JUDGMENT OF
ACQUITTAL
Although Mr. Farmer was acquitted of conspiracy to possess and distribute
several kilograms of cocaine, the jury was unable to reach a verdict on the
charge that Mr. Farmer attempted to possess that same cocaine. Our attorneys carefully researched the issued
and drafted a detailed motion in support of the position that the jury's
acquittal on the conspiracy count required an acquittal on the attempt count.
The argument convinced the judge, who found
Mr. Farmer not guilty.
Mr. Aguilar suffered from a serious heroin
addiction. Knowing this, a government informant agreed to provide Mr. Aguilar
with heroin on multiple occasions if Mr. Aguilar would engage in conversations
with her about robbing a bank. On the day of the supposed bank robbery the
government informant provided Mr. Aguilar with heroin, which he injected on
three occasions. She then drove Mr. Aguilar to a bank where she told him
to exit her vehicle. After he exited the vehicle she placed a gun in his hand
and he was immediately arrested before approaching any bank. Mr. Brindley
presented Mr. Aguilar's entrapment defense
at trial. Following the trial the judge
entered a judgment of acquittal finding Mr. Aguilar not guilty of attempted
bank robbery. The government then charged Mr. Aguilar with conspiracy to rob a
bank. Mr. Brindley is currently defending him on this charge as well.
SUPPRESSION
In United States v. Doe*, agents obtained a confession from the
defendant and a laptop computer containing child pornography from the
defendant’s family home. Mr. Brindley
and Ms. Westover prepared a motion to suppress, challenging the agent’s entry
of the residence and claiming a violation of the defendant’s Fourth Amendment
rights. After a three-day evidentiary
hearing, the district court agreed that a Fourth Amendment violation had been
made by the agents and suppressed the confession, the laptop, and all
statements made while the agents were present in the defendant’s family home.
MOTION FOR
NEW TRIAL
Mr. Banks was convicted of conspiracy to
distribute cocaine. He was facing 30 years or more in prison. He then hired Mr.
Brindley to handle his post trial motions. During his preparation for
post-trial motions, Mr. Brindley determined that a DEA chemist who testified in
Mr. Banks' case had been under investigation at the time of her testimony and
failed to provide that information to the defense. Mr. Brindley conducted a
hearing in which he cross examined this chemist and allowed the court to see
the bias that tainted her testimony. Based on this hearing, the Chief Judge overturned Mr. Banks'
conviction on possession with intent to distribute and overturned all of
the jury's findings regarding drug quantities. Mr. Banks went from facing
approximately 30 years to facing approximately 4 years on the conspiracy count.
The government appealed the judge's decision. Our firm handled the appeal and
following oral argument Mr. Banks won
his appeal and his conviction remains reversed.
EXCLUSION OF EVIDENCE
In United States v. Doe*, the government located more than an hour’s
worth of graphic child pornography videos on the defendant’s computer. Mr. Brindley challenged the admission of
these videos on the basis that their admission would violate the rules of
evidence and unfairly prejudice the jury against the defendant. The government argued strongly that these
videos would show the defendant’s act of advertising and transmitting these
graphic videos to thousands of downloaders.
The Court agreed with Mr. Brindley and did not allow the videos to be
played.
In United States v.
Doe*, in the midst of trial, the government obtained evidence proving that
the internet signal that transmitted more than 72 hours of child pornography
videos could be traced to the defendant’s
apartment. The government asked to admit
the evidence. Mr. Brindley argued that
the interpretation of the records from the internet service provider
constituted the admission of an improper expert opinion. The Court agreed and the evidence was
excluded.
In United States v.
Doe*, the government sought to prove that the defendant possessed a firearm
for the purpose of furthering a drug crime.
The government sought to admit multiple undercover videos showing the
defendant mixing large quantities of heroin and directing others regarding the
preparation of heroin for sale. Mr.
Brindley argued that the video was unduly prejudicial and irrelevant due to its
content and the lack of reference to the charged firearm. The government strongly disagreed. The Court granted Mr. Brindley’s motion and
excluded the video from admission at trial.
In United States v.
Farmer, the defendant was charged with conspiracy to possess with the
intent to distribute cocaine and attempt to possess cocaine. Prior to his arrest, the defendant had been
twice convicted of drug crimes. The
government sought to admit these crimes against him at trial. Mr. Brindley argued that these previous
convictions bore no similarity to the charged crimes and, therefore, their
admission would violate the rules of evidence and unfairly prejudice the
defendant. The Court agreed and the
prior convictions were excluded from evidence.
