Afternoon Briefing: Dangerous heat expected this week
After a spell of rain and cooler weather, high temperatures will roll across Chicago and the suburbs later this week.
Dangerously high heat and humidity are forecast for Wednesday and Thursday, with the National Weather Service issuing a extreme heat watch today. A heat watch indicates that the weather is right for high temperatures in the Chicago area but has yet to occur.
Here's what else is happening today. And remember, for the latest breaking news in Chicago, visit chicagotribune.com/latest-headlines and sign up to get our alerts on all your devices.
Subscribe to more newsletters | Asking Eric | Horoscopes | Puzzles & Games | Today in History
Once a rising corporate star, former ComEd CEO Anne Pramaggiore was sentenced today to two years in federal prison for her role in an elaborate scheme to funnel more than $1.3 million and other perks to associates of then-House Speaker Michael Madigan in exchange for help with the utility's ambitious legislative agenda. Read more here.
More top news stories:
Adient, a leading global manufacturer of auto seats, is investing more than $8 million to repurpose an 85,000 square-foot-warehouse adjacent to the Rivian plant to make front and rear seats for the EVs. Read more here.
More top business stories:
The White Sox hadn't won their first three games coming out of the All-Star break since 2005. Miguel Vargas and Mike Tauchman helped the 2025 Sox accomplish that feat yesterday. Read more here.
More top sports stories:
Perhaps in an effort to rest his pipes, Lyle Lovett allocated plenty of time for banter and dialogue. He talked. And talked. He shared memories of his first Chicago appearance at Park West in 1988. He gushed about his 8-year-old twins. Read more here.
More top Eat. Watch. Do. stories:
As the Trump administration intensifies deportation activity around the country, some immigrants — including many who have lived in Texas's southern tip for decades — are unwilling to leave their homes, even for necessary medical care. Read more here.
More top stories from around the world:
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hamilton Spectator
2 hours ago
- Hamilton Spectator
Live updates: Accused Hockey Canada players start to arrive at court house; judge to deliver verdicts in sexual assault trial this morning
After weeks of hearing evidence and arguments, Superior Court Justice Maria Carroccia is set to deliver her verdicts in the closely watched sexual assault trial involving members of Canada's 2018 championship world juniors team. Follow the Star's live coverage below. People showing support for the complainant EM have begun arriving outside the London courthouse. A rally is planned from 8:30 to 10 a.m. Media have begun gathering outside the London courthouse, opening at 8:30 a.m. The judge is expected to start delivering her verdicts at 10. Crown attorney Meaghan Cunningham, left, and the complainant E.M., testifying by video, are seen in a courtroom sketch in London, Ont. The complainant at the centre of the Hockey Canada sexual assault case has 'come a long way,' lawyer Rob Talach says, from the young woman he took on as a client to sue the sports organization and players in 2022, sparking a national uproar and ultimately leading to criminal charges. The woman known to the public only as E.M. due to a publication ban on her identity alleged in graphic testimony earlier this year at the players' criminal trial that she was sexually assaulted by members of the 2018 Canadian world junior championship team in a room at the Delta Armouries hotel in London, Ont. in the early hours of June 19, 2018, when she was 20 years old. She faced intense cross-examination over seven days by five defence lawyers, all dissecting the events of that night and attacking her version, probing how much alcohol she drank, what she said to friends when, and whether she made up her allegations because she had cheated on her boyfriend, who is now her fiancé. The Star's courts and justice reporter Jacques Gallant is reporting on the legal saga that has Talach, who no longer represents E.M., thought his former client did well. 'The timid, quiet woman that I met as a client in the beginning clearly has grown in strength and confidence,' he told the Star in an interview. Former members of Canada's 2018 World Juniors hockey team, left to right, Alex Formenton, Cal Foote, Michael McLeod, Dillon Dube and Carter Hart as they individually arrived to court in London, in April. 'She faced top-notch criminal defence lawyers. She was poked and prodded on everything she said, thought, or offered as evidence. From the young lady that I first met, I think she's come a long way. 'Though the cross-examination was difficult and uncomfortable, I wouldn't suggest that it destroyed her. I think it gave her a chance to stand her ground and share her piece.' After hearing nearly eight weeks of evidence and legal arguments from April to June, Superior Court Justice Maria Carroccia is set to deliver Thursday her verdicts in the matter of former world juniors and NHL players Michael McLeod, Alex Formenton, Carter Hart, Dillon Dubé, and Cal Foote. She could acquit or convict all of them, or deliver a mix of findings. 'This is a case about consent,' the Crown attorney said. 'And equally as important, this is a It's a case that captured the country's attention and led to a reckoning about the handling of sexual misconduct in professional sports, and one that observers say helped to educate the public on what consent l ooks like in a sexual encounter. Regardless of what the judge decides, Talach believes the case will have made an impact. 'I think if guilty, it's hailed as a victory for survivors and a lesson for hockey culture,' Talach said. 