Criminal Defense Case Results
The federal criminal defense results below reflect what aggressive, trial-ready representation can achieve in the toughest courtrooms in the country.
At The Law Offices of Beau B. Brindley, we prepare every federal case for trial from day one, and the not-guilty verdicts, dismissals, and hung juries on this page are the result.
These outcomes span drug and narcotics prosecutions, firearms charges, money laundering, fraud, and unlawful prescribing, in the Northern District of Illinois and federal courts nationwide. Each summary below describes the charges, the defense, and the result. If you are facing a federal indictment or investigation, call 312.765.8878 for a confidential consultation.
Notable & High-Profile Results
The cases below drew national coverage or reached beyond the courtroom where they were tried. They include the acquittal of Derrel McDavid on every count in the 2022 federal trial of R. Kelly in Chicago, reported by CNN, the Chicago Tribune, and the Chicago Sun-Times. A high-profile federal prosecution brings pressure an ordinary case does not: a jury pool shaped by months of coverage, and a government that cannot afford to lose. The firm prepares those cases exactly the way it prepares every other federal case, for trial, from day one.
United States v. McDavid (R. Kelly co-defendant)
Federal trial · September 14, 2022
In the 2022 federal trial of singer R. Kelly in Chicago, the firm represented co-defendant Derrel McDavid, Kelly’s former business manager. While Kelly was convicted on several counts, McDavid was acquitted on every count he faced, including conspiracy and obstruction charges, before U.S. District Judge Harry Leinenweber. The acquittal was widely reported across national media, with McDavid and Beau Brindley addressing reporters outside the courthouse.
News Sources: Chicago Sun-Times · CNN · Chicago Tribune · Video — ABC7 (YouTube) · Video — CBS Chicago · Video — NBC Chicago
United States v. Brindley & Thompson
Federal bench trial · Early September 2015
In 2015, attorney Beau Brindley and his law partner Michael Thompson were themselves tried in federal court on a 21-count indictment alleging witness-coaching, obstruction, and conspiracy. After a bench trial before Judge Harry Leinenweber, both were acquitted on all counts, with the court finding the government had failed to prove its case.
News Sources: CBS News · Illinois State Bar Assn.
Our Federal Criminal Defense Results
These federal cases were tried or resolved in the Northern District of Illinois and in federal courts across the country. They include not-guilty verdicts on drug conspiracy, firearms, money laundering, fraud, and unlawful prescribing charges, along with hung juries and pre-trial dismissals where the government’s evidence did not survive scrutiny. Several carried mandatory minimums, and one carried a mandatory life sentence. Each summary below states the charge, the defense the firm presented, and the verdict the jury or judge returned.
United States v. Joel Smithers
Unlawful Prescribing
United States v. Mark Smithers
Obstruction of Justice
money laundering charges, sentence reduced
United States v. Henson
Unlawful Prescribing
Dr. Henson was convicted of unlawfully prescribing controlled substances to multiple patients who abused or diverted them. However, at trial, the firm successfully argued that his possession of a personal firearm at his medical office during the time of the charged offenses did not constitute an additional crime. The firm was also able to achieve not guilty verdicts on certain money laundering charges related to his medical practice. Because the unlawful prescribing charges involved the death of a patient, Dr. Henson was initially sentenced to life in prison. However, after the firm’s work in Ruan, the firm also appealed Dr. Henson’s convictions to the United States Supreme Court, where they were remanded and eventually vacated by the Tenth Circuit. Riding the momentum of this success, The Law Offices of Beau Brindley aggressively advocated for Dr. Henson and was able to reduce his life sentence down to only ten years.
United States v. Truong
Unlawful filling of prescriptions
Dr. Truong was a pharmacist accused of filling fraudulent prescriptions for drug dealers. While he was held responsible for his recklessness in falling short of pharmacy standards on a particular date, the firm’s trial strategy demonstrated to the jury that he was not a knowing participant in the scheme perpetrated by the dealers and their coconspirators who owned the pharmacy. Following trial, Dr. Truong was acquitted for knowingly filing a fraudulent prescription on one of the charged occasions.
United States v. Bathazar
Unlawful possession of a firearm
Mr. Balthazar was arrested by officers who claim they saw him on the street with an illegal firearm, following a foot chase. The officers recovered the firearm from a rooftop along the route they had chased Mr. Balthazar. Despite being recorded discussing the firearm, Mr. Balthazar was acquitted following a jury trial where the law office of Beau Brindley argued to the jury that there was no proof that Balthazar was the person who was seen throwing the firearm during the chase.
United States v. Rhew et al
Customs Fraud
The Law Offices of Beau Brindley represented C’Est Toi Jeans, a clothing company that had a decades long track record of success in the Los Angeles Garment District. CTJ and its founder, Mr. Rhew, were charged with multiple counts, including customs fraud and money laundering. The firm’s advocacy demonstrated that regardless of what representations were made on customs forms, the company was never knowingly involved with drug dealers or drug proceeds. The company may have been used as a tool to launder money by drug dealers who made large cash purchases of their products for resale, but there was no agreement with the company or even any knowledge that such money laundering was occuring.
