UNITED STATES V. SZYMAN
Prosecutors tried to prove Dr. Charles Szyman guilty of 19 counts of prescribing narcotics outside the usual scope of professional practice and not for a legitimate medical purpose. The pain management physician had a treatment philosophy mandating that his patients received whatever care was necessary to deal with their chronic pain. Two undercover law enforcement officers posed as patients with invented pain conditions in order to trick Dr. Szyman into prescribing them opiates. A government expert witness testified that Dr. Szyman prescribed opioids to 11 other patients at levels 50-100 times the usual limis. The Law Offices of Beau B. Brindley took his case to trial and proved that Dr. Szyman was no criminal, but instead merely a doctor doing his job.
Dispensing prescription narcotics
without a legitimate medical purpose
UNITED STATES V. CHOGSOM
Mr. Chogsom was a successful Mongolian businessman who immigrated to the United States and lawfully earned his citizenship. He worked for a trucking and shipping company that was found to have surreptitiously shipped multiple stolen vehicles to Mongolia with false paperwork. The Law Office of Beau B. Brindley took his case to trial and demonstrated to the jury that another individual had arranged for each of these shipments and lied to Mr. Chogsom about what was being loaded into the containers. The jury believed Mr. Chogsom and acquitted him of those charges.
Exporting stolen motor vehicles
UNITED STATES V. SANTIAGO
Ms. Santiago ran a successful logistics company along with her brother and sister-in-law. When her brother refused to plead guilty to drug trafficking charges, the federal government indicted Ms. Santiago for laundering drug money through her company. At trial, Mr. Brindley and Mr. Thompson relentlessly attacked the government's evidence, revealing its many flaws and demonstrating that Ms. Santiago's business was legitimate. The judge rewarded their efforts by entering a Judgment of Acquittal for Ms. Santiago.
UNITED STATES V. MELERO
Mr. Melero was charged with conspiracy to distribute heroin and marijuana and with possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug crime after law enforcement officers raided an apartment he had rented. At trial, the Law Offices of Beau B. Brindley demonstrated that Mr. Melero did not have access to the room where the firearm was recovered, the bedroom of a co-tenant. While Mr. Melero was convicted of narcotics charges, his acquittal on the gun charge saved him years in prison.
UNITED STATES V. B.WILLIAMS
Mr. Williams was pulled over during a "traffic stop." Chicago Police officers claimed to have found a loaded handgun on the floorboard of the driver's seat. At trial, the Law Offices of Beau B. Brindley demonstrated the numerous flaws and inconsistencies in the officers' story and proved Mr. Williams innocent.
UNITED STATES V. WILSON
Mr. Wilson and his friend were arrested in their vehicle by members of the Chicago Police Department. Officers claimed to have found a semi-automatic firearm on the floorboard at Mr. Wilson's feet and marijuana in the back seat. Mr. Wilson was charged with use of a firearm in furtherance of a drug crime, possession of marijuana, and possession of a firearm by a felon. At trial, The Law Offices of Beau B. Brindley demonstrated that the officers were lying about what had happened. Evidence showed that the firearm had actually been located in a different vehicle that the officers falsely claimed that they never searched. The jury acquitted Mr. Wilson of possessing the firearm, but could not reach a decision on the other two charges. The government decided to bring Mr. Wilson to trial a second time on the remaining charges. This time, the Law Office's efforts were successful in securing an acquittal on the charge of Mr. Wilson possessing the firearm, despite the fact that the government produced evidence showing that Mr. Wilson's DNA was on its connected strap.
UNITED STATES V. RICHARDS
Mr. Richards was arrested with multiple kilograms of cocaine in the trunk of his vehicle after being observed entering the garage of a residence known to be occupied by drug dealers. Mr. Richards contended that he believed he was only picking up money from the drug dealers and had no idea they had actually loaded cocaine into his car. The Law Offices of Beau B. Brindley presented Mr. Richards's somewhat unorthodox defense at trial and convinced the jury that Mr. Richards was not guilty under the law.
UNITED STATES V. PALOMINO
Mr. Palomino was arrested after a shooting outside a nightclub. Witnesses on the scene identified Mr. Palomino as the person who had fired the gun. Tests revealed gunshot residue on Mr. Palomino's hands and his fingerprint was found on the gun's magazine. Mr. Palomino maintained that an acquaintance had actually been the shooter and had tried to hand him the gun after the shooting. By carefully poking holes in the evidence presented by the government, the Law Offices of Beau B. Brindley was able to demonstrate that this account was more consistent than the government's theory that Mr. Palomino was the shooter.
UNITED STATES V.
Mr. Salas was charged with multiple narcotics and firearms charges. Mr. Salas pleaded guilty to being involved in a large-scale drug distribution conspiracy, but denied the possession of any firearms. At a bench trial, the Law Offices of Beau B. Brindley demonstrated that the government's evidence could not establish that Mr. Salas had ever actually possessed the firearms that were found in the apartment he shared with a co-conspirator, or that they were ever used in connection with Mr. Salas's drug distribution. The judge entered a finding of not guilty.
