Illinois Criminal Defense Results
The Illinois criminal defense results on this page reflect a track record built in state courtrooms across the Chicago area and beyond.
From cocaine and marijuana cases to armed robbery, theft, and assault charges, The Law Offices of Beau B. Brindley has secured acquittals, dismissals, and other favorable outcomes by exposing the weaknesses in the state’s evidence.
Many of these cases turned on aggressive cross-examination, suppression motions, and a refusal to accept a plea when the evidence did not hold up. Each summary below describes the charges, the defense, and the result. If you are facing state charges in Illinois, call 312.765.8878 for a confidential consultation.
Our Illinois Criminal Defense Results
These cases were tried in Cook County, in the collar counties of Will and Kane, and in courtrooms downstate, along with one case in Iowa. They include acquittals on cocaine, marijuana, and amphetamine charges, on armed robbery and aggravated assault on an officer, and on a theft case built from thousands of corporate documents. Others ended in dismissal after a suppression hearing or a preliminary hearing took the state’s account apart. Several of these defendants turned down a plea offer first, including one facing a fifteen-year minimum. Each summary below states the charge, the defense the firm presented, and the result.
People v. Howard
Cocaine
Four officers testified they seized large quantities of cocaine and firearms from Ms. Howard and her residence. The firm’s cross-examination uncovered contradictions and outright falsehoods, demonstrating that the officers had planted evidence and threatened her at gunpoint. The jury acquitted her after roughly ten minutes of deliberation.
People v. Pennington
White-collar theft (~$400k)
The state presented thousands of documents alleging Mr. Pennington had stolen approximately $400,000, with multiple corporate officers testifying against him. After careful review, the firm confronted those officers with evidence disproving their account and showed the jury that Mr. Pennington had been exploited by corporate greed and then accused after he became disabled.
People v. Bloxton
Cocaine trafficking (15-yr min) · Bench trial
Facing a fifteen-year minimum on cocaine-trafficking charges, Mr. Bloxton declined a plea offer after the firm’s suppression hearing severely damaged the credibility of the officers involved. He proceeded to a bench trial, where the presentation was so strong that the judge found him not guilty after roughly two minutes.
People v. Edwards
Aggravated discharge of a firearm
Mr. Edwards was charged with aggravated discharge of a firearm after an eyewitness alleged a drive-by, with officers also recovering shell casings and gunshot residue. The firm challenged the eyewitness identification and showed that not all the state’s evidence was consistent with Mr. Edwards being the shooter.
People v. Rosado
Cocaine (entrapment)
Mr. Rosado was arrested after providing cocaine to an undercover informant on three occasions. The firm developed evidence that the informant had coerced and threatened him into obtaining the drugs, supporting an entrapment defense. Forced to produce the informant for cross-examination, the state instead dropped all charges.
People v. Dunn
Armed robbery (juvenile tried as adult)
A 15-year-old tried as an adult for armed robbery, Mr. Dunn faced eyewitnesses who attempted to identify him as the person who robbed their restaurant. The firm exposed inconsistencies in their claims, disproved an alleged footprint match, and presented compelling testimony from the defendant. After a year of incarceration, he was acquitted and rejoined his family.
People v. Sostenes
Cocaine
Accused by officers in Robinson, Illinois of possessing cocaine, Mr. Sostenes was cleared after the firm’s careful review of the officers’ statements demonstrated he had nothing to do with the seized drugs.
People v. Cortes
Cocaine
Officers claimed they could see cocaine folded in a dollar bill in Ms. Cortes’s cupholder during a traffic stop. At trial the firm demonstrated numerous contradictions and improbable statements in the arresting officers’ testimony, and she was swiftly acquitted.
People v. Amarin (Ecstasy)
Ecstasy, two counties
Mr. Amarin was accused of possessing ecstasy with intent to distribute in two Illinois counties. In Cook County, a preliminary hearing showed the officers could not have seen the drugs they claimed to have seen. In Kane County, the firm rebuffed plea offers and insisted the drug evidence be fully analyzed for the complaining witness’s fingerprints; when that lab work was done, the state’s case fell apart.