United States v. Szyman
Unlawful prescribing · Jury verdict November 2017
Dr. Charles Szyman, a pain-management physician, faced 19 federal counts of dispensing prescription narcotics outside the usual scope of professional practice. Prosecutors sent two undercover officers posing as patients with invented pain conditions, and a government expert claimed Dr. Szyman had prescribed opioids to other patients at levels far above the norm. The firm took the case to trial and showed the jury that Dr. Szyman was a physician treating chronic pain in good faith, not a criminal. (For the firm’s appellate and Supreme Court work for physicians, see the Appeals & Supreme Court results.)
Media Source: Herald Times Reporter
United States v. Julia Greenberg
Immigration fraud
Julia Greenberg was a successful immigration attorney in New York City. After clients were caught fabricating stories to obtain immigration status, she was charged in the Southern District of New York with conspiracy to defraud the United States through immigration fraud. Ms. Greenberg was convicted at trial and subsequently hired the Law Office of Beau Brindley to handle her sentencing. Despite facing potentially years in prison as the result of her conviction, Ms. Greenberg received a sentence of only three months after Mr. Brindley’s arguments convinced the judge that she was not an immoral person who would commit future crimes
United States v. Chogsom
Exporting stolen vehicles
Mr. Chogsom, a Mongolian-born businessman who lawfully became a U.S. citizen, worked for a shipping company later found to have exported stolen vehicles to Mongolia using false paperwork. At trial the firm demonstrated that another individual had arranged each shipment and deceived Mr. Chogsom about what was loaded into the containers. The jury believed him.
United States v. Szyman
Unlawful prescribing · Jury verdict November 2017
Dr. Charles Szyman, a pain-management physician, faced 19 federal counts of dispensing prescription narcotics outside the usual scope of professional practice. Prosecutors sent two undercover officers posing as patients with invented pain conditions, and a government expert claimed Dr. Szyman had prescribed opioids to other patients at levels far above the norm. The firm took the case to trial and showed the jury that Dr. Szyman was a physician treating chronic pain in good faith, not a criminal. (For the firm’s appellate and Supreme Court work for physicians, see the Appeals & Supreme Court results.)
Media Source: Herald Times Reporter
United States v. Santiago
Money laundering
Ms. Santiago ran a logistics company with her brother and sister-in-law. After her brother refused to plead guilty to drug-trafficking charges, the government indicted Ms. Santiago for laundering drug proceeds through the business. At trial the firm relentlessly attacked the government’s evidence, exposed its flaws, and showed the company was legitimate. The judge entered a judgment of acquittal.
United States v. Melero
Firearm in furtherance
Mr. Melero was charged with conspiracy to distribute heroin and marijuana and with possessing a firearm in furtherance of a drug crime after officers raided an apartment he had rented. At trial the firm showed he had no access to the room where the gun was found — a co-tenant’s bedroom. Though convicted on the narcotics counts, his acquittal on the firearm charge saved him years in prison.
United States v. B. Williams
Firearm possession
Mr. Williams was stopped in a traffic stop in which Chicago officers claimed to have found a loaded handgun on the driver’s-side floorboard. At trial the firm exposed the numerous inconsistencies in the officers’ account and proved Mr. Williams innocent.
United States v. Wilson
Firearm / drug charges · Two trials
Mr. Wilson and a friend were arrested in their vehicle; officers claimed a semi-automatic firearm was at his feet and marijuana in the back seat. He was charged with using a firearm in furtherance of a drug crime, marijuana possession, and felon-in-possession. The firm showed the gun had actually been found in a different vehicle the officers denied searching. The jury acquitted him of the firearm count and hung on the others. The government retried him, and the firm again secured acquittal on the firearm charge — even after the government introduced DNA evidence.
United States v. Richards
Cocaine conspiracy · Also won on appeal
Mr. Richards was arrested with several kilograms of cocaine in his trunk after entering a garage tied to known drug dealers. He maintained he believed he was only collecting money and had no idea cocaine had been loaded into his car. The firm presented that somewhat unorthodox defense and the jury accepted it. (Mr. Richards also later prevailed on appeal — see the Appeals results.)
United States v. Palomino
Firearm possession
Mr. Palomino was arrested after a shooting outside a nightclub. Witnesses identified him, gunshot residue was found on his hands, and his fingerprint was on the gun’s magazine. He maintained that an acquaintance had been the shooter and had tried to hand him the gun afterward. By carefully poking holes in the government’s evidence, the firm showed his account was the more consistent one.
United States v. Salas
Firearms charges · Bench trial
Mr. Salas pleaded guilty to involvement in a large-scale drug-distribution conspiracy but denied possessing any firearms. At a bench trial the firm showed the government could not prove he had ever actually possessed the guns found in an apartment he shared with a co-conspirator, or that they were used in connection with his drug activity. The judge entered a finding of not guilty.
United States v. Sanchez
Cocaine (5+ kg)
Mr. Sanchez was charged with possessing more than five kilograms of cocaine with intent to distribute. Before the government could even bring the case to trial, the firm demonstrated the flaws in its evidence and in the way it had investigated and prosecuted the case. As a direct result, the government dropped all charges.