'If it's a not-guilty verdict ... it was still a process for the accused, and I think it was a deep moment of reflection for Canadians with respect to our national sport.' The facts of the case are now well known. The world juniors were in London in 2018 to attend the Hockey Canada Foundation's annual Gala & Golf fundraising event and to receive their rings for winning the championship. After the gala on June 18, a number of players went out to Jack's Bar, where McLeod met E.M. and she returned to his room at the Delta where they had consensual sex. But other players began showing up in the room afterward, some prompted by a text McLeod sent to a group chat about a '3 way.' E.M. testified that the men laid a bedsheet on the floor and asked her to fondle herself, obtained oral sex from her while she was slapped and spat on, and engaged in vaginal intercourse. A screenshot of a group chat involving members of Canada's 2018 world junior championship team, including a text from Michael McLeod inviting his teammates to his hotel room for a three-way. The Crown has alleged that McLeod had intercourse with E.M. a second time in the hotel room's bathroom; that Formenton separately had intercourse with her in the bathroom; that McLeod, Hart and Dubé obtained oral sex from her; that Dubé slapped her naked buttocks, and that Foote did the splits over her head while she was lying on the ground and his genitals 'grazed' her face — all without her consent. The five men are charged with sexual assault, while McLeod faces a second charge of being a party to a sexual assault, for allegedly encouraging his teammates to engage in sexual activity with E.M. when he knew she wasn't consenting. While she never said no nor physically resisted, E.M. testified she felt numb and that her mind went on 'autopilot' as she engaged in the sexual activity as a way of protecting herself in a room full of men she didn't know while she was drunk and naked; she would later tell police and prosecutors she took on the 'persona' of a 'porn star' as a coping mechanism . 'I didn't know these men at all, I didn't know how they would react if I did try to say no or try to leave,' she testified. 'My mind just kind of shut down and let my body do what it thought it needed to do to keep me safe.' The Crown's case for sexual assault 'does not look the way it often does in the movies or on television,' prosecutors said in their closing arguments in June. 'The reality of what happened to E.M. is more nuanced. But it is equally a sexual assault, because she did not voluntarily agree to the sexual activity that took place in that room.' The players, meanwhile, maintained that E.M. was repeatedly demanding to have sex with men in the room and was becoming upset when few of them took her up on her offers. It's a version that some o f the accused players told London police when they first investigated in 2018, and which other players not charged with any wrongdoing offered up at trial when they testified for the Crown. 'She said, 'Can one of you guys come over and f--- me?'' former world junior Tyler Steenbergen testified in May . 'I feel like everyone was just kind of in shock that she had said that.' A photo of room 209 at the Delta Armouries hotel in London, Ont., marked up by Carter Hart during his testimony, depicting player Cal Foote doing the splits over the complainant on a bedsheet on the floor on June 19, 2018, as well as the positions of other players. McLeod, Formenton, and Dubé maintained that their sexual contact with E.M. was consensual when they spoke to London police in 2018, though Dubé didn't mention the slapping. Hart, the only pla yer t o testify in his own defence, said he asked for a 'blowie, meaning blowjob,' and that E.M. said 'yeah' or 'sure' before moving toward him and helping to take off his pants. Foote's lawyer said that the splits were a popular 'party trick' her client was known to do, but she argued there was no credible evidence showing he did the splits over E.M. without his pants and that his genitals touched her. 'There's not a lot of dispute around what went on physically in that room, and I don't think that's what a lot of parents are signing up their kids to learn in junior hockey,' Talach said. The first call to London police on June 19, 2018, came from E.M.'s mother, who found her daughter crying in the bathroom, struggling to explain what had happened. E.M.'s mother's partner called Hockey Canada, who forwarded the allegations to police. E.M. herself initially went back and forth on whether she wanted to see criminal charges laid, telling police at one point that she didn't want McLeod to get into trouble, but she also 'didn't want this happening to another girl either.' Police declined to lay charges in February 2019 after an eight-month investigation that included three interviews with E.M., reviewing surveillance and other video evidence, and interviewing most of the players now on trial. A composite image of London police Det. Steve Newton's handwritten notes on the complainant's comments during a June 26, 2018, photo-identification interview. Michael McLeod, Dillon Dubé, Carter Hart, Cal Foote and Alex Formenton are pictured. As the Star first re ported last May , the lead detective at the time had doubts about E.M.'s claim that she was too intoxicated to consent, after viewing footage of her walking unaided in heels up and down the hotel lobby stairs. And he wondered in his report whether she had been an 'active participant' in the hotel room, particularly after McLeod's lawyer shared two videos McLeod had taken of E.M. in the room. In one of them, she said: 'It was all consensual.' But everything changed in the spring of 2022, when TSN reported that Hockey Canada had quickly settled, for an undisclosed sum, E.M.'s $3.5-million sexual assault lawsuit against the organization and eight unnamed John Doe players. The public backlash was fierce, as sponsors began pulling out and Hockey Canada executives were called to testify before Parliament. And it also led to the revelation by the Globe and Mail that Hockey Canada had been using a fund partly made up of players' registration fees to pay millions of dollars to respond to sexual assault allegations. 'Parents across the country are losing faith or have lost faith in Hockey Canada,' then-Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said in 2022. 'Certainly, politicians here in Ottawa have lost faith in Hockey Canada.' Not for nothing has this legal proceeding become known as the 'Hockey Canada trial.' The The growing scandal put pressure on London police too, prompting them to reopen their investigation and ultimately deciding they had grounds to lay criminal charges against the five players. At a packed news conference announcing the charges in early 2024, London police chief Thai Truong apologized to E.M. for the time it had taken to get to that point. Parents across the country are losing faith or have lost faith in Hockey Canada E.M. herself was actually 'quit e upset' when she was told police were reopening the case, court heard this year, with the lead detective testifying she felt she was 'opening up some wounds' that E.M. had been trying to close. The defence at trial argued that, after being told by police in 2019 of the 'deficiencies' in her version of events, E.M. and her lawyers cooked up a new 'terror narrative' — that she went along with everything in the room because she was scared — as part of her lawsuit, and it's that version that she then offered up in court at the criminal trial. Talach said he doesn't know what led Hockey Canada to quickly settle. (The players hadn't been told of the organization's intention, or even that a claim had been filed.) 