Memorandum and Order — No. 4:21-cr-00571 (Dkt. 152, E.D. Mo.)

Summary

A Memorandum and Order, Doc. #: 152, filed August 19, 2025 in United States v. Michael Grady, No. 4:21-CR-00571-AGF (Case: 4:21-cr-00571-AGF), in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, Eastern Division, signed by United States District Judge Audrey G. Fleissig. The court takes judicial notice of a Declaration of Beau Brindley, counsel of record for the defendant, filed in the 28 U.S.C. § 2255 action Burris v. United States, and states that admissions in it about a conflict of interest in another case raise genuine cause for concern about his ability to provide effective representation. It finds it necessary to appoint counsel to advise Grady of the Declaration and orders Brindley to give Grady copies of the Declaration and the order and to notify the court in writing within 7 days.

Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

Full text

   Case: 4:21-cr-00571-AGF          Doc. #: 152 Filed: 08/19/25           Page: 1 of 2 PageID #:
                                               284

                               UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                               EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
                                     EASTERN DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                         )
                                                  )
          Plaintiff,                              )
                                                  )
    v.                                            )        No. 4:21-CR-00571-AGF
                                                  )
MICHAEL GRADY,                                    )
                                                  )
          Defendant.                              )
                                                  )
                                 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

         At present, Beau Brindley is counsel of record for defendant Michael Grady. On file and

publicly available in the 28 U.S.C. § 2255 habeas action Burris v. United States, No. 4:23-cv-

243-RWS (E.D. Mo.) is the attached “Declaration of Beau Brindley, Esq.” (the “Declaration”),

which Brindley signed under penalty of perjury. Burris filed the Declaration as an attachment to

his Motion Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence. Burris offered

the Declaration in support of his claim that Brindley operated under an actual conflict of interest,

thus depriving him of the effective assistance of counsel while representing him in the matter.

United States v. Burris, No. 4:17-cr-95-RWS-2 (E.D. Mo.).

         Brindley’s admissions in the Declaration are troubling. For example, Brindley admits

that while representing Burris in United States v. Burris, he represented one Avendano-Guzman

(“Avendano”) in separate criminal matters in Illinois and Tennessee. Brindley admits that even

though Avendano was needed as a witness for Burris, Brindley did not obtain his testimony

in part because testifying for Burris was against Avendano’s interests in the separate criminal

matters. Brindley admits he failed to discuss those interests with Burris, and explain the impact on

his own conflict-of-interest consideration. Brindley also explains how the lack of Avendano’s
   Case: 4:21-cr-00571-AGF          Doc. #: 152 Filed: 08/19/25             Page: 2 of 2 PageID #:
                                               285

testimony affected his questioning of a witness during Burris’s trial, and admits “there was a

whole line of helpful questioning for Mr. Burris that went unasked because I did not obtain the

testimony of Mr. Avendano, which would have supported such questions.” [Declaration at 4].

Brindley also admits that despite advising the Court that he would seek to bring Avendano from

Chicago to St. Louis to testify for Mr. Burris, he never sought the writ.

       The Declaration is a public record in an action in this United States District Court, and it

is relevant to the case at bar because it raises genuine cause for concern about Brindley’s ability

to provide Grady with the effective representation guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment. The

Court takes judicial notice of the “Declaration of Beau Brindley, Esq.” See United States v.

Jackson, 640 F.2d 614, 617 (8th Cir. 1981).

       Because the Court has genuine cause for concern about Brindley’s ability to provide

Grady with the effective representation guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment, the Court finds it

necessary to appoint counsel for Grady to advise him of the affidavit and help him decide whether

to continue to proceed with Brindley as counsel in this matter. Counsel will inform Grady of the

Declaration and provide a copy to him, explain Brindley’s admissions in the Declaration, and

discuss with Grady whether he wishes to continue to proceed with Brindley as counsel in this

matter. The Court will appoint counsel via separate order.

       The Court orders Brindley to provide Grady a copy of the Declaration and a copy of this

Order, and to then provide the Court with notice, in writing and within 7 days of the date of this

Order, that he has provided both documents to Grady.

       Dated this 19th day of August, 2025.


                                                     __________________________________
                                                     AUDREY G. FLEISSIG
                                                     UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE




                                                  -2-


File and source

File

152.pdf

Size

151,626 bytes

SHA-256

9a97c463dd8445f6b8e4b5522f38e58e54acb7b26367b5b67b9f605823dbe662

Our copy

152.pdf

Original

No public link identified.