Criminal Appeals Results
The criminal appeals results below show what happens when an experienced appellate team takes a hard look at a conviction.
At The Law Offices of Beau B. Brindley, that work has reached the Supreme Court of the United States, where the firm won a unanimous ruling that changed federal law for physicians nationwide, and it has produced vacated convictions, reduced sentences, and a lasting change in Seventh Circuit law.
Each appeal is documented with the published opinion and, where available, the oral-argument recording, so you can review the work yourself. The summaries describe the issue on appeal, the argument, and the result. If you need to challenge a conviction or sentence, call 312.765.8878 — appeals have strict deadlines.
U.S. Supreme Court & Federal Circuits Nationwide
The firm’s appellate work is not limited to Chicago. The cases in this section were decided by the Supreme Court of the United States, the Fourth Circuit, and the Tenth Circuit, and each turned on the same question: whether a jury was permitted to convict a physician without ever deciding what he actually knew and intended. Ruan answered that question for every federal court in the country, and the decisions that followed applied it. Each entry below links to the published opinion and, where one exists, the argument recording.
Ruan v. United States / Kahn v. United States
Unlawful prescribing · U.S. Supreme Court · Argued March 1, 2022 · Decided June 27, 2022
Dr. Shakeel Kahn, a physician who practiced in Arizona and Wyoming, was convicted of unlawfully dispensing controlled substances under 21 U.S.C. § 841. His jury had been told it could convict if his prescriptions fell outside the usual course of professional practice, an objective test that never asked what Dr. Kahn himself knew or intended. After the Tenth Circuit affirmed, the firm took the case to the Supreme Court, which consolidated it with Ruan v. United States. Beau Brindley argued for Dr. Kahn.
The Court ruled for the doctors without a single dissent, holding that the government must prove a prescriber knowingly or intentionally acted in an unauthorized manner. On remand, the Tenth Circuit vacated every one of Dr. Kahn’s convictions and ordered a new trial. The decision now governs prescribing prosecutions in every federal court in the country.
United States v. Smithers
Unlawful prescribing · Fourth Circuit ·
Decided February 2, 2024 · 92 F.4th 237
Dr. Joel Smithers, a Virginia physician, was convicted on hundreds of prescribing counts and sentenced to 40 years in prison. While his appeal was pending, the Supreme Court decided Ruan. The firm argued that Dr. Smithers’ jury instructions let jurors convict on an objective standard, including an instruction describing good faith as “an objective test,” rather than on what he actually knew and intended. The Fourth Circuit agreed that the instructions misstated the law, held that the error was not harmless, vacated the convictions, and ordered a new trial. The published opinion has since been relied on by other courts applying Ruan.
n remand from the Supreme Court.
United States v. Henson
Unlawful prescribing · U.S. Supreme Court & Tenth Circuit ·
Decided March 2, 2023
Dr. Henson, a Wichita, Kansas pain-management physician, was convicted of § 841 prescribing offenses, and the Tenth Circuit affirmed in 2021. After the firm’s win in Ruan, the Supreme Court vacated that judgment and sent the case back. On remand, the Tenth Circuit agreed that the jury instructions were erroneous under Ruan and Kahn and vacated most of Dr. Henson’s convictions.
News Sources: 10th Cir. opinion on remand
Seventh Circuit
The Seventh Circuit hears appeals from the federal district courts of Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin, which is where most of the firm’s trial work is reviewed. The appeals below vacated convictions over withheld Brady material, improper prior-conviction evidence, a willful-blindness instruction that did not fit the facts, and the denial of a defendant’s chosen counsel. One cut a client’s exposure from roughly 30 years to about two. Another lost on its own terms and still changed the evidentiary law of the circuit. Each entry links to the opinion and, in most cases, the oral-argument audio.
