On April 8, 2026, U.S. District Judge Sherilyn Peace Garnett sentenced Jasveen Sangha (the Los Angeles drug dealer federal prosecutors called the “Ketamine Queen”) to 15 years in federal prison for distributing the ketamine that killed actor Matthew Perry in October 2023. The sentence was the harshest imposed on any of the five defendants in the case, and it was the federal statutory maximum for distribution of a Schedule III controlled substance resulting in death.
The sentencing makes for compelling headlines. It also makes for a precise lesson in how distribution-resulting-in-death charges work at the federal level, why cooperation timing matters more than most defendants realize, and (most relevantly for clients facing drug charges in Texas) how the state’s own delivery-resulting-in-death framework compares to the federal model and in some respects exceeds it.
"Deandra Grant Law – Criminal & DWI Defense handled my case with diligence and professionalism. Deandra Grant's reputation is stellar and now I know why. She has a team of individuals who provide quality service."
- N. Coulter
"Deandra Grant Law – Criminal & DWI Defense fights hard for their clients and is always willing to go above and beyond. They are the best firm for DWI cases in DFW and beyond. Definitely hire them to represent you in any pending cases."
- P. Williams
"Deandra Grant made a tough situation so much better. She listened to my concerns and helped me so much with my case. I would recommend her to anyone needing legal services."
- M. Haley
The Federal Charge: What “Distribution Resulting in Death” Actually Requires
Sangha pleaded guilty to, among other charges, distribution of ketamine resulting in death or serious bodily injury under 21 U.S.C. §841. This provision has two very different versions depending on what drug is involved.
For Schedule I and Schedule II controlled substances (ex, heroin, fentanyl, methamphetamine, cocaine) distribution resulting in death triggers a mandatory minimum of 20 years and a maximum of life under §841(b)(1)(C). There is no safety valve. There is no exception for first-time offenders. Twenty years is the floor, and the judge has no authority to go below it.
Ketamine is a Schedule III controlled substance. Under §841(b)(1)(E), distribution of a Schedule III substance resulting in death carries a maximum of 15 years which is not a mandatory minimum, but a statutory ceiling. Sangha received exactly the maximum available under that provision. Judge Garnett sentenced her to 15 years not as a departure downward from a higher guidelines range, but as the outer limit of what the statute permitted for the specific drug involved.
This schedule distinction is consequential. A defendant in an identical fact pattern (same role, same cooperating status, same criminal history, same conduct in continuing to deal after knowing a prior customer died) who dealt fentanyl instead of ketamine would face a mandatory minimum of 20 years. No guidelines calculation, no judicial discretion, no cooperation credit that gets them below the floor. The drug’s federal schedule determines the sentencing architecture the case is built on.
The elements of distribution resulting in death are straightforward but the causation requirement has been contested in courts across the country. The government must prove: (1) the defendant knowingly or intentionally distributed a controlled substance; and (2) death resulted from the use of that substance. Federal circuits have generally held that the statute does not require the government to prove that the defendant’s distribution was the sole cause of death, They only need to show that it was a contributing cause. A victim’s voluntary drug use does not automatically break the causal chain as an intervening act. In the Perry case, the fact that his personal assistant Kenneth Iwamasa physically injected the ketamine did not eliminate Sangha’s distribution liability.
The Cooperation Differential: What the Sentencing Comparison Actually Shows
Mark Geragos, Sangha’s defense attorney, argued in court that the sentence disparity between Sangha and her co-defendants was outrageous. His line has been widely quoted: “The person who supplies the ammunition, they’re more culpable than the person who pulls the trigger?”
Judge Garnett answered that question directly: yes, in this case. Her reasoning identified three factors that separated Sangha from her co-defendants.
Scale of the drug operation. Sangha ran what prosecutors described as a high-volume trafficking business out of her North Hollywood apartment from at least 2019. She stored, packaged, and distributed ketamine, methamphetamine, and other substances to a long client list. Her co-defendants were participants in the Perry transaction specifically, not operators of an independent supply chain.
