SCHOOL-ZONE VERDICT AWAITED

Jury To Continue Deliberations In Teen's Case Today

PITTSFIELD -- Kyle W. Sawin's future was in the hands of a jury at
day's end yesterday, in a Superior Court drug distribution and
school-zone case that has sparked emotional and political debate over
mandatory minimum jail terms for small-time drug sellers with no
prior convictions. Six men and six women retired to the jury
deliberation room at 12:30 p.m. yesterday, after hearing closing
arguments from the defense and prosecution, who sought to attack each
other's evidence and boost their own witnesses' credibility.

At 4 p.m., the jury ended its work for the day; it will return to
Superior Court this morning.

Defense attorney Judith Knight, during her statement to jurors,
sparked an objection from Prosecutor Richard Locke as she challenged
the testimony of two young men -- also defendants in last year's
Taconic parking lot drug sweep -- who testified for the prosecution
against Sawin with the hope of gaining favor with the prosecution in
their own cases.

Each testified that Sawin, who is 18, sold them drugs repeatedly
before undercover police turned up in Great Barrington; their
testimony was used by the prosecution to rebut Sawin's claim that he
was a victim of police entrapment. Justin Cronin, 19, and John
Rybacki, 18, are facing charges and consequences similar to Sawin's:
a minimum mandatory two-year jail term if convicted. Their cases are pending.

Knight told the jury that both men had high motivation to turn
against Sawin: to get a deal that would make their school-zone
charges disappear. "The commonwealth would like you to believe that
Rybacki and Cronin are speaking the truth," Knight said. "They have a
big reason to lie: They face the exact same charges, a minimum,
mandatory two years. ... They don't want to be in (Sawin's) shoes.
Kyle Sawin's life hangs in the balance." Locke was on his feet to
object, saying Knight was attempting to influence "jury
nullification," which refers to a jury decision that finds a
defendant innocent because the jury was persuaded that the law itself
is unjust and should not be applied.

In this case, the law is the school-zone charge, which has been
lodged against 17 young people arrested during last summer's
undercover operation in downtown Great Barrington. Sawin is among
seven of those arrested with no prior records whom police have
testified sold small amounts of marijuana to an undercover police officer.

Knight told jury member that Sawin has placed his faith in them and
urged them to "not let the prosecution get away with this." She began
her statement saying that the case is an example of "law enforcement
gone too far, run amok and overreaching. ... When this happens, none
of us is safe." She raised conflicting testimony among defense
witnesses, including Sawin, his former girlfriend and another friend
who testified that undercover Officer Felix Aguirre persistently
asked Sawin to sell him drugs, even though Sawin declined on a number
of occasions. Aguirre denied making persistent approaches.

Sale sites disputed Knight raised doubts about how the police and a
land surveyor marked and measured more than 17 spots where drug sales
allegedly took place: The spots were marked with nails and paint on
Oct. 27 and were not measured for another three weeks, a period when
the sale locations were not monitored or secured, Knight said. She
also cited the inaccuracy of a measurement of one alleged sale spot,
at 87 Railroad St., based on an incorrect map used by the
prosecution. Sawin's testimony that he indeed sold drugs to Aguirre
on July 6 and Sept. 3 last year was truthful, she said, as was his
statement that Aguirre was coming to him "over and over again, day
in and day out," seeking to make deals. "He says the June 30 incident
simply didn't happen," Knight said. "If they have something on Sawin
(for June 30), they have no evidence," despite the fact that the sale
allegedly took place in an SUV parked in the Triplex parking
lot, with two other people inside.

Entrapment defense Knight contends that Sawin was the victim of
police entrapment, an otherwise innocent person who would not have
committed a crime were it not for the enticement and persuasion of police.

Cronin and Rybacki -- suspects hoping to gain from testifying -- were
the only prosecution witnesses to undermine Sawin's entrapment
defense, saying they had bought drugs from him on other occasions.
But their testimony is suspect, Knight said.

Paraphrasing Aguirre's description, she described the scene in the
Taconic parking lot as mellow and calm. The young people there, she
said -- they were not selling drugs or using drugs in the core
parking area itself -- were, to police, like "lambs for the slaughter."

Locke, however, said the "lambs" Knight referred to were drug
dealers. "Kyle Sawin, he looks like he could be your little brother,
sitting up there testifying," said Locke, who went on to discredit
Sawin's testimony and that of the others who spoke for him.

"What we know is he's a drug dealer," Locke said. Cronin and Rybacki,
he said, are drug dealers as well, he said, mocking Knight's
suggestion that they were "rats on a sinking ship" hoping to save themselves.

Praise for police Locke said the police who testified are dedicated,
hard-working police, experienced in undercover drug work and
surveillance. Aguirre had a reputation as one of the best, most
effective undercover cops, Locke said. "They didn't target Kyle
Sawin, they were looking for drug dealers," he said.

He said Knight's entrapment defense doesn't work because Sawin had a
predisposition to selling drugs.

Regarding the June 30 incident, disputed by Sawin, Locke asked why
several police officers would stake their careers on a collective
misrepresentation of events. "The defendant says it didn't happen,
then that would mean you can't believe anything the cops say. It's
all a big conspiracy," he said. In closing, he said, "He's not
entitled to a defense of entrapment, because he was a drug dealer," he said.

After lunch, the jury returned to the court with a request that Judge
John Agostini clarify the drug distribution law's element of
"knowingly and intentionally" selling drugs.

Another defense lawyer watching the judge reread the law said the
question might suggest that the jury was considering the entrapment defense.