United States v. Croskey
Drug conspiracy / money laundering
Ms. Croskey was accused of joining her boyfriend’s cocaine conspiracy and laundering proceeds after investigators flagged suspicious banking activity. At trial the firm convinced a majority of jurors that she had no knowledge of the drug dealing and never sought to help launder money. The jury could not reach a unanimous verdict, and the government then dropped the charges.
United States v. C. Williams
Drug attempt / firearms · Bench trial
Mr. Williams was recorded on a series of calls arranging to distribute a large quantity of marijuana and five firearms with an undercover informant. The firm devised a technical defense showing his conduct did not legally constitute an attempt and advised a bench trial. Following trial, the judge immediately found him not guilty.
United States v. Guttierez
Cocaine
Mr. Guttierez was indicted on multiple drug charges. Before trial, the firm’s extensive investigation revealed significant defects in the reliability of the government’s evidence. In response, the government dropped all charges against him.
United States v. Burnett
Heroin conspiracy
Mr. Burnett was charged as a member of a massive heroin conspiracy. At trial he did not contest selling heroin on specific occasions but denied any ongoing agreement to distribute that could constitute a conspiracy. That buyer-seller defense produced an acquittal on the conspiracy charge.
United States v. Lee
Conspiracy to commit fraud
Ms. Lee and her fiance were charged with embezzling funds from a trust and fraudulently covering up the theft. Before trial, the firm laid out its aggressive defense strategy for the government, which responded by offering Ms. Lee a very rare diversionary program — after which she received no conviction whatsoever.
United States v. Miles
Firearm in furtherance
Mr. Miles pleaded guilty to running a large heroin-distribution conspiracy but wanted to contest the charge of using a firearm in furtherance of it. The firm showed he possessed the gun only to defend his mother and home after a string of neighborhood break-ins, not for any drug-related purpose. The jury found him not guilty on that count.
United States v. Harrington
Firearm in furtherance
After an undercover investigation into his heroin dealing, Mr. Harrington was arrested with a gun under a car seat and charged with unlawful use of a firearm in furtherance of a drug crime. At trial the firm showed the government had no proof he even knew the gun was in the car, which others — including the government’s informant — drove. When the jury failed to convict, the government decided not to retry the charge.
United States v. Farmer
Cocaine conspiracy
Mr. Farmer was accused of conspiring to possess and distribute several kilograms of cocaine, with a videotaped transaction at which he was present. The firm exposed the flaws and contradictions in the cooperating informant’s testimony and argued the video showed nothing more than an innocent bystander. The jury was convinced.
United States v. McCarter
Cocaine (50+ kg)
Mr. McCarter faced five cocaine counts, with the government claiming it could tie him to well over 50 kilograms and presenting more than 20 audio recordings of alleged drug calls. The firm traced the phone records and showed the phone’s owner was not Mr. McCarter, then attacked the government’s voice identification and exposed lies by two cooperating witnesses. Despite 27 recordings, the jury acquitted on all counts.
hung jury on counterfeiting.
United States v. DeLeon
Counterfeiting / cocaine
Mr. DeLeon was recorded by an undercover informant counterfeiting roughly $100,000 and discussing trading it for cocaine. A prior lawyer had him plead guilty to a 20-plus-year sentence; after hiring the firm, that plea was withdrawn and the case went to trial on an entrapment defense. Cross-examination revealed that a Secret Service agent had falsified evidence and that an undercover agent had threatened Mr. DeLeon to compel his participation.
with intent to distribute.
United States v. Padro
Crack cocaine
Mr. Padro was recorded by an undercover informant holding a bag of crack cocaine. Cross-examination showed the informant lied to the jury and that the prosecutor tried to let it pass. The firm exposed both throughout the trial.
United States v. Ozuna
Cocaine (200 kg)
Mr. Ozuna was caught driving a tractor-trailer carrying more than 200 kilograms of cocaine, and agents claimed he had confessed both verbally and in writing. The firm attacked the agents’ inconsistencies and presented multiple handwriting experts suggesting the confession may have been forged. Despite the volume and the alleged confession, the jury could not reach a verdict.
United States v. Vasquez
Cocaine conspiracy / attempt
Mr. Vasquez was charged with conspiracy to possess and distribute two kilograms of cocaine and with attempting to possess it. The firm’s persistent cross-examination of the cooperator and the agents exposed the theory’s flaws, and a witness established an innocent explanation for his presence. As the driver who fled the scene, he was convicted of the conspiracy but acquitted of the attempt.
(avoided a life sentence).
United States v. Cotton
Cocaine conspiracy (life exposure)
Mr. Cotton faced a cocaine conspiracy that, given his record, carried a mandatory life sentence if the jury found him responsible for more than five kilograms. Despite his fingerprints on multiple kilogram wrappers and a co-conspirator’s testimony, the firm exposed enough flaws that the jury declined to hold him responsible for more than five kilograms — reducing his exposure from life to a ten-year minimum.
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.
Facing a Federal Indictment?
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.