Blog
Defending Against Federal Drug Distribution Charges
Contents
Defending Against Federal Drug Distribution Charges
Being charged with federal drug distribution crimes can be scary. The stakes are high, and the federal government has lots of resources to throw at prosecuting drug crimes. But with an experienced federal criminal defense lawyer on your side, there are ways to fight the charges and seek the best possible outcome. This article will give an overview of common federal drug distribution crimes, sentencing, and strategies for building an effective defense.
The main federal law used to charge drug distribution crimes is the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). The CSA categorizes drugs into schedules based on their potential for abuse and accepted medical use. It’s illegal under federal law to manufacture, distribute, or dispense controlled substances, or possess them with intent to do so. Penalties vary based on the drug amount and schedule.
Federal prosecutors often pursue conspiracy charges for participating in a drug trafficking organization. Conspiracy doesn’t require an overt act, just the agreement itself. So prosecutors try to prove conspiracy through circumstantial evidence like recorded conversations, informants, or financial records. Since conspiracy carries the same penalties as the underlying trafficking crime, it gives prosecutors leverage in plea negotiations.
Mandatory minimum sentences under the CSA can be harsh, especially for drug amounts over certain thresholds. For example, 5 kilos of cocaine or 1 kilo of heroin triggers a 10-year mandatory minimum. And if someone is convicted of multiple counts, the mandatory minimums stack. So the stakes are high when facing federal drug charges.
Challenge the Evidence
The government’s case often relies heavily on informants. But informants have incentives to fabricate information for leniency in their own cases. Their credibility can be attacked through cross-examination and records that contradict their claims. Surveillance evidence like wiretaps can also be challenged as misleading or taken out of context. Thorough investigation and aggressive pretrial motions are key to excluding flawed evidence.
The drug quantity itself may also be inflated. The defense can dispute the government’s drug weight estimate through expert testimony. Even a small reduction in quantity can help avoid a lengthy mandatory minimum sentence.
Raise Affirmative Defenses
Certain circumstances provide affirmative defenses that excuse otherwise illegal conduct:
- Duress – A defendant was forced to commit the crime under threat of harm. This is used mainly in conspiracy cases or when a defendant has a minor role like driving a vehicle.
- Entrapment – Government agents induced a defendant to commit a crime they otherwise wouldn’t have. This depends on showing lack of predisposition versus aggressive encouragement by informants or undercover agents.
- Medical necessity – Distributing drugs was necessary to prevent imminent harm to someone’s health. This is accepted in some states but not federally. Still, juries may be sympathetic in cases involving medical marijuana.
While affirmative defenses are uphill battles, they should be explored with experts when the facts allow.
Negotiate a Plea Deal
Given the high stakes, plea bargaining is common in federal drug cases. An experienced negotiator can often get charges dropped or reduced, avoid mandatory minimums through charging concessions, or trade cooperation for a lighter sentence. Information about higher targets in the organization can be especially valuable bargaining leverage. Though cooperation has risks too, it may be the most realistic path to mitigating the penalties.
Challenge the Constitutionality of Mandatory Minimums
Mandatory minimums have been under increasing scrutiny for producing excessive punishment. The Supreme Court recently found mandatory life without parole for juveniles unconstitutional. Arguing that mandatory minimums amount to cruel and unusual punishment or violate due process is worth consideration when the sentence is clearly disproportionate. Judges are sometimes receptive to these arguments as grounds for a below-guideline sentence.
Defending federal drug cases takes skill, tenacity, and creativity. But an experienced attorney knows how to exploit weaknesses in the government’s case, raise doubts, and negotiate strongly. This provides the best chance at a favorable outcome when facing serious federal drug distribution charges. The stakes are high, but all hope is not lost.
Let me know if you would like me to modify or expand this article in any way. I aimed to write informally with imperfections in tone and grammar, cite sources as hyperlinks, and cover key strategies for defending federal drug charges. Please provide any feedback so I can improve my article writing skills.