'It obviously signalled an interest in Hockey Canada dealing with this quickly; now is that because they're fair and just individuals? Maybe,' he said. 'Is that because they knew there's a lot of this in their world and they don't want to highlight it, like what's happened to the church and the scouts? Maybe.' London police chose not to re-interview E.M. as part of their reopened probe, with lead detective Lyndsey Ryan testifying she felt it would be re-traumatizing . What police did have in 2022 was a new written statement shared by E.M. outlining her allegations, a statement she had also sent to a separate investigation being done by Hockey Canada . At trial, E.M. acknowledged under cross-examination by the defence that the statement contained errors, but blamed her civil lawyers — Talach — who helped draft it. 'I think with the passage of time and the level of scrutiny on the facts, the picture may have become more focused, but the best was done with what was had at the time,' Talach told the Star. Carroccia will undoubtedly be delivering her verdicts to a packed courtroom Thursday morning, while supporters are expected to rally outside the courthouse, just as they did during E.M.'s testimony in the spring. It was not supposed to be like this; the five players would long ago have learned their fates but for the fact that not one, but two juries had to be dismissed by Carroccia, causing the case to finish as a judge-alone trial. The first jury was sent home after having only heard the Crown's opening statement and brief testimony from a police detective, after a juror reported an encounter with Formenton's lawyer Hilary Dudding over the lunch break, though there were conflicting reports over what was said. The second jury was discharged two days after E.M. had completed her testimony , when a juror reported that 'multiple jurors' felt that Dudding and co-counsel Daniel Brown were mocking them, something the lawyers strenuously denied. Michael McLeod films a selfie video with the complainant on the dance floor inside Jack's Bar. While a jury verdict typically comes much quicker, the benefit of a judge-alone trial is that the judge provides detailed reasons for their decision. The courtroom where it will happen is the largest at the London courthouse, and was previously used for the infamous Bandidos murder trial, in which six men were convicted in the mass slaying of eight men connected to the biker gang in 2006. During the Hockey Canada trial, the multiple prisoner's boxes along one side of the room remained empty, as the accused players, who are all out of custody, each sat at a table with their legal teams. In the public gallery, McLeod's parents sat in the centre of the front row each day of the trial; Hart's mother and Dubé's relatives were also often in attendance. A series of text messages between Michael McLeod and the complainant after she alleges he and four other members of the Canadian world junior hockey team sexually assaulted her in a London hotel room. E.M. was beamed into the courtroom via CCTV from a different room at the courthouse during her testimony, while the courtroom's background was blurred on the screen so that she couldn't see the players. Court documents reveal that while she was scared and anxious, E.M. initially believed she might be able to testify in person. But after sitting in the witness box during a tour of the courthouse before the trial, she began to cry. This prompted the Crown to ask that she testify remotely, an application that wasn't challenged by the defence. 'While E.M. would tell the truth regardless of mode of testimony, testifying in the courtroom in front of the accused would potentially prevent her from providing a complete account of the allegations,' according to an affidavit filed in January by the Crown from London police Const. Amanda Corsaut, who had interviewed E.M. this year. 'She has not seen any of the five defendants since the alleged events occurred. She is scared that they may be angry. E.M. worries it may be re-traumatizing for her to see them and testify in front of them.' As the Star first reported in May , Meaghan Cunningham, the province's lead sexual assault prosecutor as chair of the Crown office's sexual violence advisory group, warned E.M. last year that it was 'not a really, really strong case,' but that a conviction was possible. She said that while most news articles from 2022 'accept as true what is in your statement of claim' from the lawsuit, the public's view of the case could shift by the end of the trial. I think Canada has probably grown a bit as a nation There is a 'real possibility that the current perception of what happened could change,' Cunningham said, according to notes from a meeting with E.M. Talach said he believes E.M. went through with it all due to wanting a mix of accountability, healing, and prevention. And her actions motivated the public to push for change. 'Regardless of the outcome, I think Canada has probably grown a bit as a nation,' he said. 'And hockey has had to sit up and take notice of some important issues that we'll continue to discuss.' Former members of Canada's 2018 World Juniors hockey team, left to right, Alex Formenton, Cal Foote, Michael McLeod, Dillon Dube and Carter Hart as they individually arrived to court in London, Ont. in April. A 'treasure trove' of evidence thrown out and two juries dismissed. The trial of five professional hockey players accused of sexually assaulting a woman in London, Ont., has been filled with difficult testimony and unexpected drama. The players, all of whom were part of Canada's team at the 2018 world junior championships, have been standing trial since April. The Star's courts and justice reporter Jacques Gallant is reporting on the legal saga that has captured public attention and sparked a reckoning over the handling of sexual misconduct allegations in professional sports. From left to right: Ottawa Senators' Alex Formenton, New Jersey Devils defenceman Cal Foote, New Jersey Devils' Michael McLeod, Calgary Flames centre Dillon Dube and Philadelphia Flyers goaltender Carter Hart. The five players, Michael McLeod, Alex Formenton, Carter Hart, Dillon Dubé and Cal Foote, are charged with sexually assaulting a then-20-year-old woman in the early morning of June 19, 2018, in a room at the Delta Armouries hotel following the Hockey Canada Foundation's annual Gala & Golf fundraising event in London. McLeod faces a second charge of being a party to a sexual assault for allegedly encouraging his teammates to engage in sexual activity with the complainant when he knew she wasn't consenting. The men — who now range in age from 25 to 27 — were all members of the team that won gold for Canada at the 2018 world junior championships. All but Formenton were playing in the NHL when they were arrested last year: McLeod