Mr. Handley was charged with participating in
racketeering activity in association with a series of shootings committed by
the Insane Deuces street gang. A
cooperating witness testified that Mr. Handley ordered him to commit a
shooting. Mr. Brindley discredited this
witness with aggressive cross examination, suggesting that the shooting never
happened at all. The government then
attempted to admit photographs showing the house referred to by the cooperating
witness riddled with bullet holes to prove he was telling the truth. Mr. Brindley argued that these photos had to
be excluded due to violations of the
discovery rules committed by the government. The Court agreed, granted the motion to exclude, and prevented the government from
showing these pictures to the jury or mentioning them in any way.
In United States v. Rosales, the
government obtained telephone records showing that a phone associated with Mr.
Rosales was used to make calls to a cocaine buyer at the very time that the
charged drug deal occurred. The government attempted to confront Mr. Rosales with these records while he was testifying.
Mr. Brindley strongly objected, compelling the Court to send the jury home for
the night. Mr. Brindley, Ms. Westover, and Mr. Thompson spent most of the night researching and drafting a motion to exclude
the phone records due to the prosecutor’s violation of Rule 16. After a lengthy
consideration, the Court granted the
motion and prevented the government from admitting this evidence.
BOND
Mr. Auyon was incarcerated for possessing
approximately 25,000 ecstasy pills.
When represented by his first lawyer, his request for bond was denied and it
looked as if he was going to have to spend all of the time preceding the
resolution of his case in jail. Mr. Brindley utilized an inventive theory
regarding the use of Canadian property for bond which was found to be
acceptable by the Magistrate Judge. Mr. Auyon was not only released on bond but
allowed to move to Canada and live
with his family.
Mr. Buffington was accused of participating to
traffic more than 150 kilograms of cocaine. His family was greatly in need of
his financial support. The government, however, argued that he should not be
given bond and held in jail pending the resolution of his case due to his
addiction to crack cocaine and his involvement in the case. Mr. Buffington was
unable to provide the court with enough property to secure his release. Mr. Buffington
requested to post his pension as bond. The government argued that he could not
due to its protection under ERISA. Mr. Brindley consulted with multiple ERISA
experts and drafted an agreement that permitted Mr. Buffington to use his pension despite the government's
claims to the contrary. Mr. Buffington was released on bond.
Mr. Williams was charged with attempting to traffic in large quantities of marijuana and firearms. He was recorded on the telephone attempting to set up these transactions. Mr. Williams was a citizen of Belize and the government deemed him to be a substantial flight risk. Nonetheless, Mr. Brindley was able to secure his release on bond, where he remained for over two years before ultimately being acquitted.
Mr. Aguilar was charged with attempting to rob a bank. Despite a significant criminal history, Mr. Brindley was able to convince the court to release him on bond. Mr. Aguilar was also a heroin addict. One of the conditions of his bond was that he attend rehab and refrain from using any illegal narcotics. Mr. Aguilar left rehab on four separate occasions and had multiple positive drug tests while on bond. Nonetheless, Mr. Brindley was able to convince the judge to allow him to remain on bond for over two years.
While on bond, Mr. Conrad was arrested in Missouri with several baggies full of heroin. After much argument, the judge agreed to allow Mr. Conrad to remain on bond because no charges had yet been filed in Missouri. Mr. Brindley's efforts led to a delay in the filing of charges and Mr. Conrad remained on bond through his trial.
PLEA
WITHDRAWAL
Mr. DeLeon pled
guilty to counterfeiting and conspiring to distribute narcotics, under advice
from his previous attorney. Dissatisfied with that attorney's advice and
representation, he hired Mr. Brindley, who moved to withdraw Mr. DeLeon's
guilty plea. At the hearing, Mr. Brindley cross-examined
the previous defense attorney and revealed that the only reason Mr. DeLeon
pled guilty was his belief that the previous attorney was not prepared for
trial. Mr. DeLeon's plea was vacated
and he went on to be acquitted at trial.