UNITED STATES V. SANCHEZ
Mr. Sanchez was charged with possession with the intent to distribute more than 5 kilograms of cocaine. Before the government was even able to bring the case to trial, Mr. Brindley was able demonstrate the flaws in the government's evidence and the manner in which it had investigated and prosecuted the case. As a direct result, the government dropped all charges in the case.
UNITED STATES V. CROSKEY
Ms. Croskey was charged with participating in her boyfriend's cocaine distribution conspiracy and laundering drug proceeds after the government uncovered evidence of suspicious banking activities. The Law Offices of Beau B. Brindley challenged all of the government's evidence at trial, convincing a majority of the jurors that Ms. Croskey had no knowledge of her boyfriend's drug dealing and did not actively seek to help him succeed in any money laundering activities. The jury was unable to reach a unanimous verdict. After the hung jury, the government realized they could not possibly succeed against the defense mounted by the Law Office and dropped the charges against Ms. Croskey.
Drug conspiracy and money laundering
UNITED STATES V. C.WILLIAMS
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.
Drug conspiracy and firearm possession
UNITED STATES V. GUTTIEREZ
Mr. Guttierez was indicted for multiple drug charges. Prior to trial, the Law Office of Beau B. Brindley's extensive investigation revealed significant defects in the reliability of the government's evidence implicating Mr. Guttierez. In response, the government dropped all charges against Mr. Guttierez.
UNITED STATES V. BURNETT
Mr. Burnett was charged with being a member of a massive heroin conspiracy. At trial, he did not contest that he had sold heroin on specific occasions, but denied having any sort of ongoing agreement to distribute heroin that could constitute a conspiracy. This buyer-seller defense resulted in an acquittal on the conspiracy charge against Mr. Burnett
UNITED STATES V.
Ms. Lee and her fiance were charged with embezzling funds from a trust and fraudulently covering up their theft. Prior to trial, Mr. Brindley laid out his aggressive defense strategy for the government. The government responded by agreeing to offer Ms. Lee participation in a very rare diversionary program, after which she received no conviction whatsoever.
Conspiracy to commit fraud
UNITED STATES V.
Mr. Miles pleaded guilty to running a large heroin distribution conspiracy. However, he wanted the Law Offices of Beau B. Brindley to contest his charge of using a firearm in furtherance of that conspiracy at trial. The Law Office presented evidence that established that Mr. Miles possessed his firearm only to defend his mother and home after a string of break-in in the neighborhood, rather for any purpose related to his drug-dealing activities. The jury found him not guilty.
UNITED STATES V. HARRINGTON
After a lengthy undercover investigation into his heroin-dealing activities, Mr. Harrington was arrested with a gun under the seat of his car and charged with unlawful use of a firearm in furtherance of a drug crime. At trial, the Law Offices of Beau B. Brindley demonstrated that the government's evidence did not provide any proof that Mr. Harrington even knew the gun was in the car, which was driven by other parties, including the government's cooperating informant. When the jury failed to convict Mr. Harrington, the government realized it would have no better luck in a retrial and decided not to pursue the charge any further.
UNITED STATES V. FARMER
Mr. Farmer was accused of engaging in a conspiracy to possess and distribute several kilograms of cocaine. The evidence against him at trial included a videotaped recording of the transaction, where Mr. Farmer was present. Mr. Brindley demonstrated the numerous flaws and contradictions in the cooperating informant's testimony and successfully argued that the video did not allow the government to prove that Mr. Farmer was anything more than an innocent bystander. The jury was convinced, finding Mr. Farmer not guilty of conspiracy.
UNITED STATES V. MCCARTER
Mr. McCarter was accused of five counts of cocaine offenses, including conspiracy. The government alleged that it could implicate Mr. McCarter for well over 50 kilograms of cocaine. 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 and identified his voice on the recordings. 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.
UNITED STATES V. DELEON
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.
UNITED STATES V. PADRO
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.
UNITED STATES V.
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.
UNITED STATES V. VASQUEZ
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. A witness 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.
UNITED STATES V. COTTON
Mr. Cotton faced charges of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute more than 5 kilograms of cocaine. Due to his criminal background, Mr. Cotton would receive a mandatory life sentence if he was convicted for more than 5 kilograms by the jury. Despite his fingerprints being found on the wrapping to multiple kilograms and testimony from a coconspirator regarding Mr. Cotton being the supplier for well in excess of 5 kilograms, the Law Offices of Beau B. Brindley was able to demonstrate many flaws in the evidence against Mr. Cotton. Ultimately, the jury found that Mr. Cotton had not been proven responsible for distributing in excess of 5 kilograms of cocaine and Mr. Cotton faced a minimum sentence of only ten years instead of life.
FEDERAL CRIMINAL CASES
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.