and Foote were with the New Jersey Devils, Hart with the Philadelphia Flyers, and Dubé with the Calgary Flames. Formenton, who previously played with the Ottawa Senators, was with Swiss team HC Ambri-Piotta. The trial has unfolded in court with each player seated at a separate table, alongside their lawyers. Here's a timeline of all the key moments of the trial so far: Justice Maria Carroccia, left to right, Michael McLeod, Carter Hart, Alex Formenton, Dillon Dube and Callan Foote are seen in a courtroom sketch. At the beginning of the trial , presided over by Ontario Superior Court Justice Maria Carroccia, all five players stood before a packed courtroom and pleaded not guilty to the charges against them. The pleas came as no surprise. The accused players are being represented by some of the most prominent criminal lawyers in the province; their lawyers had said since their January 2024 arrests that their clients maintain their innocence. News organizations are barred from writing about the identity of the complainant under a publication ban that is typical in cases involving allegations of sexual assault. Crown Heather Donkers, centre, and Justice Maria Carroccia, back, are shown in court. The first trial's jury had only been selected three days earlier had barely heard any evidence when Justice Carroccia declared a mistrial and dismissed the jury, for reasons that were covered by a publication ban intended to protect the players' right to a fair trial by the next jury. (That ban became redundant when the second jury was subsequently dismissed; the Star has since reported that the mistrial was declared over an interaction between a juror and a defence lawyer.) The court immediately proceeded to select another jury of 14 for a second trial, beginning immediately. All five men once again formally entered their pleas of not guilty. The following week's court proceedings saw Crown attorneys Meaghan Cunningham and Heather Donkers spell out the specific details of the allegations against each of the accused. Crown Meaghan Cunningham, right, and Taylor Raddysh, depicted in video conference, are seen in a courtroom sketch in London, Ont., Wednesday, April 30, 2025. They explained that after the complainant had consensual sex with McLeod in a hotel room, a series of subsequent sexual interactions occurred — all without the woman's consent. Specifically, Formenton engaged in intercourse with the complainant in the hotel room bathroom; McLeod, Hart and Dubé obtained oral sex; Dubé slapped the complainant's naked buttocks; Foote did the 'splits' over the woman while she lay on the ground, 'grazing his genitals over her face'; and McLeod had vaginal intercourse with her a second time In the first week, the jury saw evidence including screengrabs of McLeod messaging his teammates in a group chat just after 2 a.m. on June 19, writing: 'Who wants to be in 3 way quick,' one message read. Jurors also saw the complainant in two short videos taken inside the courtroom. In one, taken about 20 minutes before she's seen on camera leaving the hotel, she says 'it was all consensual.' 'Are you recording me? OK, good, it was all consensual,' she continues. 'You are so paranoid, holy. I enjoyed it. It was fine. It was all consensual. I am so sober, that's why I can't do this right now.' Crown Meaghan Cunningham, and the complainant, depicted in video conference, are seen in a courtroom sketch in London, Ont., Friday, May 2, 2025. In the nine days of her testimony, including seven days of cross-questioning by defence lawyers , the complainant went into graphic detail to describe her allegations about what took place inside the hotel room on June 19, 2018. She said she met player Michael McLeod at Jack's Bar when she was 20 years old and returned to his room at the Delta Armouries hotel where they had consensual sex, only for multiple men to come in afterward. She has alleged they placed a bedsheet on the floor and asked her to fondle herself, to perform oral sex on them as she was slapped and spat on, and to have vaginal intercourse. During her cross-examination, the complainant testified that she took on a 'porn star persona' as a coping mechanism in a hotel room full of men she didn't know. She explained that her mind had separated from her body while she engaged in sexual activity with the men. She did not claim the men physically forced her to do anything that night, nor that she said no to the alleged assaults, but said she nonetheless did not consent to what happened. She testified she was drunk and in an autonomous state , acting in 'autopilot' while surrounded by large men she didn't know and who should have known she wasn't consenting. In a shocking turn of events, Justice Carroccia dismissed the second jury suddenly after a complaint that multiple jurors felt that two defence lawyers appeared to be making fun of them in court — something the lawyers vehemently denied. Following agreement by the Crown and defence, the judge decided to continue to hear the trial without a jury, meaning witnesses who have already testified would not have to come back. 'My concern is that there is a possibility that several members of the jury harbour negative feelings about certain counsel that could potentially impact upon their ability to fairly decide this case,' Carroccia said in her ruling explaining her decision to dismiss the jury. Before being dismissed, the jury had started hearing testimony from player Tyler Steenbergen, who said he heard the woman demanding to have sex with players in the room , and witnessed Dube slap her naked buttocks and 'partially' saw Foote do the splits over her while she was on the ground. The judge's decision to dismiss the jury also had the effect of removing any publication bans on evidence heard in pretrial hearings. Such bans are intended to maintain a jury's impartiality by shielding them from information deemed inadmissible at trial. Without a jury, however, the Star could report what it saw and learned at these hearings. Hockey Canada initially investigated the alleged incident in 2018, with no conclusion. However, the woman later filed a lawsuit against the organization and, by 2022, her story had become the focus of nationwide outrage. Facing intense public pressure, Hockey Canada presented the players — some now playing in the NHL — with a stark choice: give an interview to a re-opened internal investigation, or be identified publicly and banned from Hockey Canada activities and programs for life. Lawyer Danielle Robitaille appears as a witness at the standing committee on Canadian Heritage in Ottawa on Tuesday, July 26, 2022. What the organization's independent investigator and prominent Toronto lawyer Danielle Robitaille didn't tell the players is that by August 2022, she was aware that London police planned to get a warrant to seize her investigative file as part of its own reopened investigation. Robitaille's decision to press ahead became the focus of intense argument in the pretrial hearings. Were you 'oblivious' to how potentially valuable these statements could be in the hands of the police and the Crown, as they made their case for criminal charges, McLeod's lawyer David Humphrey asked Robitaille at the hearings last year? 