Former Illinois House Speaker Michael J. Madigan took a big risk this week when he chose to testify in his own defense and deny that he’d ever sold his public office for private gain.The consequences of his decision could more fully reveal themselves as soon as Monday. But after jurors went home for the week Wednesday, prosecutors made clear they believe evidence previously barred from Madigan’s trial is now fair game, thanks to Madigan’s testimony.And U.S. District Judge John Blakey agreed that “the door is open” to one notorious recording of Madigan that has never been heard publicly — in which Madigan allegedly joked about certain ComEd contractors making out “like bandits.” Trial highlights Trial highlightsJudge John Blakey ruled that a never-before-heard recording, in which Michael Madigan quips about ComEd contractors making out “like bandits,” can be heard by jurors.Madigan used his testimony to distance himself from co-defendant Michael McClain and former Ald. Danny Solis.Madigan’s cross-examination by prosecutors could begin as early as Monday. Madigan got a preview of what’s to come when, after jurors went home, Assistant U.S. Attorney Amarjeet Bhachu asked Blakey about the “rules of the game” for cross-examination. Bhachu said he also wants to ask about Madigan’s “knowledge of patronage hiring over the course of his career,” citing a Madigan interview about the late Mayor Richard J. Daley that was conducted as part of an academic oral history project.The prosecutor also mentioned former 13th Ward worker Kevin Quinn and “why he was actually terminated.” Kevin Quinn, the brother of Ald. Marty Quinn (13th) was fired in 2018 over allegations that he sexually harassed political consultant Alaina Hampton.Hampton was expected to be an early witness in Madigan’s trial but was never called to the stand. So far, jurors have only been told that Kevin Quinn was fired for “allegations of misconduct.”Bhachu made his argument after Madigan finished answering questions Wednesday for his own attorney and an attorney representing his co-defendant, Michael McClain. Madigan and McClain are on trial together for an alleged racketeering conspiracy.Federal prosecutors say Madigan led a criminal enterprise designed to enrich himself and his allies, with McClain acting as his agent. McClain declined to testify, but Madigan has so far spent about six hours denying the feds’ claims over two days.Chicago’s federal courthouse will be closed Thursday in honor of the late President Jimmy Carter, and Blakey does not conduct the trial on Fridays. That means the feds’ cross-examination of Madigan, likely to be handled by Bhachu, is not expected until Monday at the earliest.Madigan spent much of his testimony Wednesday distancing himself from McClain and another key figure, former Ald. Danny Solis (25th), who secretly recorded Madigan for the FBI.While Blakey agreed that the “door is open” for the “bandits” recording to be played at trial, it’s not clear whether it will be played during Madigan’s cross-examination by prosecutors or later, during a rebuttal case they’re expected to bring.The tape has previously been barred from two trials — Madigan’s and a 2023 trial in which McClain and three others with ties to ComEd were convicted of conspiring to bribe Madigan.Bhachu argued that the recording became relevant when Madigan testified he was “angry” at associates of his who allegedly did no work while being paid thousands of dollars by ComEd. The claim is part of the same alleged conspiracy that led to McClain’s earlier conviction.Defense attorneys have adamantly opposed letting jurors hear the "bandits" tape, and up until now they’ve been successful in preventing it. Madigan made the comment in August 2018 to McClain while discussing former Chicago Federation of Labor President Dennis Gannon.During their conversation, McClain told Madigan that Gannon had been enlisted to deliver a labor agreement involving ComEd around to various people to be signed, records show.Madigan wondered, “How did Gannon get involved?” And he asked, “B-but Mike, he’s involved with ComEd?”McClain said, “Yeah, remember we got him that contract, um, maybe five years ago now, whenever it was? For a buck fifty a year.”Prosecutors say McClain meant $150,000.That’s when Madigan allegedly laughed and said, “Some of these guys have made out like bandits, Mike.”Defense attorneys have argued Gannon was not part of the feds’ allegations against Madigan. Prosecutors acknowledged during a September hearing, before the trial began, that they “will not be presenting evidence” that Gannon was hired by ComEd at Madigan’s request.However, Assistant U.S. Attorney Julia Schwartz stressed the “plural” nature of Madigan’s comment, arguing that Madigan’s quip went beyond Gannon. Why the Madigan trial matters Why the Madigan trial mattersMichael J. Madigan was the longest-serving state House speaker in the United States. That position made him the leader of the Illinois House of Representatives for nearly four decades, where he shepherded legislation that affected everyday life in Illinois. He also served for more than 20 years as the head of the Democratic Party of Illinois. Ultimately, he rose to become one of the most dominant