Basic Criminal Law Requirements

Every criminal case requires a Mens Rea and an Actus Reus. Essentially the Commonwealth must prove an act consistent with a state of mind (intentionally, knowingly, recklessly, etc.). However, there are certain offenses that do not require a state of mind, per se statutes, like speeding. A defendant can be charged with his/her own acts, or the acts of another (accomplice liability/ conspiracy). Further, one can even be charged for not completing an act under an “Attempt” theory.

When you are being investigated or have been charged with a crime, you need to exercise your important constitutional rights: (1) REMAIN SILENT; and (2) HIRE AN ATTORNEY. Always be courteous to law enforcement, but don’t speak to them without an attorney present. Remain silent and request to call CDM LAW and get the CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY you need.

If you are being investigated or have been charged with a crime, then you need an attorney with experience and skills to help you get justice. Each criminal case requires a unique strategy, but sometimes that requires offering evidence and witnesses to confirm what we already know – that you are NOT GUILTY! CDM LAW has years of experience in the District Attorney’s Office as a former prosecutor and a lifetime of exposure to the Criminal Justice system, CDM LAW has the EXPERIENCE and SKILLS to DEFEND YOUR CASE.



Marijuana Expedited Pardon Review Program

Eligibility: The criminal convictions that are eligible for this program include the following:

• Possession of a small amount of marijuana for personal use;
• Possession of a small amount of marijuana with the intent to distribute;
• The distribution of a small amount of marijuana but not for sale;
• (Paraphernalia-related offenses) – Any marijuana-specific conviction relating to the possession with intent to use drug paraphernalia; the delivery of or possession with intent to deliver or manufacture with intent to deliver drug paraphernalia; or the unlawful advertisement/promotion of sale of drug paraphernalia;
• Criminal conspiracy (relating to an underlying marijuana-specific offense)
• Marijuana-related DUIs incurred by lawful medical marijuana cardholders in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (Applicants would be required to produce proof that they were lawful medical marijuana cardholders at the time of their offense);
• Any felony conviction for possession with the intent to deliver a controlled substance (marijuana only); and
• Any marijuana-specific conviction that the Secretary of BOP deems appropriate.
• Exceptions: The following individuals shall be deemed ineligible to apply for an expedited review:
• Anyone that has not yet been convicted of a marijuana-specific offense in a court of competent jurisdiction;
• Anyone that is currently enrolled in, or has completed the Accelerated Rehabilitative Disposition (ARD) Program;
• Anyone who possesses a criminal conviction classified as a violent offense;
• Anyone who possesses a conviction for driving under the influence of marijuana; and
• Anyone convicted of driving under the influence of marijuana who was not a lawful medical marijuana cardholder in Pennsylvania at the time of the incident.
• Any prospective applicant who at the time of submission is incarcerated for an offense that is unrelated to the conviction(s) for which they are seeking expedited relief.
• Any individual’s application that the Secretary deems to be unsuitable for expedited review.

ADD’L Prohibitions: Applicants shall only be permitted to submit one application for clemency at a time. However, an applicant reserves the right to withdraw a pending clemency application if they wish to apply for an expedited review instead. BOP is also in the process of analyzing applications that have already been submitted to our agency to determine if they meet our desired criteria. Learn more »

Don’t forget to clean your record with Expungement, Limited Access, and Pardons! Call us to see if you are eligible.

Important Pennsylvania Legal Decisions

Commonwealth v. Alexander, 243 A.3d 177, 181 (Pa. 2020)- The Supreme Court, Donohue, J., held that warrantless vehicle searches require both probable cause and exigent circumstances under the state constitution, overruling Commonwealth v. Gary, 625 Pa. 183, 91 A.3d 102.

Commonwealth v. Barr, 2020 PA Super 236, 240 A.3d 1263 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2020) Holding that the odor of marijuana is relevant to the overall determination of whether probable cause existed for a warrantless search; the odor of marijuana alone, without anything else, is not sufficient to justify a warrantless search under the Fourth Amendment.