|
MARIJUANA
In People
of Iowa v. Sostenes, Mr. Sostenes and his girlfriend, Ms. Sanchez, were
charged with possession with intent to distribute approximately ten pounds of marijuana. Mr. Brindley
filed a motion to suppress on the basis of improper search. At the
suppression hearing two state troopers claimed that the search was proper and
supported by reasonable suspicion. During cross examination one of the
troopers attempted to claim that there was marijuana inside the vehicle. Mr.
Brindley then promptly compelled him to admit that this was false.
Ultimately, the judge issued a
scathing opinion finding that the officers testimony was false and
suppressed all the evidence obtained from the search. The charges were subsequently dismissed.
In People
v Amarin, two Will County officers testified about their surveillance of
the defendant, which led to the recovery of over two pounds of marijuana in a messenger bag. At a bench
trial, cross-examination of the officers showed that the observations they
claimed to have made were impossible and insufficient to connect Mr. Amarin
with the marijuana. The government also presented a statement signed by the
driver of Mr. Amarin's vehicle, claiming that she had seen Mr. Amarin with
the drugs. Mr. Brindley and Mr. Thompson were able to present evidence that
her statement was a lie and she was coerced into signing it by police
officers threatening to prosecute her for the marijuana. The judge found Mr. Amarin not guilty and criticized the
prosecutor for presenting a case he could not prove.
In People
v. Thompson, the defendant was accused of possessing drugs and drug paraphernalia in a parked car. Two state
police officers allegedly discovered these items in the defendant's
possession. At trial Mr. Brindley exposed contradictions in the officers�
testimony and demonstrated that the items were actually found beneath the
passenger seat of a vehicle that was also occupied by a different individual.
None of the drug related items could actually be connected to Mr. Thompson in
any way. He was promptly found not
guilty.
FRAUD
The state charged Mr. Cuenca with identification
fraud and creating a false driver's license. Conviction on this charge
would result in deportation and prevent Mr. Cuenca from ever returning to the
United States where he has lived since the age of 5. After detailed research
on the process for immigrants to obtain driver's licenses, Mr. Brindley
confronted the State's Attorney with a massive quantity of State Department
documents showing that the defendant's conduct was not purposeful and
threatened to use trial to expose the false charges brought by the state.
Following that confrontation the
charge was dismissed.
GRAND THEFT
In People
v. Pennington the state presented thousands of documents allegedly
illustrating massive theft conducted by the defendant. Multiple
corporate officers testified in an attempt to show how Mr. Pennington stole approximately $400,000. After
careful evaluation of the documents Mr. Brindley was able to confront these
corporate officers with evidence proving that their story was not true. By
the end of the trial Mr. Brindley showed the jurors that Mr. Pennington was
exploited by the greed of a corporation and then accused of a crime after he
became disabled. Mr. Pennington was found
not guilty of all charges.
ARMED ROBBERY
In People
v. Dunn, a 15-year-old boy was tried as an adult for
the crime of armed robbery. At the trial eyewitnesses attempted to
identify Mr. Dunn as the individual who robbed their restaurant. Mr. Brindley
challenged the identification of these witnesses by pointing out
inconsistencies in their claims and showing that their memory was inaccurate.
Mr. Brindley disproved the allegations that a footprint at the scene matched
the shoes of Mr. Dunn and then presented compelling testimony from the
defendant himself. After a year of unjust incarceration Mr. Dunn was found not guilty and allowed to
rejoin his family.
|