Convictions of 'ComEd Four' Defendants Overturned on Appeal

Reversal by 7th Circuit Court of Appeals raises questions about the future of the high-profile corruption case.

Apr. 18, 2026 at 9:00am

Got story updates? Submit your updates here. ›

A cinematic painting of an empty government office space with warm, diagonal sunlight and deep shadows, conveying a sense of political power and corruption in decline.The reversal of convictions in the once-high-profile 'ComEd Four' corruption case casts a somber, nostalgic tone over the Illinois political landscape.Chicago Today

Three years after the 'ComEd Four' trial that rocked Illinois politics, a federal appeals court has overturned the convictions of two defendants, ex-CEO Anne Pramaggiore and retired lobbyist Michael McClain. The decision comes after recent Supreme Court rulings that changed the legal landscape around bribery and false statements, leaving prosecutors to determine their next steps in salvaging the case.

Why it matters

The 'ComEd Four' case was a major corruption investigation that led to a $200 million fine for ComEd and the eventual downfall of longtime Illinois House Speaker Michael Madigan. The appeals court's reversal of two convictions has called the strength of the government's case into question and raises uncertainty about the future of the prosecution's efforts.

The details

The 7th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals quickly reversed the convictions of Pramaggiore and McClain, ordering their release from prison. The court found that recent Supreme Court decisions on bribery and false statements had changed the legal landscape, making it unclear whether the jury's original verdict would have aligned with the new legal standards. Prosecutors now face a difficult decision on whether to retry the case, negotiate plea deals, or drop the matter altogether.

  • In 2023, the 'ComEd Four' trial resulted in convictions for various aspects of an alleged bribery scheme.
  • In 2024, the Supreme Court issued rulings that changed the legal definitions of bribery and false statements, impacting the ComEd Four case.
  • Last week, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals quickly overturned the convictions of Pramaggiore and McClain and ordered their release from prison.

The players

Anne Pramaggiore

The former CEO of ComEd who had her conviction overturned on appeal.

Michael McClain

A retired ComEd lobbyist who also had his conviction overturned on appeal.

Michael Madigan

The longtime Illinois House Speaker who was convicted in a separate case related to the ComEd corruption scandal and is serving a 7.5-year sentence.

Andrew Boutros

The U.S. Attorney who took over the Chicago office two years after the ComEd Four trial and must now determine the next steps for the prosecution.

Amanda Schnitker Sayers

A juror from the original 'ComEd Four' trial who expressed disappointment in the appeals court's decision to overturn the convictions.

Got photos? Submit your photos here. ›

What they’re saying

“It absolutely does not make sense. Our verdict showed that we shouldn't stand for this behavior. … It's wrong, and when people do the wrong thing, they should pay the price for it.”

— Amanda Schnitker Sayers, Juror, 'ComEd Four' trial

“We got a very strong positive signal literally before I finished my first sentence. That really did kind of set the tone for the arguments in a very positive way.”

— Paul Clement, Lead attorney for Pramaggiore's appeal

“At some point you have to hold the government to the case that it tried. I understand why they tried the case on bribery the way they did, given the condition of the law at the time. But the law changed.”

— Joel Bertocchi, Attorney for McClain

What’s next

Prosecutors must now decide whether to retry the case under different legal theories, negotiate plea deals, or drop the matter altogether. The decision could take months, especially since Pramaggiore and McClain have been released from prison.

The takeaway

The reversal of the 'ComEd Four' convictions highlights the challenges prosecutors face when the legal landscape shifts during a high-profile corruption case. It underscores the importance of adapting to changes in the law and the need for the government to be held accountable to the specific case it presents to a jury.