Mr. McCarter was accused of five counts alleging drug offenses. One of these counts was conspiracy to posses and distribute more than 5 kilograms of cocaine. The government alleged that it could implicate Mr. McCarter of well over 50 kilograms of cocaine. Mr. McCarter faced a sentence of at least 30 years. During trial the government presented more than 20 audio recordings. They claimed Mr. McCarter was on the phone setting up drug transactions. Mr. Brindley tracked down the phone records and determined that the owner of the phone was not Mr. McCarter. Mr. Brindley then focused his case on demonstrating the government's inability to prove that Mr. McCarter's voice actually appeared on those phone calls. Mr. Brindley also cross examined two witnesses who claimed to have worked with Mr. McCarter to distribute cocaine. Mr. Brindley was able to uncover multiple lies and false statements made by these witnesses. Despite the government's claim of overwhelming evidence and its 27 recordings, Mr. McCarter was found not guilty of all counts. 

Mr. Ozuna was caught driving a tractor trailer containing over 200 kilograms of cocaine. Following a traffic stop, agents claimed that Mr. Ozuna confessed verbally and signed a written confession. At trial Mr. Brindley attacked the claims of the agents by demonstrating inconsistencies in their statements and providing the jury with some evidence that forgery might have occurred. Multiple expert witnesses on handwriting analysis were presented. Despite the overwhelming evidence of 200 kilograms and a signed confession the jury was unable to reach a verdict in Mr. Ozuna's case. 

Mr. Padro was captured on video by an undercover informant. In this video Mr. Padro could be seen holding a bag of crack-cocaine. Cross examination of the undercover informant demonstrated that the informant lied to the jury and that the United States Attorney on the case attempted to let him get away with it. Mr. Brindley exposed the lies of the informant and the conduct of the U.S. Attorney throughout the course of the trial and Mr. Padro was found not guilty of possession and intent to distribute crack-cocaine. 

Mr. Vasquez was charged with conspiracy to possess and distribute two kilograms of cocaine and with attempting to possess that same cocaine. A cooperating witness testified that Mr. Vasquez participated in the cocaine transaction. Mr. Brindley's persistent cross-examination of the cooperator and the investigating agents showed the flaws in the government's theory. Mr. Brindley was also able to find a witness that established an innocent explanation for Mr. Vasquez's presence at the scene of the transaction. As the driver of the vehicle that fled from the scene of the transaction with his co-defendants, Mr. Vasquez was found guilty of being a participant in the conspiracy. However, the jury acquitted him of attempting to possess the cocaine.

MARIJUANA

Mr. Williams was accused of attempting to distribute a large quantity of marijuana and five illegal firearms. He was recorded on a series of telephone calls with an undercover informant setting up these transactions. Mr. Brindley devised a technical defense for Mr. Williams that showed that his actions did not actually constitute an attempt under the law. Due to the nature of the defense, Mr. Brindley advised Mr. Williams to ask for his case to be tried at a bench trial, with a judge and no jury. Following the trial, the judge immediately found Mr. Williams not guilty.

COUNTERFEITING

Mr. DeLeon was captured on video counterfeiting approximately $100,000 and stating his desire to exchange it for multiple kilograms of cocaine. An undercover informant recorded all of Mr. DeLeon's conduct and Mr. DeLeon was charged with counterfeiting, conspiracy to possess and distribute cocaine, and attempt to possess and distribute cocaine. Before Mr. Brindley took the case another lawyer instructed Mr. DeLeon to plead guilty and receive a sentence of more than 20 years. Mr. DeLeon followed this attorney's advice and subsequently hired Mr. Brindley. Mr. Brindley successfully had Mr. DeLeon's guilty plea withdrawn and proceeded to trial with the defense of entrapment. At trial, cross-examination revealed that a secret service agent had falsified evidence and that an undercover agent had made threats to Mr. DeLeon to compel his participation in the drug transaction. Mr. DeLeon was found not guilty of both drug charges and the jury was unable to reach a verdict on counterfeiting.