It could be a plot to one of his own James Patterson-style legal thrillers:

David Ellis, a successful novelist and former top counsel to powerful House Speaker Michael Madigan, was on the witness stand in a federal criminal courtroom.

Now an Illinois Appellate Court justice whose campaign was run by Madigan himself, Ellis was called to testify Wednesday in one of the biggest Chicago corruption trials in years, an alleged bribes-for-favors scheme targeting his former boss.

In the end, Ellis’ real-life testimony may not have had the cachet of his own fiction.

Still, he played an important role as the “ComEd Four” trial transitioned to the defense, explaining to the jury in a personably wonkish style the tedious, behind-the-scenes work of drafting big utility legislation in Springfield, including bills involving ComEd at the heart of the allegations.

Ellis, 56, was called by attorneys for Anne Pramaggiore, the former CEO of Commonwealth Edison, who is charged along with three others with cooking up a plan to coax the speaker into supporting the giant utility’s legislative agenda.

Dressed in a dark suit, white shirt and purple tie, Ellis cracked jokes during his direct examination that had spectators and jurors in the courtroom laughing out loud, including a self-deprecating crack when he was asked whether his books had sold well.

“Well, the ones with Patterson are bestsellers,” he quipped, referring to the books he’s co-authored with the famed novelist.

He was adamant, however, that while Madigan’s staff played an important role in getting ComEd’s bills to a vote, their focus was always on making the legislation better, often in ways that were detrimental to the utility.

Ellis also made clear he didn’t believe the speaker tipped the scales in favor of the 2011 Energy Infrastructure Modernization Act bill, which the indictment alleged was passed in part with Madigan’s support.

“Did Mike Madigan ever tell you to favor ComEd?” asked Pramaggiore attorney Daniel Craig at the end of his two-hour direct examination.

Ellis chuckled softly, before again answering, “No.”

Ellis took the stand shortly after prosecutors rested their case in chief Wednesday, which featured 17 days of testimony featuring some 37 witnesses, dozens of wiretapped phone calls and secretly recorded videos.

Before the defense cases began, U.S. District Judge Harry Leinenweber advised each of the defendants of their rights to testify in their own defense and whether they had made a decision either way.

Pramaggiore informed the court she plans to take the witness stand herself — a rare and often risky move in a high-stakes federal trial. Her testimony will likely begin Thursday.

Pramaggiore’s case will be followed by defendants Jay Doherty, a ComEd lobbyist and former head of the City Club of Chicago, and John Hooker, a lobbyist and former executive for the company.

The last defendant to present a case will be Michael McClain, a longtime confidant of Madigan’s who worked for years as a ComEd contract lobbyist and consultant.

Unlike Pramaggiore, the other three defendants told the judge they still are considering whether to testify on their own behalf.

The indictment alleged the four defendants steered $1.3 million in payments from ComEd to Madigan-approved subcontractors who did little or no work in a bid to win the speaker’s influence over the utility’s legislative agenda in Springfield.

The indictment also alleged the defendants schemed to hire a clout-heavy law firm run by political operative Victor Reyes and stack the utility’s summer internship program with candidates sent from the 13th Ward.

The four on trial have all pleaded not guilty. Their lawyers have contended the government is trying to turn legal lobbying and job recommendations into a crime.

Madigan and McClain face a separate racketeering indictment that is set for trial next year.

The first witness to testify on Pramaggiore’s behalf was Val Jensen, a former ComEd executive, who said that Pramaggiore was a “genuine” leader who “always said to do the right thing and do what we promised the legislature we would do.”

“I think she’s very honest,” Jensen said. “I was never in a situation when I felt she wasn’t being honest.”

Like they did with Ellis, Pramaggiore’s attorneys used Jensen’s testimony to play down any role that Madigan had in aiding ComEd’s legislative agenda.

Jensen, who oversaw multiple ComEd green energy efforts and worked on legislation, testified it took major coalitions of labor, environmentalists and local public officials to pass utility-backed legislation and that the strategy did not include asking Madigan for a favor.

On cross-examination, Jensen acknowledged he has no personal knowledge of the allegations in the case, or the alleged payments to Madigan allies as subcontractors.

Ellis’ testimony, meanwhile, offered the jury an insider’s view from one of the top legal minds of Madigan’s operation.

As Madigan’s chief House counsel, Ellis was perhaps best known for playing a key role in orchestrating the legal strategy that led to Democratic Gov. Rod Blagojevich’s 2009 impeachment. He also acted as the chief prosecutor in the Senate trial that ended with the wayward chief executive tossed out of office on a unanimous vote.

Two years later, Ellis played a far less public role as one of the speaker’s chief negotiators on legislation that allowed ComEd to set up its smart grid program and establish formula rates that prosecutors have said led to more than a billion dollars in new profits for the company.