Continued dealing with knowledge of prior death. Sangha sold ketamine to Cody McLaury in August 2019. McLaury died hours later. His sister texted Sangha to tell her. Sangha kept dealing. This is the factor that most clearly distinguishes her from defendants who made one transaction that ended tragically (she was informed of the lethal consequence of her product and chose to continue). Prosecutors wrote that “she didn’t care and kept selling.” That factual record made a time-served argument (approximately 20 months) untenable.
Cooperation timing and scope. The co-defendants who received dramatically shorter sentences cooperated earlier and more fully.
Here is the full co-defendant comparison as it stood at sentencing:
Dr. Salvador Plasencia — Perry’s treating physician who illegally sold Perry ketamine. Pleaded guilty July 2025 to four counts of ketamine distribution. Sentenced December 2025: 30 months.
A second physician — who supplied Plasencia with the ketamine he sold to Perry. Pleaded guilty. Sentenced: 8 months home detention.
Erik Fleming — the middleman who worked with Sangha to supply Perry. Pleaded guilty to conspiracy and distribution resulting in death. Awaiting sentencing.
Kenneth Iwamasa — Perry’s personal assistant who obtained and physically injected the ketamine. Pleaded guilty. Awaiting sentencing.
Jasveen Sangha — 15 years.
The comparison illustrates something that every defendant facing a serious federal drug charge needs to understand: cooperation is not equally valuable at every moment in a federal investigation. The physicians who cooperated before indictment, or very early after it, were in an entirely different sentencing position than Sangha, who contested her case, entered a guilty plea in September 2025, and arrived at sentencing with a cooperation record that prosecutors characterized as incomplete and minimizing.
The 30-month sentence for Plasencia (who physically provided Perry with illegal ketamine and is a licensed physician who violated his professional obligations) versus the 15-year sentence for Sangha is not an accident or an anomaly. It is the cooperation differential operating exactly as federal sentencing is designed to produce it.
The Causation Defense: Geragos’s Real Argument
The “who pulls the trigger” line is memorable, but it points toward a serious legal argument that has been raised in distribution-resulting-in-death cases across the country: the role of the victim’s own conduct as an intervening cause.
Matthew Perry was an adult with a documented history of addiction who was actively seeking ketamine beyond what his treating physician would provide, who used his personal assistant to procure and inject the drug, and who had been using ketamine legally through a prescription before he sought additional supply on the black market. Sangha sold vials to a middleman. She did not inject Perry. She was not present at his death.
Federal courts have rejected intervening cause arguments in distribution-resulting-in-death cases with significant consistency. The leading circuit decisions have held that a victim’s voluntary drug use is a foreseeable consequence of distribution, not a superseding cause that breaks the chain of liability. The statute does not require the government to prove the defendant was the proximate cause in a tort sense: only that death resulted from the distributed substance.
This does not mean the causation argument is never available. In cases involving complex causal chains (where the deceased had pre-existing conditions that independently contributed to death, where multiple substances from different sources were involved, or where the chain of distribution was so attenuated that the defendant had no reason to foresee the specific use that caused death) causation remains a viable defense theory. It requires forensic and medical evidence, not just legal argument. The toxicology, the autopsy findings, and the medical examiner’s causation conclusions all become defense targets in these cases.
Texas Law: In Some Respects Harsher Than Federal
Texas has its own delivery-resulting-in-death framework, and it is aggressive.
Texas Health and Safety Code §481.141 — the delivery causing death enhancement provides that if a person delivers a controlled substance and another person dies as a result of using it, the offense is enhanced one penalty degree above the underlying delivery charge. A state jail felony becomes a third-degree felony. A second-degree felony becomes a first-degree felony. This enhancement applies to virtually all controlled substances, including ketamine (Penalty Group 3) and fentanyl (Penalty Group 1-B).
Texas Penal Code §19.02(b)(4) — the fentanyl murder statute enacted by HB 6, effective September 1, 2023 — goes further for fentanyl specifically. A person commits murder under this provision if they knowingly manufacture or deliver a controlled substance listed in Penalty Group 1-B (which covers fentanyl and fentanyl analogs), and an individual dies as a result of using that substance. It is a first-degree felony: 5 to 99 years or life in prison, fine up to $10,000.