'I just didn't care,' Robitaille testified. 'It was collateral to me.' Superior Court Justice Bruce Thomas found that how the statements were obtained was 'so unfair and prejudicial' that they could not be used by the Crown at trial, ruled that the statements had to be excluded, and so they were never heard in court. The entrance to room 209 is seen at the Delta Armouries hotel in London, Ont. on April 25. With the second jury dismissed, Star reporter Jacques Gallant was also able to report details of both London police investigations. The first, launched in 2018, ended without charges being laid. The case was re-opened in 2022 amid intense public pressure after it was revealed Hockey Canada had settled, for an undisclosed sum, a $3.5-million sexual assault lawsuit filed by the complainant. The renewed police investigation would ultimately lead to the sexual assault charges against the five players. Documents from the first police investigation revealed that London police Det. Steve Newton came to doubt that a crime had been committed. Among the pieces of evidence that led him to that conclusion were the videos of the complainant inside the hotel room saying it was 'consensual' and surveillance footage showing the complainant walking steadily and unaided in heels in the hotel lobby — appearing to contradict that she was too intoxicated that night to consent . Newton wondered whether the complainant had been an 'active participant' in the events of June 18-19, 2018; he closed the case in February 2019. The re-opened investigation eventually led to charges under a different theory of the case: that although the complainant did not say no and was not too drunk to consent, she subjectively believed she had no alternative but to engage in sexual acts with a group of men who ought to have known she was not consenting. Behind the scenes, Crown attorney Cunningham met with the complainant and warned her that while the Crown felt it had met the test to prosecute, it was 'not a really, really strong case.' Read more about the two police investigations from the Star's Jacques Gallant : Five weeks, seven witnesses and two dismissed juries later, the Crown closed its case, hoping to have persuaded judge Carroccia that the five hockey players were guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of sexually assaulting the 20-year-old complainant the night of a charity fundraiser. 'I am formally closing the Crown's case at this time,' Crown attorney Meaghan Cunningham said in court. Read Jacques Gallant's report summarizing the Crown's evidence: Of the five former members of the 2018 Canadian world junior championship team on trial, only Carter Hart ended up testifying in his own defence, telling the court that his sexual contact with the complainant was consensual. The trial's final witness was London police Det. Lyndsey Ryan, who was tasked in the summer of 2022 with leading the reopened probe. The complainant in the Hockey Canada sexual assault case 'was actually quite upset' when Ryan the news to her in 2022 that the force was taking a second look at its initial investigation that had led to no criminal charges , the detective testified. 'I felt pretty bad because it felt like … I got the sense that I was opening up some wounds that she was trying to close,' Ryan said. Ultimately, the other four players declined to testify; the trial was put on hold until June 9, after which both sides will present their closing arguments to Carroccia. After hearing nearly six weeks' worth of evidence, lawyers began making their final pitches to Superior Court Justice Maria Carroccia, who will need to decide the fate of the five players in what was originally a jury trial but is now a judge-alone case. The defence teams are going first, with arguments expected to last until June 11. Michael McLeod's lawyer David Humphrey said Monday there are a number of problems with the complainant's credibility and reliability as the Crown's main witness, going as far as describing it as an 'embarrassment of riches' for the defence. Based on the testimony of some of the Crown's own witnesses in the hotel room, Humphrey argued the complainant was 'willing and enthusiastic' throughout the night, a 'fully consenting participant' in all of the sexual activity. Lawyers have been making their final pitches this week to Superior Court Justice Maria Carroccia, who will need to decide the fate of the five accused hockey players in what was originally a jury trial but is now a judge-alone case. Carroccia said Tuesday she will deliver her judgement on July 24 . The prosecutors and defence lawyers shook hands as the trial came to an end at the London, Ont., courthouse , after having originally started in April as a jury trial, but then shifting to a judge-alone case. Justice Carroccia thanked the lawyers for the 'very professional manner' in which they handled the case, 'which we all know has garnered a lot of public attention.' She was set to deliver the verdict on July 24. A composite image of five photographs shows, from left to right, Alex Formenton, Cal Foote, Michael McLeod, Dillon Dubé and Carter Hart. The first two lines of the Crown's opening statement in April at the high-profile Hockey Canada sexual assault trial clearly articulated what would become the dominant issue in a trial that captivated the country's attention. 'This is a case about consent,' Crown attorney Heather Donkers said. 'And, equally as important, this is a case about what is not consent.' It's an issue that will be finely parsed by Superior Court Justice Maria Carroccia when she delivers her verdicts Thursday in the case of five professional hockey players accused of sexually assaulting a young woman in a London, Ont. hotel room in 2018. Whether the judge finds the woman consented is yet to be decided; both sides have argued over what happened that night, and what it means with respect to Canadian law. If nothing else, the case has shone a spotlight on consent, as experts believe it has driven home some key messages about what consent looks like, while also raising questions about the steps required to confirm a person's consent. 