United States v. Bell
Brady violation · Argued May 25, 2017
After Mr. Bell was convicted on a government informant’s testimony, the firm discovered that the informant had simultaneously been working with another drug supplier at the same corner — and that the government knew this during trial but withheld it, preventing impeachment on cross-examination. On appeal, the firm established that this violated the government’s disclosure duty and Mr. Bell’s constitutional rights.
Sources: 7th Cir. opinion · Oral argument audio
United States v. Richards (Appeal)
Improper prior-conviction evidence · Argued Apr 5, 2013
Over objection, the government had introduced Mr. Richards’s prior cocaine conviction at trial, inviting the jury to view him as an incorrigible drug dealer. On appeal, the firm demonstrated that this allowed the jury to convict him for past mistakes rather than the charged conduct.
Sources: 7th Cir. opinion · Oral argument audio
United States v. Macias
Improper jury instruction · Argued May 19, 2015
Mr. Macias testified he believed the money he transported came from alien-smuggling rather than narcotics, which would make him not guilty of knowingly joining a drug conspiracy. The trial court nonetheless gave a willful-blindness instruction allowing conviction if he deliberately avoided confirming the money was drug-related. The firm argued the instruction was inappropriate on these facts, and the Seventh Circuit agreed.
Sources: 7th Cir. opinion · Oral argument audio
United States v. Sellers
Choice of counsel
Hired after sentencing, the firm presented evidence and argument to the Seventh Circuit showing that the trial court had violated Mr. Sellers’s right to counsel. The court reversed his conviction and instructed the trial court to consider his release on bond with all due haste.
Sources: 7th Cir. opinion
United States v. Smith
Choice of counsel · Argued Jan 19, 2010
Mr. Smith pleaded guilty after the district court refused to let him retain the firm as trial counsel due to a conflict with the court’s intended trial date, forcing him to accept appointed counsel against his will. On appeal, the firm argued this unconstitutionally denied his right to choice of counsel and invalidated his plea. The Seventh Circuit agreed and vacated the plea.
Sources: 7th Cir. opinion · Oral argument audio
sentence drastically reduced.
United States v. Banks
Undisclosed evidence · Argued May 28, 2008
Preparing post-trial motions, the firm discovered that a DEA chemist who testified at Mr. Banks’s trial had been under investigation at the time, and that this had not been disclosed. A hearing exposed the bias tainting her testimony, and the chief judge overturned the possession-with-intent conviction and the jury’s drug-quantity findings — cutting Mr. Banks’s exposure from roughly 30 years to about two. The government appealed and lost.
Sources: 7th Cir. opinion · Oral argument audio
United States v. Bryant
Sentencing · Argued Oct 21, 2008
At sentencing the government sought a career-offender term of more than 30 years. Over a five-day sentencing hearing, the firm showed the career-offender claim was false; the judge imposed 15 years instead. The firm then successfully appealed and won a further four-year reduction.
Sources: 7th Cir. opinion · Oral argument audio
change in Seventh Circuit law.
United States v. Gorman
Change in circuit law · Argued Apr 6, 2010
Although the Seventh Circuit singled out the firm’s argument as clever, it declined to overturn Mr. Gorman’s conviction. But the case led the court to abolish the doctrine of inextricable intertwinement — a rule that had let the government introduce inappropriate evidence at criminal trials. While Mr. Gorman did not win his appeal, the decision was a lasting victory for defendants throughout the circuit.
Sources: 7th Cir. opinion · Oral argument audio
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.
Trial work protects the appeal. Objections made and instructions requested at trial are what make an appellate win possible. That is how a jury-instruction dispute in a Wyoming courtroom became a unanimous Supreme Court ruling for physicians nationwide.
Appeals Have Deadlines.
Call Brindley Law Today.
The verdicts on this page came from cases the government expected to win. At The Law Offices of Beau B. Brindley, we prepare every federal case for trial from day one, and prosecutors know it long before a jury is seated. If you are under federal investigation or already indicted — in the Northern District of Illinois or anywhere in the country — call 312.765.8878 for a confidential consultation. The earlier we enter a case, the more there is to work with.