Iowa v. Sostenes
Marijuana (~10 lb) · Suppression
Mr. Sostenes and his girlfriend were charged with possessing roughly ten pounds of marijuana with intent to distribute. The firm filed a motion to suppress based on an improper search. At the hearing, cross-examination compelled a state trooper to admit a false claim, and the judge issued a scathing opinion finding the officers’ testimony false and suppressing all the evidence — ending the case.
People v. Amarin (Marijuana)
Marijuana (~2 lb), Will County · Bench trial
Two Will County officers testified about surveillance that led to the recovery of over two pounds of marijuana in a messenger bag. At a bench trial, cross-examination showed their claimed observations were impossible. The state also presented a signed statement against Mr. Amarin, which the firm showed was a lie coerced from the driver of his vehicle. The judge acquitted him and criticized the prosecutor.
People v. Thompson
Marijuana / paraphernalia
Mathew Thompson was accused of possessing drugs and paraphernalia found in a parked car by two state police officers. At trial the firm exposed contradictions in the officers’ testimony and showed the items were actually found beneath the passenger seat of a vehicle occupied by another individual — and could not be connected to Mr. Thompson.
People v. Cuenca
Identification fraud
Mr. Cuenca, who has lived in the United States since age five, faced identification-fraud and false-license charges that would have resulted in deportation. After detailed research into the licensing process for immigrants, the firm confronted the State’s Attorney with extensive State Department documentation showing the conduct was not purposeful, and threatened to expose the charges at trial. The charge was dismissed.
People v. Robledo
Aggravated assault on an officer
Mr. Robledo was accused of an unprovoked aggravated assault on a police officer, with multiple officers testifying against him. Through carefully planned cross-examination, the firm demonstrated that the officers lied and that Mr. Robledo had actually been defending his girlfriend from an attack by an out-of-uniform officer.
People v. Jones
Armed robbery
Marvin Jones, Jr. was charged with robbing a cellular store after he was found in possession of some of the stolen merchandise. The firm demonstrated the flaws in the investigation that led to a rush to judgment and an unreliable witness identification.
People v. Gardea-Alvarez
Amphetamines
Illegal bath-salt pills were found during a search of Mr. Gardea-Alvarez’s vehicle while he visited a relative in jail. The firm challenged the state’s evidence and established that other people had accessed the vehicle, so the state could not prove he even knew the drugs were there.
People v. Cazares
Cocaine
A large amount of cocaine was found in Mr. Cazares’s residence and garage, with a smaller amount in his jacket pocket. The firm established that the evidence tying him to the larger quantity was weak. The judge agreed, holding him responsible only for the cocaine in his jacket — sparing him a years-long prison term and deportation. He served only a few months before returning to his family.
People v. Leon-Lopez
Cocaine (plea withdrawal)
The firm convinced a Will County judge to let Mr. Leon-Lopez withdraw a guilty plea after establishing that his prior attorney had given improper and insufficient advice about deportation. Through negotiation, the firm secured the prosecutor’s agreement not to reinstate the charges once the plea was withdrawn. Mr. Leon-Lopez was freed without a conviction, and his deportation order was overturned.
How These Results Are Won
Every case is prepared for trial. The firm does not build cases around a plea. Prosecutors know when a defense is ready to try a case, and that readiness drives dismissals and better outcomes long before a jury is seated.
Cross-examination decides cases. Again and again in these results, the turning point was a witness — an agent, an officer, a cooperator — whose account fell apart under questioning.
The suppression hearing is part of the trial. Illinois cases are often won before opening statements, on a motion that tests how the stop, the search, or the identification was actually made. On this page, one suppression hearing damaged the officers’ credibility badly enough that a fifteen-year plea offer was refused and a judge acquitted in about two minutes. Another ended a case outright when a trooper admitted a false claim on cross.
Charged in Illinois?
Call Brindley Law Today.
Most of the results on this page came after a plea offer was turned down. At The Law Offices of Beau B. Brindley, we investigate the state’s case, litigate the stop and the search, and prepare every Illinois case for trial, whether it is charged in Cook County, the collar counties, or anywhere else in the state. If you have been arrested or already charged, call 312.765.8878 for a confidential consultation. The sooner we see the evidence, the more can be done with it.