DEA Defense Lawyers Explain How Drug Weights Impact Criminal Sentencing

DEA Defense Lawyers Explain How Drug Weights Impact Criminal Sentencing

When someone is arrested for a federal drug crime, one of the most important factors determining the length of their sentence is the weight of the drugs involved. Under federal law, mandatory minimum sentences are triggered for drug offenses based on the quantity of drugs. So whether you’re caught with 5 kilos or 50 kilos makes a huge difference in how much time you’ll serve.

In this article, experienced DEA defense lawyers explain how drug weights work under federal sentencing guidelines, and how the specific weight of drugs charged can impact the sentence someone receives if convicted. We’ll break down the mandatory minimums and sentencing ranges for different drug quantities. We’ll also discuss strategies criminal defense attorneys use to try to get drug weights reduced or charges dismissed when the weight is a key factor.

Mandatory Minimums Based on Drug Weight

Under the federal sentencing guidelines, mandatory minimum prison sentences are triggered for drug crimes based on the weight of the drugs involved. This means judges have no discretion to go lower than the mandatory minimum sentence based on mitigating factors. The mandatory minimum sentences based on drug weight are:¹

• 5 kilos of cocaine – 10 years
• 50 grams of meth – 10 years
• 100 grams of heroin – 10 years
• 28 grams of crack – 10 years
• 1,000 kilos of marijuana – 10 years
• 50 grams of meth with prior conviction – 20 years
• 400 grams of fentanyl – 20 years

As you can see, being charged with just a few more grams can trigger a lengthy mandatory minimum sentence. Even small differences in drug weight can have huge consequences in terms of the sentence length.

Sentencing Ranges Based on Drug Quantity

In addition to triggering mandatory minimums, the specific quantity of drugs also impacts the sentencing range under the guidelines. The sentencing range is based on the drug weight through a calculation of the “base offense level.” Generally, the more drugs involved, the higher the base offense level and sentencing range.

For example, 5 kilos of cocaine has a base offense level of 32, while 15 kilos of cocaine has a level 34. This equates to a sentencing range of 121-151 months compared to 168-210 months. So those extra 10 kilos add several years to the sentence. Here are some other examples of how drug weight impacts the sentencing range:²

• 500 grams of meth – Level 30 (97-121 months)
• 1.5 kilos of meth – Level 32 (121-151 months)
• 150 grams of heroin – Level 26 (63-78 months)
• 400 grams of heroin – Level 28 (78-97 months)

As you go up in drug quantity, the sentencing range increases significantly. An extra kilo or few hundred grams can mean years of additional prison time.

How Lawyers Challenge Drug Weights

When the drug weight is a major factor in the length of sentence, as it is in most federal drug cases, the defense attorney’s job is to scrutinize the weight calculation and look for ways to reduce it. There are several strategies criminal lawyers use to challenge drug weights:

• Contest lab results – Many times the drug weights from arrests come from quick field tests. Defense lawyers will get independent lab testing done to confirm the purity percentages and total weight.
• Argue mixture versus pure drugs – The law makes a distinction between the weight of the entire mixture and the pure drugs. If some of the weight is cutting agents, lawyers argue to exclude this.
• Challenge credibility of investigators – Police reports contain the reported drug weights. But if investigators aren’t credible, their weights can be scrutinized.
• Claim sentencing entrapment – This is when informants or agents deliberately inflate the drug quantity to increase the sentence.

In some cases, lawyers have been successful getting drug weights reduced by hundreds or thousands of grams. This can be the difference between a 10-year mandatory minimum versus no minimum at all. But it takes an experienced federal drug defense lawyer to understand all the intricacies of how drug weights impact sentencing.

How Drug Type Matters Too

It’s not only the drug weight, but also the type of drug that can significantly impact a sentence. As the mandatory minimums above show, federal law treats crack cocaine much more harshly than powder cocaine. Trafficking 5 grams of crack carries the same 5-year minimum sentence as 500 grams of powder cocaine. This disparity has been criticized as racially biased and unfair.³

Federal law also treats methamphetamine much more strictly than many other drugs. Only 50 grams of meth, a relatively small amount, triggers the harsh 10-year mandatory minimum. The purity of meth is also crucial – “Ice” is purer and treated more severely than standard meth mixtures.

Given the complexities of how drug types and purities impact sentencing, it’s essential for anyone facing federal drug charges to have an experienced attorney knowledgeable in sentencing law and guidelines.

How Mitigating Factors Play a Role

While mandatory minimums constrain judges’ sentencing discretion, mitigating factors can still play a role, especially when sentences may end up above the minimums. Factors like:

• Minimal criminal history
• Non-violent offense
• Played small role in conspiracy
• Addiction/substance abuse issues
• Mental health problems
• Vulnerabilities taken advantage of

can persuade judges to go toward the lower end of the sentencing range. But this takes experienced counsel making persuasive arguments.

Acceptance of responsibility by pleading guilty early and cooperating with prosecutors can also help secure a more favorable sentence. But cooperation agreements involve many complexities. It’s critical to have legal advice before agreeing to cooperate against others.

How Sentencing Works in Drug Conspiracies

Many federal drug cases involve conspiracies with multiple defendants. A key sentencing issue here is the drug weights attributable to each defendant. Prosecutors often seek to hold each member of the conspiracy responsible for the entire drug weight involved in the whole conspiracy.

But defense lawyers will argue that individual defendants should only be sentenced based on the quantity of drugs they personally handled or knew about. Using the concept of “reasonable foreseeability,” lawyers can often get drug weights, and thus sentences, substantially reduced for minor players in conspiracies.

Other Impacts Beyond Sentencing

It’s not just the sentence itself that’s impacted by drug weight. Other major implications include:

• Mandatory minimums limit probation – The higher the drug weight, the less likely judges can impose probation instead of prison.
• Higher bail amounts – Judges set higher bail for larger weight drugs, making pretrial release less likely.
• Disqualification from diversion programs – Many diversion programs have caps on the drug quantity eligible.

So again, the specific drug weight makes a huge difference in the overall outcome of the case.

Don’t Wait to Get Experienced Counsel

If you or a loved one is under investigation or charged in a federal drug case, it’s critical to get experienced legal counsel on your side immediately. The earlier lawyers can get involved, the more tools they have to challenge drug weights and pursue the most favorable resolution.

An experienced federal drug crimes attorney will know all the strategies to scrutinize drug weights, pursue exclusions of certain mixtures, argue reasonable foreseeability and mitigating factors, and negotiate alternate charges when appropriate. Don’t wait to contact a lawyer if drug quantities could be a factor in potential sentences. The drug weight impact on guidelines and minimums is too complex to navigate without legal expertise.

References

1. United States Sentencing Commission, Guidelines Manual, §2D1.1(c) (Nov. 2018).↩

2. United States Sentencing Commission, Guidelines Manual, §2D1.1(c) Drug Quantity Table (Nov. 2018).↩

3. American Civil Liberties Union, “Cracks in the System: Twenty Years of the Unjust Federal Crack Cocaine Law,” 2006.↩