The critical distinction from the federal framework: Texas’s fentanyl murder statute requires no intent to kill. The “knowingly” element attaches to the manufacture or delivery of the fentanyl and not to the death. A dealer who sells fentanyl and whose customer dies is exposed to a murder prosecution regardless of whether the dealer knew the quantity was lethal, regardless of whether the buyer was a user who understood the risk, and regardless of whether other substances contributed to the death.
For defendants whose conduct involves fentanyl specifically, the Texas framework produces a result that is in some respects more severe than the federal mandatory minimum. A first-degree felony in Texas carries up to life in prison. The federal mandatory minimum for Schedule I/II distribution resulting in death is 20 years with the possibility of reduction through cooperation and substantial assistance. A Texas first-degree murder conviction for fentanyl delivery carries no federal safety valve analog.
The §481.141 enhancement and the §19.02(b)(4) fentanyl murder charge are not available simultaneously. Texas prosecutors must choose between them. But in any case involving a death following delivery of a controlled substance (fentanyl, ketamine, methamphetamine, heroin, or any other scheduled substance) one or both of these theories is available.
The People Who Call 911
Texas’s fentanyl murder framework has produced an enforcement problem that the legislature is still working through: because §19.02(b)(4) carries no intent requirement, it applies with equal theoretical force to a large-scale dealer distributing counterfeit pills across North Texas and to a friend who shared drugs with someone at a party, or to a romantic partner, or to anyone who provided fentanyl to the person who died.
Law enforcement has in some cases pursued murder charges against the person who called 911 after the overdose (the only witness, the only person present, the person whose quick action might have saved the victim’s life). Texas has a medical amnesty provision for drug overdoses, but it covers only possession charges, not delivery charges and not murder charges under the fentanyl murder statute. The person who calls 911 is not protected from prosecution if they provided the drug.
This tension between the legislative goal (holding large-scale fentanyl traffickers accountable for the deaths their product causes) and the practical application to lower-level participants is where the most consequential defense work in these cases happens.
Case Results
What the Perry Case Teaches Texas Defendants
The drug’s schedule determines the federal sentencing structure. If the substance involved is a Schedule I or II drug (such as fentanyl, heroin, methamphetamine, cocaine) and a death results, the mandatory minimum is 20 years. No amount of cooperation, no guidelines calculation, no mitigating circumstances can produce a sentence below that floor without a government motion. Understanding which statute applies before any plea discussion begins is not optional.
Cooperation timing is not infinitely valuable — it decays. The sentencing differential between Sangha’s 15 years and her physician co-defendant’s 30 months is not entirely explained by their relative culpability. It is substantially explained by when they cooperated, how completely they cooperated, and what value their cooperation provided to the government at the time they provided it. A defendant who has information of value to prosecutors and provides it six months into the investigation is in a fundamentally different position than one who provides it after pleading guilty two years later.
Causation is a defense, not a concession. The government must prove that the distributed substance caused the death. In cases involving multiple substances, pre-existing conditions, or complex causal chains, the causation element is a genuine defense target. It requires medical and forensic evidence, not just legal argument. The toxicology findings, the autopsy, the medical examiner’s methodology, and the contribution of other factors to death are all subject to challenge by attorneys who understand the science.
Texas and federal charges can both apply. A delivery resulting in death that occurs in Texas may be charged under Texas Penal Code §19.02(b)(4), Texas Health and Safety Code §481.141, federal 21 U.S.C. §841, or some combination. The choice of charging jurisdiction is a prosecutorial decision, not a fixed outcome. Understanding both frameworks simultaneously is essential from the first day of representation.
If forensic science evidence is central to your case, contact Deandra Grant Law for a free, confidential consultation. Managing Partner Deandra Grant and Partner Douglas Huff both hold the ACS-CHAL Forensic Lawyer-Scientist designation. Deandra Grant also holds a Master’s Degree in Pharmaceutical Science and a Graduate Certificate in Forensic Toxicology. Call (214) 225-7117 or visit texasdwisite.com.
Firm Accolades
Better Business Bureaus
D Magazine
