Aggressive Criminal Defense Gets Positive Results
The Law Offices of Beau B. Brindley has a proven track record of achieving successful outcomes for our clients. In Federal and state court, on trial or on appeal, at home in Chicago and across the country, our relentless litigation has meant freedom for client after client. Read about a few of them here, and then contact us so we can add your name to the list.
UNITED STATES V. BELL
Mr. Bell was convicted at trial after a government informant testified that he was the supplier of a corner where the informant had distributed drugs. After the trial, The Law Offices of Beau B. Brindley discovered that the informant had been working with another drug supplier at that corner and coordinating with him at the time of Mr. Bell's trial. It was further discovered that the government knew this information during Mr. Bell's trial but deliberately failed to inform Mr. Bell or his counsel, preventing him from using it on cross-examination to discredit the informant. On Appeal, the Law Offices of Beau B. Brindley successfully argued that the government's violation of their duty to disclose this information violated Mr. Bell's constitutional rights.
UNITED STATES V. RICHARDS
Mr. Richards was convicted of participating in a cocaine conspiracy after he was arrested with multiple kilograms of cocaine in the trunk of his vehicle. Over objection, the government was allowed to introduce evidence at trial that Mr. Richards had previously been convicted of a cocaine offense, allowing the government to convince the jury that he was an incorrigible drug dealer. On appeal, the Law Offices of Beau B. Brindley demonstrated that this was an unfair argument that allowed the jury to convict Mr. Richards for his past mistakes rather than any actions he took in the case on trial.
UNITED STATES V. MACIAS
Mr. Macias was convicted for participating in a massive drug conspiracy by transporting millions of dollars of narcotics from the U.S. to Mexico. At trial, Mr. Macias testified that he believed the money he was transporting was derived from the smuggling of illegal aliens rather than narcotics, which would have made him not guilty of knowingly participating in a drug conspiracy. The judge instructed the jury that it could nevertheless convict Mr. Macias if it found that he should have known the money was from drugs but deliberately avoided having this fact confirmed. On Appeal, The Law Offices of Beau B. Brindley successfully argued that this instruction was inappropriate under the facts of the case and undermined the validity of Mr. Macias's conviction. The Seventh Circuit agreed.
UNITED STATES V. SELLERS
Choice of Counsel
Listen to the Argument
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
Mr. Smith pleaded 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 pleaded 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
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
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.
UNITED STATES V. GORMAN
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.