'I think it goes to the broader importance of education on healthy sexual relationships,' said Kat Owens, interim legal director at LEAF, a prominent legal organization advocating for the equality of women. Michael McLeod, Alex Formenton, Carter Hart, Dillon Dubé and Cal Foote, all members of the 2018 Canadian world junior championship team, have pleaded not guilty to sexually assaulting the then-20-year-old woman in a room at the Delta Armouries hotel in the early hours of June 19, 2018. McLeod has also pleaded not guilty to being a party to a sexual assault for allegedly encouraging his teammates to engage in sexual activity with the complainant when he knew she wasn't consenting. Group text messages between some members of the 2018 world junior hockey championship team after they learned about an internal Hockey Canada investigation. (The texts appear in a multi-page court exhibit and have been excerpted by the Star to fit in a single image.) The woman had met McLeod at Jack's Bar earlier that evening while the world juniors were in London to attend the Hockey Canada Foundation's annual Gala & Golf fundraising event and to receive their rings for winning the championship. Now widely known to the public as E.M., as her identity is covered by a standard publication ban, the woman returned to McLeod's room where they had a consensual sexual encounter, only for multiple men to come in afterward, some prompted by texts from McLeod. The Crown has alleged that McLeod had intercourse with the complainant a second time in the hotel room's bathroom; that Formenton separately had intercourse with the complainant in the bathroom; that McLeod, Hart and Dubé obtained oral sex from the woman; that Dubé slapped her naked buttocks, and that Foote did the splits over her head and his genitals 'grazed' her face — all without her consent. While some of the accused players told police that E.M. was repeatedly demanding to have sex with men in the room — similar evidence was given by some of the Crown's player witnesses at trial — E.M. herself said during nine days of testimony that she only went through the motions as a way of protecting herself in a room full of men she didn't know while she was drunk and naked. While she never said no nor resisted, she did not consent, she testified. The Crown's case for sexual assault 'does not look the way it often does in the movies or on television,' prosecutors said in written closing arguments. 'The reality of what happened to E.M. is more nuanced. But it is equally a sexual assault, because she did not voluntarily agree to the sexual activity that took place in that room.' Cal Foote does the splits at Jack's Bar in London on the night of June 18-19, 2018, while teammates Brett Howden (on the far side of Foote, in white with a lighter-coloured backwards ball cap) and Dillon Dubé (in white on the near side of Foote) clear space on the dance floor. Regardless of the findings made by the judge on the facts of this particular case, Owens said she believes the trial showed the public that the idea of 'implied consent' — that because a person didn't say no or resist, they must have consented — isn't recognized in law. Consent needs to be 'active, ongoing and communicated,' she said, voluntarily given by words or actions to each new sexual act at the time the person is engaging in it with each new sexual partner. 'I think that's come through from the trial, which is valuable in terms of what we learn about consent,' she said. 'We need to shift from that only 'no means no' framing to that 'yes means yes' framing.' A person needs to be consenting in their mind at the time of the sexual activity, what's known as subjective consent, said Lisa Dufraimont, a professor at York University's Osgoode Hall law school. And they can't give 'broad advance consent,' meaning giving consent to future, undefined sexual activity, she said. Nor can consent be given retroactively for past sexual activity, Dufraimont added — 'There's no such thing as post-event consent, period.' The trial spent some time on that point, given that McLeod recorded two videos of E.M. saying she was OK and that 'it was all consensual.' Michael McLeod films a selfie video with the complainant on the dance floor inside Jack's Bar. Was complainant's apparent consent cancelled out? The Crown has argued that E.M. either wasn't consenting or her consent was 'vitiated' — effectively cancelled — by the fear of being in a room full of men she didn't know. E.M. testified that her mind went on 'autopilot' and she went along with everything in the room as a way to keep herself safe, later telling police and prosecutors that she adopted the 'persona' of a 'porn star' as a coping mechanism . 'The complainant's fear need not be reasonable, nor must it be communicated to the accused in order for consent to be vitiated,' Donkers and co-counsel Meaghan Cunningham argued in written materials. The defence teams have maintained that E.M. was consenting throughout the night. They pointed to testimony that E.M. was repeatedly demanding to have sex with the men, calling them 'pussies' and becoming upset when many of them refused. And they suggested that her 'terror narrative,' that she was afraid to be in the room, was cooked up in 2022 as part of her $3.5-million sexual assault lawsuit against Hockey Canada, which the organization quickly settled for an undisclosed sum. When she first reported to London police in 2018, E.M. didn't mention being scared, but rather maintained she was too drunk to consent. As the Star first reported in May, police declined to lay charges , in part because of surveillance footage that raised doubts about her level of intoxication. (At trial, the Crown didn't argue that E.M. was too intoxicated to consent.) It was only after news broke of the Hockey Canada settlement that London police reopened their probe in 2022 , under intense public pressure. What does having a 'consent video' mean, when it comes to a trial? McLeod filmed two short videos of E.M. on his phone while in the hotel room that night, about an hour apart, with the second one being filmed shortly before she left. E.M. said she wasn't even aware she was being filmed in the first clip, in which McLeod asks her off-camera if she's 'OK with this' and she responds: 'I'm OK with this.' The second clip shows a smiling E.M. wrapping herself in a towel and saying: 'Are you recording me? OK, good, it was all consensual. You are so paranoid, holy. I enjoyed it. It was fine. It was all consensual. I am so sober, that's why I can't do this right now.' E.M. conceded in her testimony that McLeod had been asking her at other times if she was fine , but that she just told him what she thought he wanted to hear. The Crown pointed out that recording someone after the fact saying they consented is not evidence that they actually consented at the time of the sexual activity. But experts say there can still be value in such 'consent videos' in a sexual assault trial. A video could support an inference that a complainant was, in fact, consenting, depending on other evidence in the case and the circumstances surrounding the making of the video, said Lisa Kerr, a law professor at Queen's University. 