the high-profile trial, which has been delayed twice by COVID-19 issues since beginning on Nov. 6, will come right down to the wire of the Christmas holiday.
“You’re pushing Christmas big-time getting to (Dec. 22),” Kendall told the attorneys on Thursday. “We’re looking at a solid two days of argument, potentially a third, plus (jury) instructions.”
The proposed jury instructions run more than 300 pages and will certainly take Kendall hours to read aloud to the jurors before they begin deliberations.
Kendall said she likely will let thejurors know the tentative schedule on Friday, and may tell them at some point that there is no pressure to have a verdict before Christmas.
“I’m not there yet, but that certainly something I’ll consider,” Kendall said. “Happy jurors are jurors who kind of know what’s going on.”
Meanwhile, federal prosecutors were inching closer to wrapping up their case.
Thursday morning’s testimony was focused on the FBI raid on Burke’s 14th Ward offices on Nov. 29, 2018, the same day agents descended on City Hall and put up brown butcher paper over the window’s of Burke’s third-floor office suite.
Retired FBI Special Agent Pam McCarthy testified that she led a team of about 25 agents who arrived at the rear of the ward office on West 51st Street around 8:30 a.m. Three or four ward employees were there, she said. “We basically introduced ourselves, said what we were there for,” McCarthy said, adding that most of the ward employees left while the search was conducted.
Under questioning by Assistant U.S. Attorney Sushma Raju, McCarthy took the jurors through a series of photos taken that day, including the interior of Burke’s office, which was furnished with a big blue leather chair behind a wood desk, shelves filled with photos, glassware and knickknacks, and a large city of Chicago flag along the wall.
In a hallway leading to the office shared by Burke’s longtime aide Peter Andrews Jr. was a sign that read, “I’M NOT BOSSY, I’M JUST AGGRESSIVELY HELPFUL” Fixed to a window there was a large Cubs sticker, a noticeable oddity in Burke’s majority-White Sox territory.
On Andrews’ disheveled desk were some large architectural drawings of the renovation of the Burger King at 4060 S. Pulaski Road, the same restaurant at the center of an alleged scheme by Burke and Andrews to pressure the Texas-based owners to hire Burke’s private law firm for property tax work.
On top of of the Burger King plans was a printed memorandum, dated Dec. 12, 2017, from Andrews to “EMB,” an obvious reference to his boss. It laid out in seven paragraphs their history with the Burger King, including the lunch Burke had with the owners, Shoukat and Zohaib Dhanani, at the Beverly Country Club that June.
“We stopped construction on the site and it is still on hold while the Department of Transportation reviews the driveway permits that were submitted mid-November,” the memo noted.
The document ended by noting the Dhananis had hired a construction company from New Jersey, and that Burke had mentioned to them “since they are out of Houston, they should think about local legal representation for zoning matters and so forth.”
The memo was dated the same day that Burke met with the Dhananis at the Union League Club. The father and son have both testified that Burke again pitched his law firm to them over drinks, and also urged them to attend a political fundraiser at his home that January.
Also found in another area of the office was a filed folder labeled “Burger King-Tri City Foods” and a stack of information about the Dhananis, their business locations and even a 17-page Wikipedia printout of the history of Burger King.
There were sticky notes with names and phone number of some of the key players in the Burger King project, as well as printed emails documenting their recent application for a driveway permit.
On cross-examination, Burke attorney Joseph Duffy pointed out that nowhere in Andrews’ memo was there a reference to Burke’s law firm, Klafter & Burke, or asking the Dhananis to hire him for property tax work.
In her cross-examination, Andrews’ attorney, Chelsy Van Overmeiren, put up a photo of one of the sticky notes on the screen and asked McCarthy whether she knew who wrote it. McCarthy acknowledged she did not.
After McCarthy’s testimony, however, handwriting expert Kevin Kulbacki told the jury that his analysis showed both Andrews and another ward assistant, David Espinoza, had written what was on the sticky notes.
Burke, 79, who served 54 years as alderman before leaving the City Council in May, is charged with 14 counts including racketeering, federal program bribery, attempted extortion, conspiracy to commit extortion and using interstate commerce to facilitate an unlawful activity.
Andrews, 73, is charged with one count of attempted extortion, one count of conspiracy to commit extortion, two counts of using interstate commerce to facilitate an unlawful activity, and one count of making a false statement to the FBI.
A third defendant, real estate developer Charles Cui, 52, is facing counts unrelated to the Burger King scheme.
[ Ex-Ald. Ed Burke corruption trial: Evidence seen and heard by the jury ]
On Thursday afternoon, prosecutors called Warren Johnson, the Palatine-based architect in charge of the Burger King remodel, who testified he was very surprised when he was notified by his project manager that Andrews had ordered the work stopped in October 2017.
Johnson testified he found it “highly unusual” that the driveway permit issue came up only after they were issued their building permit for the project, and that he’d “never” had a job shut down in the dozens of similar projects he’d undertaken in the city before.
He immediately sent an email to the assistant commissioner of buildings, calling it “quite disturbing.”
“This does not seem right that Burke can shut this project down considering we have our (building) permit,” Johnson wrote in the email.
Jurors, meanwhile, have already heard what was going on behind the scenes via a wiretapped phone call between Burke and Andrews. On Oct. 24, 2017, Burke called Andrews to say he’d just driven by the Burger King and it appeared work was still being done.
Burke asked Andrews what the issue was that was supposed to block the work: “Why was I able to hold it up? What did they need from me?”
“They needed … driveway permits and everything signed off on,” Andrews said.
“Well,” Burke said, “I don’t remember signing off on any driveway permits.”
About 90 minutes after that call, Andrews ordered the project shut down, according to testimony.
Listen to the call:
On cross-examination, Johnson grew visibly flustered as defense attorneys drilled down on his team’s own missteps, first by failing to get a driveway permit, followed by months of confusion and delay on their part before they finally were approved in November 2017.
In his questioning, Duffy caught Johnson saying he’d actually delegated his assistant Tracy Willie to submit the original plans for the Burger King renovation to the city, even though the rules state that only architects themselves can do so.
Johnson later corrected himself to say he wasn’t sure who submitted the application, Willie or him.
“We had hundreds of permits in the city of Chicago. … I have to recollect that, and maybe she did, maybe I did,” Johnson said.
“So the answer to my question now is that you’re not sure?” Duffy asked.
“Yes,” Johnson replied.
“Oh — OK,” Duffy said.
During that line of questioning, Burke leaned back in his chair at the defense table and smiled while he crossed his arms over his chest.
Duffy closed by asking Johnson whether there was any “urgency” to get the driveway permit.
“Define that,” Johnson shot back.
“It took you two months to get a driveway permit?” Duffy asked.
“I don’t remember if the time lag was because of their backlog or something,” Johnson snapped, prompting Duffy to ask whether the delay was due to Johnson’s own firm not being diligent.
“I don’t think so. I don’t agree,” Johnson said.
Todd Pugh, an attorney for Andrews, picked up where Duffy left off, showing Johnson an email where he said his employee had gone to City Hall on Nov. 14, 2017, to apply for the driveway permits.
But Johnson testified earlier he went down personally. “It was a long time ago,” Johnson said when confronted with the email.
Pugh also asked Johnson why it took so long to file this driveway permit when it’s all of two pages.
“It’s not just filing out a two-page application,” Johnson said in an exasperated tone. “There’s a lot of things that architect need to do to prepare for that.”
interactive_content
