Our appellate practice is based on the theory that every argument, no matter how difficult, can be a winning argument. No matter what the situation, if a client comes to us seeking an appeal we will find the argument that client needs and make it in the most convincing way possible. We strive to develop appellate arguments that other attorneys have never considered. We utilize the most recently decided cases and the most recently developed legal doctrines across the nation to ensure that each appeal gives our appellate clients the best advantage the law has to offer.
Every appellate client can expect exhaustive legal research, carefully drafted briefing, and aggressive oral arguments. Despite the difficulties faced by criminal appellants in the 7th Circuit we have achieved success in multiple cases. Prominent examples include:
Unites States v. Sellers 2011 WL 1935735
Mr. Sellers was convicted at trial of trafficking crack cocaine. After sentencing, Mr. Sellers hired Mr. Brindley to litigate his appeal. Mr. Brindley presented evidence and argument to the Seventh Circuit which showed that the trial court had violated Mr. Sellers's right to counsel. The Seventh Circuit reversed Mr. Sellers's conviction and instructed the trial court to consider his release on bond "with all due haste."
United States v. Smith 618 F.3d 65
Mr.
Smith pled guilty to a drug conspiracy after the district court refused
to allow him to obtain Mr. Brindley's services as trial counsel due to a
conflict with the court's intended trial date. Mr. Smith was forced to
accept the representation of appointed counsel against his will and
pled guilty as a result. On appeal, Mr. Brindley argued that this was an
unconstitutional denial of Mr. Smith's right to choice of counsel and that his plea was therefore invalid. The Seventh Circuit agreed and
vacated the plea, reversing Mr. Smith's conviction.
United States v. Banks 546 F.3d 507
Mr. Banks was convicted of conspiracy to
distribute cocaine and with possession of cocaine with the intent to
distribute. 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 potentially facing
approximately 2 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 remained reversed.
United States v. Bryant 557 F.3d 489
At sentencing, the
government claimed that Mr. Bryant was a career offender who would have
to serve a term of more than 30 years. The government also alleged that
it could prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Bryant provided
crack-cocaine to an informant. Mr. Brindley conducted detailed sentencing analysis
which was presented to the judge over the course of a five day
sentencing hearing. Ultimately, the judge found that the
government's claims about Mr. Bryant being a career offender were false.
The judge then refused to impose the 30 year sentence sought by the
government and sentenced Mr. Bryant to 15 years. Mr. Brindley then
successfully appealed the sentence and further reduced Mr. Bryant's sentence by four years.
Additionally, Mr. Brindley argued United States v. Gorman, 613 F.3d 711, a case involving a conviction for perjury before a grand jury. Although the Seventh Circuit made the effort to single out Mr. Brindley's argument as "clever," it nevertheless declined to overturn Mr. Gorman's conviction. However, Mr. Brindley's arguments in the case led the Seventh Circuit to make a very significant change in the law. The Court overturned the "doctrine of inextricable intertwinement," a rule that had allowed the government to sneak in inappropriate evidence during criminal trials. While Mr. Gorman did not win his appeal, this decision was an important victory for criminal defendants throughout the Seventh Circuit.