At the outset, Ellis acknowledged Madigan “ran” his 2014 campaign to get elected to the bench, including assigning staff and assigning him tasks. “(Madigan) was in charge of it,” Ellis testified. “He was instrumental, no question.”

Asked if his association with Madigan affected his ability to testify impartially, Ellis quickly said: “No, of course not.”

Ellis also acknowledged that both McClain and Hooker contributed money to his campaign but said he’d not solicited the donations.

“I couldn’t even ask my mother for a campaign contribution, although I did strongly suggest that she make one,” Ellis quipped.

Ellis testified that his assignment to work on the smart grid legislation was not unusual, particularly for a “dense and technical” bill that he said read “like IRS tax code.”

Asked on direct examination whether it was his job to make sure ComEd got what it wanted, he said, “No, I was not concerned about what ComEd wanted at all. I was just trying to make the bill better.”

Ellis said he tried to focus on the things consumers noticed, like power outages or the amounts on their bills, as well as making sure the language in the legislation matched the utility’s “rhetoric to the legislators.”

Ellis told the jury they fought tooth-and-nail with ComEd over many issues, including “sunset provisions” requiring the company to return to the legislature to renew formula rates every few years. Still, Ellis said, he didn’t look at ComEd as the enemy.

“I didn’t view them as an adversary, I just didn’t care what they thought,” he testified. “I only cared what would be best for the rate payers. That was my focus.”

Ellis was also asked repeatedly whether Madigan ever asked him to go easy on ComEd during the negotiations. While he said he doesn’t remember every conversation he had with the speaker, he found it very unlikely.

“He just did not talk that way,” Ellis said of Madigan’s style. “If he had ever said something like that to me I don’t think I would have ever forgotten it.”

But Ellis’ smooth style vanished a bit on cross-examination, when his voice lowered and he seemed puzzled at times by the prosecutor’s questions.

At one point, Assistant U.S. Sarah Streicker asked Ellis if Madigan voting in favor of a bill showed that he supported passage of the legislation. Ellis sounded slightly baffled by the seemingly obvious answer.

“What? Voting ‘yes’ is a way to support passage of it?” Ellis said. “Yes, of course.”

Ellis also acknowledged on cross-examination that he was not involved in the politics of Madigan’s operation. He said he knew McClain and Madigan had dinner together often, but he was not on the invite list, though he may have had dinner with them once, “after the impeachment of Blagojevich.”

Ellis also had only a vague knowledge of some of the other political players in the trial. Asked if he knew Reyes, the longtime Democratic operative who had two separate contracts with ComEd, Ellis said he’d met him only once.

“One of those awkward situations where he knew who I was but I didn’t know who he was,” he said.

“Did you know that Speaker Madigan helped Victor Reyes obtain legal work for his law firm?” Streicker asked. “No,” Ellis replied.

[ ‘ComEd Four’ bribery trial: What you need to know ]

Pramaggiore’s attorneys also called Justin Cox, who worked under Ellis on the smart grid legislation and later worked on negotiations over other important utility legislation such as the Future Energy Jobs Act.

Like Ellis, Cox testified his impression was that Madigan was skeptical about legislation pushed by utilities.

And when asked if Madigan ever said not to be so hard on ComEd, Cox said: “I don’t recall ever hearing that.”

The defense then called a series of character witnesses, who gushed so profusely about Pramaggiore’s integrity, honesty and other admirable qualities that prosecutors repeatedly objected.

Leinenweber sustained the objections because they went outside of the restrictions on the testimony he’d ordered earlier in the day.

One of the character witnesses, ComEd engineer John Bettler, praised Pramaggiore’s vision for improving the company’s reliability and technology as well as her attentiveness to employee needs. And though he’d never met with her in a one-on-one situation, he said she seemed to be totally trustworthy.

“I’d trust her with my life,” Bettler testified. “She’s amazing.”

Lois Gates, the assistant executive director at Misericordia, went even further, hailing Pramaggiore for her interest in the facility that helps people with various special needs.

After prosecutors objected to her lengthy list of “wonderful interactions” with Pramaggiore, the judge held a brief sidebar with attorneys. When her testimony resumed, Gates launched into a defense of Pramaggiore’s integrity.

“Well, sitting here during that little break, I’m wondering why I’m even in this courtroom for someone like Anne Pramaggiore,” Gates said. “She’s really one of those few people that doesn’t think about herself. She thinks about others.”

Jan Hickman, who worked on speeches and other communications for Pramaggiore, did not hold back any accolades, either.

“Her integrity is unparalleled,” Hickman said. ““When she sees something wrong, she stops it. When she sees something right, she encourages it.”

Prosecutors countered the effusive praise of several witnesses by getting them to acknowledge they did not have direct knowledge of the allegations in the case.

[ ‘ComEd Four’ trial: Evidence seen and heard by the jury ]

jmeisner@chicagotribune.com