politicians in Illinois since the late Chicago Mayor Richard J. Daley.What to expect in the trialWho was caught up in the investigationWho is Judge John Blakey?The documents behind the caseRead all our coverage of the historic trial here. Turning to Bhachu’s other requests Wednesday, Blakey said Madigan’s 2009 interview about Daley is no longer barred from Madigan’s trial, but Blakey told the prosecutor “you’re going to have to establish why each and every piece of it is admissible” — and he warned he might ultimately find none of it is.The judge did not rule on Bhachu’s request to discuss the reason for the firing of Kevin Quinn.Earlier, during Madigan’s three hours on the witness stand Wednesday, Madigan was asked by McClain attorney Patrick Cotter whether Madigan’s relationship with McClain had survived in the 40 years since they’d served in the state Legislature together in the 1970s and 1980s.“It did, until recently,” Madigan testified.The remark offered rare public insight into the state of the relationship between the two men. Multiple juries have been told that McClain served as an emissary of Madigan’s in the state Capitol.McClain’s attorneys predicted last summer that Madigan’s defense attorneys would ultimately point the finger at McClain, despite their lengthy and well-known friendship.But so far, Madigan has simply testified that he did not authorize McClain to speak on his behalf the way he did in some of the more notorious phone calls and emails in the case.For example, Madigan attorney Dan Collins brought up a comment McClain made in an email, claiming Madigan believed that “there should be a hard and quick favorable response” to the politician’s requests.Collins asked Madigan on Wednesday, “Did McClain accurately describe your mindset?” Collins also asked, “Did you instruct McClain to express this sentiment?”Madigan denied it.Likewise, McClain notoriously sent an email to then-ComEd CEO Anne Pramaggiore complaining that the law firm of Madigan ally Victor Reyes was having trouble with a contract renewal. McClain wrote, “I know the drill and so do you.”“Did you instruct Mike McClain to express this sentiment to ComEd on your behalf?” Collins asked on Wednesday.Again, Madigan denied it.Madigan later pushed back on a question from Cotter, who asked if McClain was a “master of House rules and procedure” in Springfield.“I don’t know if I’d use the word ‘master,’” Madigan said. “But he was aware and knowledgeable.”At another point, Cotter asked if Madigan agreed that McClain “earned a certain amount of trust as a lobbyist?”“At the time, yes,” Madigan said.Collins also spent the morning asking Madigan about his various encounters with Solis. Prosecutors say Madigan tried to use Solis, then the chair of the City Council’s Zoning Committee, to steer private business to Madigan’s tax appeals law firm.Madigan told the jury he’d “never heard anything negative about Ald. Solis” — until reporting by the Chicago Sun-Times in January 2019 “disclosed that Mr. Solis had been involved in significant criminal activity.” Related Solis secretly recorded fellow Ald. Burke to help feds in criminal investigation As part of an FBI ruse, Solis asked for Madigan’s help in 2018 landing a paid seat on a government board. Meanwhile, Madigan asked for Solis’ help getting introductions to property developers, and he also asked Solis to help Madigan’s son get a meeting with a Pilsen not-for-profit. The latter request led to $43,000 in business for Madigan’s son, jurors have heard.But Madigan denied that he had connected the favors to Solis’ request for a board seat. He also pointed out that he never asked Solis for help meeting a set of developers interested in a parking lot in Chinatown, which became part of another alleged scheme involving Solis.Procedures at Madigan’s law firm would have prevented it from hiring the developers because it involved a land-transfer from the state, Madigan told the jury.“I didn’t want to meet [the developers],” Madigan said, “because there was no way that I would take that property for representation on real estate taxes.”Most notably, Madigan explained his reaction to a comment Solis made in 2017 about another set of developers working on an apartment complex in the West Loop. Solis told Madigan that they understand how things work “you know, the quid pro quo, the quid pro quo.”Madigan said that, in his mind, the comment generated “a great deal of surprise and concern,” and he decided to discuss it with Solis, face-to-face. When he did, he said Solis seemed “very apologetic” and “had gotten the message from me that I was not going to be involved in a quid pro quo.”Solis continued to tie Madigan’s law firm business to the development project in follow-up discussions, though. Eventually, Madigan told Solis to “go ahead and process that,” which prosecutors have suggested was a veiled green-light for a crooked deal.But Madigan testified that he simply didn’t find Solis’ questions on the matter to be “appropriate” — and he didn’t want to confront Solis further.“I answered the way I did because I didn’t think it appropriate for him to be linking the two,” Madigan testified. “That’s why I gave the answer that I gave.”Contributing: Dave McKinney