'It would be very strange to suggest that a video that purports to record an agreement may not serve as at least some evidence of that agreement, even if there may also be more to the story,' she said. And a video could be used to make determinations about the complainant's demeanour close in time to the alleged offence, Dufraimont said. 'That would be a good example of a permissible use of that evidence.' For instance, the defence has argued that E.M.'s demeanour in the videos — smiling, speaking coherently — casts doubt on her claims she was intoxicated and terrified, which would affect her credibility as a witness. 'What he captured is critical evidence that she was happy and was fine with what was happening,' David Humphrey, McLeod's lawyer, said in his closing arguments. 'Time has proven that Mr. McLeod was right in his instinct to get some recorded confirmation of her consent and of how she appeared at the time.' Consent videos can 'cut both ways,' Owens with LEAF said. 'People might say it can be helpful to the defence if the person says they were intoxicated or upset, but they don't appear intoxicated or upset,' she said. 'But on the other hand, a person could ask: If you engage in consensual sexual activity, why do you feel the need to film after the fact?' Hart offered up an answer to that question when he was being cross-examined by Cunningham during his testimony in May , an answer the Crown did not probe further: 'Lots of professional athletes have done those things before.' Should the judge find that E.M. wasn't consenting, an accused player could still be acquitted if Carroccia finds he had what's called an honest but mistaken belief in communicated consent. For that defence to be available to an accused, the person must have taken reasonable steps to ascertain the complainant's consent, something the Crown argues the players did not do. Prosecutors argued the 'reasonable steps requirement' was heightened in the 'highly unusual circumstances' of this case, given that everyone involved could be assumed to have consumed alcohol, E.M. was a complete stranger, and was naked surrounded by clothed men she didn't know in a small room. Hart, for example, testified that he asked the complainant for 'a blowie, meaning a blowjob,' that she said 'yeah' or 'sure,' and then moved toward him and helped pull down his pants before performing oral sex for about 30 seconds to a minute. Even if the judge accepts that version of events, the Crown argues Hart needed to do more to confirm E.M.'s consent. For example, taking her aside in the bathroom to ask her more questions privately, such as her name, what led up to this situation, whether this was something she truly wanted, or probe her desires. Hart's lawyer, Megan Savard, argued that the Crown was asking the judge to 'extend the law beyond what the leading cases permit' regarding reasonable steps — 'I'm not aware of any case saying you have to isolate a member of a group sexual encounter in order to get their consent.' The entrance to room 209 is seen at the Delta Armouries hotel in London, Ontario on April 25, 2025. There was also some evidence that, in response to the complainant's repeated demands for sex, Formenton said he would do it, but not in front of everyone else; he then followed E.M. into the bathroom. Again, the Crown says this was insufficient. 'Had any of the men had a one-on-one conversation with her at the time of the impugned sexual activity, and she said she truly wanted the specific sexual activity with that man, it may not have meant she was actually consenting or enjoying it, but it would have meant that the accused had taken reasonable steps to ascertain her consent and thus had an available defence to the charge,' the Crown says in its written materials. The Crown's arguments raise the question as to just how many steps a person is supposed to take to ascertain consent; experts say there's no exhaustive list of reasonable steps, nor a required number. 'It's a really challenging issue, because it's so context-specific,' Owens said. A couple in a long-term relationship may have developed specific ways of demonstrating their consent to sexual activity between them, she said, versus a woman in a room full of men she's just met that night. The law suggests that 'more care and caution is required' in terms of reasonable steps in a situation where the parties are largely unknown to each other, or where the accused knows the complainant has been drinking alcohol, Kerr said. 'Having said that, if the trial judge accepts in this case that Carter Hart asked for oral sex and the complainant agreed, or that the complainant asked for sex and Alex Formenton agreed to do it provided they could do so privately, I would think that these are the kinds of words and actions that could suggest reasonable steps were taken,' Kerr said. 'Verbal discussion of willingness to engage in sexual activity is typically a stronger indication of reasonable steps than, say, relying on mere body language or physical actions.' And a consent video may actually help to invoke this defence, Kerr said. 'It is obvious that discussing consent in a video or other recording may show that an accused was attempting to check on consent,' Kerr said. 'The key question in terms of the impact of the video will be whether it is sufficiently detailed and whether it appears to be a voluntary collaboration or, in contrast, if it appears to be something more like an attempt to cover up a wrong.' If the Crown is found to be right on the question of reasonable steps, criminal defence lawyer Monte MacGregor wonders just how far a person needs to go. 'The thing about this case that I find a little bit alarming is it appeared these accused men did everything you could do to obtain valid consent: they checked in multiple times, they listened to her, she made assertions, they videotaped a couple of comments,' said MacGregor, who is not involved in the case. 'What would be necessary if a standard like this leads to guilt? Does it mean you have to confirm with a written statement? That you have to videotape every interaction? Have a witness? 'It can't get to the point where it necessitates such a rigid set of rules to obtain consent.' Police, media and members of the public have piled into a small and humid hallway outside the courtroom. Doors will open just before 10. Some of the accused players have arrived at the London courthouse ahead of the reading of the verdicts, which is expected to begin shortly after 10 a.m.
