Drug Cases

Charges related to dealing drugs, while non-violent in nature, can hold substantial penalties in both the Pennsylvania and Federal Courts. Drug cases are often initiated through surveillance by law enforcement, the use of confidential informants and sources and, in some cases, the use of wiretaps and other forms of clandestine monitoring by law enforcement.

As a former Philadelphia County Assistant District Attorney assigned to the office’s Dangerous Drug Offender Unit, I know how to evaluate all types of drug cases.

In Pennsylvania, charges related to drug dealing are often referred to as either Delivery of a Controlled Substance or Possession with the Intent to Deliver a Controlled Substance. The charge requires the government to prove that an individual illegally possessed a controlled substance, and either delivered the controlled substance to another person or had the intent to deliver the controlled substance to another person at a later time.

The government will often attempt to hold a person liable for the conduct of others through a charge of conspiracy. Generally speaking, conspiracy is when one-person plans with at least one other person commit a crime. In Pennsylvania, the charge of Conspiracy also requires the government to prove that at least one of the conspirators performed some overt act in furtherance of the Conspiracy. Co-conspirators are held criminally liable for the actions one another. Therefore, it is often extremely important in defending drug cases that your counsel not only attack the credibility and veracity of law enforcement’s observations, but also their theory of the case if it involves allegations of a Conspiracy.

Finally, if the evidence recovered by the government was obtained as a result of an illegal search and/or search warrant not supported by probable cause – facts that would lead a reasonably prudent and intelligent person to conclude that a crime had occurred – then your counsel may be able to suppress that evidence by filing and litigating pre-trial motions. Suppressed evidence may not be used against you at trial and, in some cases, may lead to a dismissal of all charges prior to trial.

Not Guilty – Philadelphia Firearms Case

Commonwealth v. A.H.

Client was charged with illegal possession of a firearm and several charges related to the firearm charge. The police alleged that they observed client place an item in the rear compartment of a sport-utility vehicle. At trial, Mr. Kadish elicited testimony from the police that any movement made by client in the vehicle would have been incredibly difficult for police to observe.

Result: Client acquitted of all charges.

All Charges Withdrawn – Philadelphia Drug Case

Commonwealth v. S.S.

Client accused of possessing a large amount of crack, with the intent to deliver, along with drug paraphernalia and a firearm. During a motion to suppress drugs, drug paraphernalia and a gun found during a search, Mr. Kadish demonstrated that the police entered the bedroom without a search warrant or valid exception to the warrant requirement.

Result – Commonwealth withdrew all charges.

Not Guilty – Murder, Assault & Firearms Case

Commonwealth v. G.M.

Client charged with Attempted Murder, Aggravated Assault, and Firearms charges after a shooting inside a diner. During trial, Mr. Kadish’s cross-examination of police and witnesses called into question the identification of client as the shooter. Closer examination by Mr. Kadish of the recovered videotape showed client fleeing from the scene along with other patrons, without a firearm.

Result: Client acquitted on all charges.


    Top Rated Philadelphia Criminal Defense Lawyer, 2017-2023

    Philadelphia Criminal Defense Lawyer
    Law Office of Jason C. Kadish, PLLC BBB Business Review