Pubdate: Mon, 10 Oct 2005
Source: Newsday (NY)
Copyright: 2005 Newsday Inc.
Contact:  http://www.newsday.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/308
Pubdate: Mon, 10 Oct 2005
Author: Mark Johnson

COURT TO HEAR SCHOOL-ZONE DRUG CASE IN OCTOBER SESSION

ALBANY, N.Y. --  The shortest distance between two points landed James
Robbins in jail.

In addition to other drug crimes, Robbins was charged with a New York
law that makes it a crime to sell illegal drugs within 1,000 feet of
school property. However, the law does not say how the distance should
be measured.

That is just one of several issues the state's highest court, the
Court of Appeals, will consider in its October session.

Robbins, 40, was arrested in March 2002 after selling crack cocaine to
an undercover officer in Manhattan, about three blocks from the Holy
Cross grade school on West 43rd Street. He's now serving a six-to
12-year prison sentence.

Robbins' lawyer, Martin Lucente, argues that lower courts erred when
they ruled the distance from the school should be determined by "a
straight line or `as the crow flies' method," according to court
documents.

He contends that because buildings were in the way of that line, the
distance in his client's case should have been determined by how far
one would have to walk from the school to get to the location Robbins
was selling drugs. Detectives measured two walking routes and found
the distances to be 1,294 feet and 1,091 feet.

Lucente said authorities "actually proved, through more than one
attempt to walk the distance, that the school children in question had
the 1000-foot protection _ and more."

By using the Pythagorean theorem, the judge hearing the case
determined the straight-line distance from the school was 907.63 feet.
The appellate court that upheld the conviction said "a direct line
measurement furthers the purpose of the statute which is to provide a
corridor of safety for children coming to and from school."

The Court of Appeals is expected to hand down written rulings on the
cases it hears in October in the next few months. Among the other
cases on the judges' calendar:

_The court will also consider whether New York authorities can charge
suspects located in another state if the only connection they have to
crimes in New York is through telephone communications.

Alvaro Carvajal, 52, is serving 35 years to life in prison for his
role in a Colombian drug trafficking operation that delivered cocaine
from San Francisco to New York in 1993 and 1994.

Carvajal was convicted in Manhattan of conspiracy and criminal
possession of a controlled substance.

He argues, however, that New York had no right to try him, since he
was in California when he was arrested and 74 kilograms of cocaine
were seized from two vehicles and a stash house he helped keep in the
San Francisco area. Authorities who used wiretaps to gain evidence
said he was partners with three men in New York City and one in Chicago.

An appellate court ruled that while it was "aware of no other case" of
a conviction for drug possession "when neither the drugs at issue nor
the defendant was in New York at the time of the offense," it upheld
Carvajal's sentence because an element of the crime occurred in New
York.

The court also said that under state law a statement made over the
telephone by someone in one jurisdiction to a person in a different
jurisdiction is deemed to have been made in both places.

Lawyers for Carvajal, currently in Attica state prison, contend the
law states that only the communication is deemed to have been made in
both jurisdictions, not the actual crime.

_The court will also decide if a pledge to donate money to an
institution can be enforced after someone dies if the recipient has
not taken any action to act on its part of the deal.

In September 2000, 90-year-old Raymond Wirth, an alumni of Drexel
University in Philadelphia, signed an agreement with the school to
donate $150,000 to establish a scholarship fund in his name at
Drexel's College of Business.

Wirth died less than two months later before any of the money was
given to Drexel.

Four days after Wirth's death, his son, the executor of Wirth's
estate, said the scholarship was not mentioned in the will and told
the school the pledged funds wouldn't be paid.

Drexel sued to get the money.

Nassau County Surrogate's Court dismissed the suit because Drexel had
taken no action to establish the scholarship fund. Such an action
would be required under Pennsylvania law to make the agreement
enforceable, the court said.

The Appellate Division voted 3-2 to overturn that decision, with the
majority saying that Wirth had intended his pledge to be legally bound
and Drexel's failure to take any action at that point should not stop
the money from going to the school.

The Court of Appeals session begins on Monday. 
- ---
MAP posted-by: Matt Elrod