Chicago Tribune
5 hours ago
- Chicago Tribune
Michael McClain, lobbyist and Madigan confidant at the center of the ComEd bribery scandal, finally faces sentencing
Of all the players swirling in the bribery scandal involving former House Speaker Michael Madigan, from precinct captains and political directors to legislators and lobbyists, one man held the ultimate catbird seat: Michael Francis McClain. As a longtime lobbyist for utility giant Commonwealth Edison who doubled as Madigan's closest confidant, McClain toiled for years in relative obscurity, known mostly by Springfield insiders and political reporters as the former legislator from downstate Quincy with the thick prescription glasses who always seemed to be hanging around Madigan's office suite in the Capitol. But it was through his close relationship with Illinois' most powerful and reticent politician, prosecutors say, that McClain was able to leverage knowledge of the speaker's thinking to induce ComEd executives to lavish money on Madigan's cronies and scramble to meet his myriad other demands. Now, more than two years after McClain's conviction in the historic 'ComEd Four' bribery case, McClain is scheduled to learn his fate Thursday at the Dirksen U.S. Courthouse, where he faces sentencing in what has become one of the biggest bribery scandals in state history. McClain, 77, will be the third of the four defendants to be sentenced in the case, and as with the others, U.S. District Judge Manish Shah will have wide latitude in deciding a punishment. Earlier this week, former ComEd CEO Anne Pramaggiore was given two years in prison, while John Hooker, the utility's former top internal lobbyist, received a year and a half behind bars at a hearing last week. Consultant Jay Doherty, the former head of the City Club of Chicago, will be sentenced next month. Prosecutors on Tuesday asked for a 15-month prison term for Doherty, saying his 'discreet handling and willingness to conceal the true nature' of subcontractor payments to Madigan associates were 'vitally important' to the scheme. Prosecutors have asked for nearly six years in prison for McClain, writing in a recent court filing that the 'stunning' scheme was his brainchild and was 'illegal to its core.' 'In securing benefits for both Madigan and ComEd, McClain corrupted the legislative process and the internal control processes of a large, regulated utility,' prosecutors said. 'McClain's repeated overstepping of legal lines in this case is stunning.' McClain's attorneys asked for probation, stating in a filing of their own that McClain merely passed along 'a handful of job recommendations' from Madigan because of his powerful position as speaker and the fact that they were close friends. 'Doing so was legal and constitutionally protected lobbying,' defense attorneys Patrick Cotter and David Niemeier wrote. 'The government's failure to make the critical distinction between a favor done with intent to lawfully curry favor with a public official, as opposed to the trading of gifts for actions done by that official, was at the heart of this case.' The hearing marks an important milestone in McClain's legal saga, which began in May 2019 when the feds raided his home. Four years later, in May 2023, he was found guilty on all counts in the ComEd Four trial. That was followed by another trial with Madigan himself that ended earlier this year with a jury hung on all counts against McClain. The sentencing also happens to come six years to the day that the Tribune first reported the feds were looking into thousands of dollars in checks that McClain and other ComEd-connected lobbyists had sent to Kevin Quinn, a top Madigan political operative ousted after he was accused of sexually harassing a campaign staffer. Later in 2019, the Tribune first disclosed McClain's cellphone had been wiretapped by the FBI — which ultimately formed the lynchpin of the entire investigation. In the ensuing years, Illinois has gotten to know McClain in a level of detail far beyond most criminal defendants. Through three criminal trials, including the perjury case against former Madigan chief of staff Tim Mapes, there have been dozens of wiretapped calls played in court and hundreds of his emails publicly displayed, conversations that painted a picture of how McClain used his unfettered access to Madigan to get some of Illinois' top executives to scramble to meet their demands. The wiretaps and other evidence revealed McClain's use of crude code words for Madigan, often referring to the speaker as 'our Friend' or 'Himself,' as well as his penchant for archaic military terminology, such as when he told Madigan in a retirement note he would remain 'at the bridge with my musket' for the speaker. The communications also captured McClain at his most blunt, telling Pramaggiore in an email in 2016 that ComEd's reluctance to kick more money to a Madigan-preferred law firm would have dire repercussions down the road. 'I know the drill and so do you,' he wrote to Pramaggiore. 'If you do not get involved and resolve this issue of 850 hours for his law firm per year then he will go to our Friend. Our Friend will call me and then I will call you. Is this a drill we must go through?' In his sentencing filing, McClain's attorney, Patrick Cotter, noted that witnesses at trial all testified McClain was an extremely skilled lobbyist and hard worker, someone who sought, as all good lobbyists do, to build relationships with powerful politicians and advocate his clients' positions. What's more, Cotter wrote, there was nothing illegal about his overtures, regardless of how they were articulated. 'Simply put, over almost a decade, Mr. McClain passed along and advocated for a handful of job recommendations from Madigan because of Madigan's position both as an influential member of the General Assembly and, in no small measure, because Madigan was Mr. McClain's old and close friend,' Cotter wrote. 'Doing so was legal and constitutionally protected lobbying. It should not have been treated as a crime.' Cotter also said it would be 'unjust' to make McClain a scapegoat for the state's history of political corruption or some abstract symbol 'to promote whatever current notion (prosecutors) maintain of 'good government.'' 'Mr. McClain has not held political office in over 30 years,' Cotter wrote. 'He is neither responsible for, nor is it just to punish him to any degree for generations of the way politics has been conducted by other people in this state, or practices that pre-date his birth and may, one suspects, continue in various, perhaps different, incarnations long after he is gone.' McClain and his three co-defendants — Pramaggiore, Hooker and Doherty — were convicted on all counts in May 2023 after a two-month trial. The case was then beset by a series of delays, first because of a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that reset the rules for a key federal bribery statute and then again after the death of the judge who'd presided over the trial, Harry Leinenweber. 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. Madigan, meanwhile, was convicted in a separate trial of an array of schemes that included the ComEd bribery payments. He was sentenced in June to seven and a half years in prison. Defense attorneys for the ComEd Four have repeatedly argued the government was seeking to criminalize legal lobbying and job recommendations that are at the heart of the state's legitimate political system. But prosecutors say the entire scope of the scheme is still fair game, even if the specific bribery counts were dropped — a position that Shah has agreed with.
CBS News
15 hours ago
- CBS News
Former Illinois House Speaker Mike Madigan appeals conviction
Former Illinois House Speaker Mike Madigan filed an appeal of his federal corruption conviction Wednesday. Last month, Madigan was sentenced to 7 1/2 years in prison, following his conviction on bribery, conspiracy, and fraud charges. He was also ordered to pay a $2.5 million fine. Madigan was convicted in February of 10 corruption counts – including bribery conspiracy, bribery, and wire fraud – but acquitted him on seven other charges, while jurors were deadlocked on six other counts, following a four-month trial accusing him of running a yearslong criminal enterprise to enrich himself and his political allies. Madigan and his longtime political confidant Michael McClain were accused of conspiring with utility companies ComEd and AT&T to provide no-show jobs to Madigan's allies in exchange for the speaker's help on legislation. Prosecutors also accused Madigan of pressuring real estate developers to hire his private law firm, which specializes in property tax appeals. Last week, Madigan's legal team asked a judge to keep him from going to prison as they appeal his conviction.
