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.
PEOPLE V. HOWARD
Four police officers testified that they seized massive quantities of cocaine and firearms from Ms. Howard and her residence. Throughout the course of the trial Mr. Brindley attacked the testimony of each police witness. His cross examination uncovered multiple contradictions and outright lies about the evidence, where it was obtained, how it was observed, and how Ms. Howard behaved. Ultimately, these cross examinations demonstrated that these corrupt police officers had planted evidence and threatened the defendant at gunpoint despite the sworn word of four "officers of the law." Ms. Howard was acquitted after only ten minutes of deliberation and exonerated of all charges.
PEOPLE V. PENNINGTON
White Collar Theft
The state presented thousands of documents allegedly illustrating massive theft conducted by Mr. Pennington. 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.
PEOPLE V. BLOXTON
Mr. Bloxton was charged with trafficking large quantities of cocaine and faced a minimum prison term of fifteen years. Mr. Brindley filed a motion to suppress. At a hearing on this motion the credibility of officers involved was severely damaged. The state offered Mr. Bloxton a lesser sentence in exchange for a guilty plea. Instead Mr. Bloxton proceeded to a bench trial where he was found not guilty. Mr. Brindley's presentation was so strong that the Judge found Mr. Bloxton not guilty after approximately two minutes of consideration.
PEOPLE V. EDWARDS
Aggravated Discharge of a Firearm
Mr. Edwards was charged with aggravated discharge of a firearm after an eyewitness alleged that he shot at his house during a driveby. Mr. Edwards was observed throwing a handgun out of his window by police officers, who also recovered spent shell casings from the vehicle and gunshot residue from his hands. The Law Offices of Beau B. Brindley challenged the believability of the eyewitness identification and pointed out that not all of the state's evidence was consistent with Mr. Edwards being the shooter at the scene. The jury found him not guilty.
PEOPLE V. ROSADO
Mr. Rosado was arrested after providing cocaine to an undercover informant on three separate occasions. The Law Offices of Beau B. Brindley established evidence that showed how the informant had coerced and threatened Mr. Rosado into obtaining the drugs for him, which would have made Mr. Rosado not guilty of the crimes due to entrapment. Forced by the judge to produce their informant for cross-examination and answer for their actions, the state instead chose to drop all charges.
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.
PEOPLE V. SOSTENES
Mr. Sostenes was accused of possessing cocaine by police officers in Robinson, Illinois. By carefully reviewing the officers' statements, Mr. Brindley was able to demonstrate that Mr. Sostenes had nothing to do with the cocaine that was seized. All charges were dismissed.
PEOPLE V. CORTES
Ms. Cortes was arrested and charged with possession of cocaine. Officers testified that they could see cocaine folded up in a dollar bill in the cupholder of her car during a traffic stop. At trial, the Law Offices of Bea B. Brindley demonstrated numerous contradictions and improbable statements in the testimony of the arresting officers. Ms. Cortes was swiftly acquitted.
PEOPLE V. AMARIN
Mr. Amarin was accused of possessing with the intent to distribute ecstasy in two different Illinois counties. In Cook county, Ms. Westover's efforts at a preliminary hearing showed that the police officers could not have seen the drugs they claimed to have seen. In Kane county, Mr. Thompson repeatedly rebuffed attempts by the prosecutor to encourage a plea deal and insisted that the drug evidence be fully analyzed for fingerprints of the complaining witness. When that labwork was finally done, the state's case fell apart. Charges were dropped in both cases.
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, ending the case against Mr. Sostenes.
PEOPLE V. AMARIN
Two Will County officers testified about their surveillance of Mr. Amarin, 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 state 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.
PEOPLE V. THOMPSON
Mathew Thompson 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.
PEOPLE V. CUENCA
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.
PEOPLE V. ROBLEDO
Mr. Robledo was accused of perpetrating an aggravated assault on a police officer. Multiple officers testified that they witnessed this assault and that it was unprovoked. Through a series of carefully planned questions Mr. Brindley demonstrated that these police officers lied and that Mr. Robledo was actually defending his girlfriend against an attack by an officer that was not wearing a uniform. Mr. Robledo was found not guilty of all charges.
PEOPLE V. JONES
Prosecutors charged Marvin Jones, Jr. with the robbery of a cellular store after he was caught in possession of some of the merchandise stolen during the robbery. The Law Offices of Beau B. Brindley demonstrated the flaws in the investigation of the case that led to a rush to judgment and unreliable identification by witnesses. The jury found Mr. Jones not guilty of all charges.
PEOPLE V. GARDEA-ALVAREZ
Mr. Gardea-Alvarez was arrested when illegal "bath salts" pills were discovered during a search of his vehicle while he was visiting a relative in jail. The Law Offices of Beau B. Brindley challenged the state's evidence and established that other people had accessed the vehicle, proving that the state could not establish that Mr. Gardea-Alvarez even knew about the drugs in the car. Mr. Gardea-Alvarez was immediately acquitted following trial.
PEOPLE V. CAZARES
Mr. Cazares was arrested when a large amount of cocaine was found inside of his residence and garage. The Law Offices of Beau B. Brindley established that the state's evidence linking Mr. Cazares to most of this cocaine was very week, despite a smaller amount also being located in his jacket pocket. The judge agreed, finding that the state was unable to prove knowledge of the larger amount of cocaine, which would have resulted in a years-long prison sentence followed by deportation for Mr. Cazares. Instead, the judge held Mr. Cazares responsible only for the cocaine in his jacket pocket and Mr. Cazares only had to serve a few months in jail before going home to his family.
PEOPLE V. LEON-LOPEZ
The Law Offices of Beau B. Brindley was able to successfully convince a Will County judge to withdraw the guilty plea of Mr. Leon-Lopez after establishing that his prior attorney had provided him with improper and insufficient advice regarding deportation before entering into the plea. Through negotiations with the judge, Mr. Brindley and Mr. Thompson were able to convince the prosecutor to drop her initial opposition to the motion and agree to not reinstate the criminal charges once the plea was withdrawn. Mr. Leon-Lopez was freed without a conviction and his deportation order was overturned.