Constitutional Criminal Defense Attorney
The Constitution serves as the ultimate check on government power. The Fourth Amendment limits the government’s authority to conduct searches and seizes. The Fifth Amendment protects against compelled self-incrimination. The Sixth Amendment guarantees the right to counsel. The separation of powers provides limits to what the executive branch can do without legislative authority. A constitutional criminal defense attorney who understands and enforces these limits is the government’s most effective check in criminal court.
The Law Offices of Beau B. Brindley has successfully litigated constitutional issues at the trial level, within the Seventh Circuit, and before the United States Supreme Court. Our victories have won on Sixth Amendment grounds, forced the Seventh Circuit to change the law on evidentiary constitutional issues, and argued the limits of government power in courts across the country. Call 312.765.8878 to speak with a constitutional criminal defense attorney who takes the Constitution’s principles seriously.
Fourth Amendment — Search and Seizure
The Fourth Amendment prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures and requires search warrants that are supported by probable cause. A Fourth Amendment defense attorney can move to suppress evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment, such as evidence seized without a warrant or under a defective warrant. It can also include evidence obtained through illegal stops, electronic surveillance, and searches of digital devices or vehicles. Suppression of key evidence can be case-ending for the government.
Sixth Amendment — Right to Counsel
The Sixth Amendment guarantees the right to the assistance of counsel in criminal prosecutions. A Sixth Amendment right to counsel attorney enforces this right at every stage of the legal process, from the initial appearance through trial, sentencing, and appeal. The Seventh Circuit has held that the right to choice of counsel is a structural error that requires automatic reversal, meaning no harmless error analysis applies. In both United States v. Sellers and United States v. Smith, the Law Offices of Beau B. Brindley won Seventh Circuit reversals on right-to-counsel grounds.
Separation of Powers in Federal Criminal Law
In criminal law, the separation of powers criminal defense argument focuses on the limits of executive and legislative authority in defining crimes and imposing punishments. Vagueness challenges, which argue that a criminal statute fails to give fair notice of the conduct it prohibits, are based in due process and separation of powers principles. The Supreme Court’s decisions narrowing the Armed Career Criminal Act, including Johnson v. United States and Borden v. United States, reflect the Court’s willingness to impose constitutional limits on prosecutorial sentencing authority.
Due Process and Brady Rights
The Fifth Amendment’s due process clause imposes affirmative obligations on the government in criminal prosecutions. A due process criminal defense attorney enforces Brady v. Maryland, which mandates the government’s obligation to disclose evidence favorable to the defense. Brady violations can result in reversed convictions on appeal. Our firm successfully argued a Brady violation in United States v. Bell, where the government concealed its informant’s concurrent relationship with a competing drug supplier. Consequently, the Seventh Circuit vacated the conviction
Constitutional Challenges in Federal Court
A constitutional challenge federal criminal case requires identifying the right constitutional provision, finding the correct procedural vehicle, and building the factual record to support the claim. At trial, constitutional challenges are raised through motions to suppress, motions to dismiss, and objections to the admission of evidence. On appeal, they are raised as independent grounds for reversal. At the Supreme Court, they may become the basis for a landmark decision affecting criminal defendants nationwide.
Talk to a appeals attorney
Early representation creates the most options. Speak with us confidentially about your case — there is no obligation.
Supreme Court Practice Areas
Others are about the limits of government power."
Frequently Asked Questions — Constitutional Criminal Defense
What is a motion to suppress and when does it apply?
A motion to suppress requests that the trial court excludes evidence that was obtained in violation of the Constitution. This is most commonly found in situations regarding the Fourth Amendment. If the motion is granted, the suppressed evidence cannot be used against the defendant at trial. When the suppressed evidence is the core of the government’s case, suppression can result in dismissal of the charges. A constitutional criminal defense attorney files suppression motions when the facts of the stop, search, or seizure do not meet standards set by the Constitution.
What is a structural error in a criminal trial?
A structural error is a constitutional defect that automatically requires reversal. When this happens, courts do not analyze whether the error was harmless. The denial of the right to counsel is a structural error, as is the denial of a public trial, the denial of trial by jury, and racial discrimination in jury selection. When the Law Offices of Beau B. Brindley argues structural error in the Seventh Circuit, the government cannot save the conviction by arguing the error did not affect the outcome.
Can I challenge the constitutionality of the law I was charged under?
Yes. Vagueness challenges, overbreadth challenges, and Commerce Clause challenges can all be raised in federal criminal cases. The Supreme Court has invalidated portions of the Armed Career Criminal Act on vagueness grounds. Challenges to the scope of federal criminal statutes under the Commerce Clause and the non-delegation doctrine are active areas of constitutional litigation. A constitutional challenge federal criminal case of this type may have significance beyond the individual defendant.
How does the separation of powers apply to federal sentencing?
The separation of powers doctrine limits Congress’s ability to delegate criminal sentencing decisions to the executive branch and limits the executive branch’s ability to exceed the punishment authorized by Congress. Vague sentencing enhancements, including the residual clause of the Armed Career Criminal Act, have been struck down on due process and separation of powers grounds. A proficient constitutional criminal defense attorney can challenge the legal basis for any sentencing enhancement that exceeds congressional authority or is unconstitutionally vague.
The Constitution
Is Your Defense.
Call Brindley Law Today.
Constitutional rights are not abstractions; they are enforceable in court, specifically in the Seventh Circuit, and the United States Supreme Court. As a constitutional criminal defense attorney with a documented record of constitutional wins at every level, The Law Offices of Beau B. Brindley enforces your rights relentlessly. Call 312.765.8878 for a confidential consultation.