ADMISSION OF EVIDENCE
Mr. Wilcox faced charges that he sent threatening email
communications to his former employer, Kaplan University. Mr. Wilcox’s only defense was that he had
been framed by the corporation in retaliation for his decision to blow the
whistle on a billion dollar fraud perpetrated by the corporation and its
executives. The government agued aggressively that the
billion dollar fraud constituted irrelevant and inadmissible evidence that had
nothing to do with the charged
crime. Mr. Brindley and Ms.
Westover prepared a detailed motion to admit the evidence of the fraud, arguing
that it would illustrate the company’s motive
to frame Mr. Wilcox. The Court agreed
with Mr. Brindley and the evidence of fraud was admitted at the trial, thereby
laying the groundwork for Mr. Wilcox’s defense.
Later in U.S. v. Wilcox, Mr.
Brindley sought to obtain a video illustrating Mr. Wilcox’s claims about Kaplan
Incorporated’s conduct. Kaplan sent its
corporate counsel to oppose Mr. Brindley’s request for the video. Despite the best efforts of Kaplan’s
corporate legal team, the Court found Mr. Brindley’s arguments more convicing
and forced Kaplan to disclose the video in question.
ENTRAPMENT
Mr. DeLeon was caught on video making counterfeit
money to be used for a cocaine purchase. His defense required argument that a
government informant, who was his landlord, threatened him with the loss of his
home unless he made the counterfeit money for him. The government moved to
prevent the defendant from claiming entrapment due to his prior convictions for
counterfeiting. The government also attempted to force Mr. Brindley to disclose his defense argument prior to
trial in order to prove that the entrapment defense applied. Mr. Brindley
refused to comply with the government’s demand because no defendant should be
forced to disclose his defense prior to trial. He submitted his evidence
supporting the entrapment defense directly to the judge and convinced the Court
to take the unusual step of allowing Mr. DeLeon to present an entrapment
defense without disclosing any information about the defense to the government
prior to trial. In U.S. v. Aguilar, where
a government informant gave a heroin to an addict to entice him into committing
bank robbery, Mr. Brindley again defeated a government attempt to prevent the
entrapment defense. Mr. Aguilar was judged not guilty by the Court after a
trial. Mr. Brindley has successfully won the right to present the entrapment
defense on every occasion he has
requested it.
Mr. Rosales was threatened by a government informant
and pressured into providing that informant with cocaine. He needed to argue
entrapment in order to present his defense. The government moved to prevent him
from receiving an entrapment jury instruction. Without that instruction, he
would not have been able to argue his theory of defense to the jury. Mr.
Brindley presented a lengthy argument
to the district court. The judge informed him that he had never given the
entrapment instruction in circumstances like Mr. Rosales’s and expressed
reluctance to give the instruction. Mr. Brindley then continued his argument,
citing a litany of cases supporting his position. The Court was finally convinced and Mr. Rosales was given the
entrapment jury instruction.
In United States v. Farella, a drug addict
informant, working for the ATF, exerted extraordinary pressure on Mr. Farella
to try to compel him to participate in the robbery of a drug dealer so this
informant could help the ATF make a new case. The informant made a series of
threats and carefully manipulated Mr. Farella into agreeing to meet with an
undercover ATF agent to discuss the robbery. To get a fair trial, Mr. Farella
needed the entrapment defense. The government moved to exclude the entrapment
defense. Mr. Brindley presented the judge with a detailed argument, setting forth all of the informant’s conduct. The
government strenuously objected. Nonetheless, for the first time in her career, the judge agreed to permit the entrapment
defense requested by Mr. Farella. Mr. Farella is awaiting trial.
IMMIGRATION
Mr. Cahue was ordered deported to Mexico following a conviction in state court. Because he was never advised that pleading guilty to his state drug charge would result in deportation, he hired Mr. Brindley to have his guilty plea withdrawn. Mr. Brindley filed a petition in state court, but the federal immigration court order Mr. Cahue to be deported immediately, before it could be litigated. Mr. Cahue flown to Texas and put on a plane bound for Mexico. Mr. Brindley filed an emergency motion in federal district court, where the judge convinced DHS officials to delay the deportation. Mr. Cahue was taken off the plane before it departed and flown back to Illinois. The next month, before the state court could properly consider Mr. Cahue's motion, he was again ordered deported to Mexico. Once again, he was flown to Texas to await deportation. This time, Mr. Brindley filed an emergency motion with the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, and Mr. Cahue's deportation was once again stayed.
*Some defendants have been kept anonymous, either because of the nature of the charges against them or because of ongoing litigation