WELCOME GUEST  |  LOG IN
clubhouse, east hampton, indoor, tennis, cornhole, bar, happy hour, bowling, mini golf
27east.com

Story - News

Jul 21, 2010 10:10 AMPublication: The Southampton Press

Kabot hearing concludes with no decision on arrest tape

Jul 21, 2010 10:10 AM

Det. Hamor testified that when he and Det. Cunneen arrived at Lt. Gonce’s house in October, his wife answered the door and Lt. Gonce later opened the garage door. Lt. Gonce told the detectives that he had just woken up, but Det. Hamor said he thought that Lt. Gonce was in a good state of mind. The detectives then explained the document to Lt. Gonce, who signed a form stating that he didn’t talk to anyone.

“He looked it over. He was holding it,” Det. Hamor told Mr. Keahon. “I assumed he read it.”

“Less than five minutes” after the detectives left, Lt. Gonce called them back to his home so he could correct his statement, Det. Hamor testified.

Lt. Gonce gave a similar account of what happened last week. On Thursday, July 8, Justice Smith cleared the courtroom after Lt. Gonce testified that he had signed the two affidavits. That was the first time that the district attorney’s office learned about the first sworn statement.

<<  1  |  2  

You've read 1 of 7 free articles this month.

Already a subscriber? Sign in

Whoa you guys, are you continuing a conversation from another article?

Sincerely yours,

Miriam Webster

Merriam Webster !!!
By PBR (4956), Southampton on Jul 19, 10 8:01 PM
"she refused to take Breathalyzer".

I thought that was equivalent to automatic conviction?
By davidf (325), hampton bays on Jul 19, 10 10:04 PM
I think the "automatic" part is the license suspension.
By Frank Wheeler (1826), Northampton on Jul 19, 10 11:27 PM
right, my point, refuse to take breathalyzer = admission of guilt. why the trial? she's already admitted that she was drunk because she refused the breathalyzer. this country has too many hair splitters. if you're sober, take the breathalyzer, if you're drunk, don't, and lose your license for a while and have it on your record.
By davidf (325), hampton bays on Jul 20, 10 9:54 AM
1 member liked this comment
you thought wrong
By banjack (45), port jeff on Jul 20, 10 10:12 AM
Maybe if I thought I were being "set up", I would refuse a breathalyzer too. Who's to say someone couldn't/wouldn't fiddle around with it? Even if it turns out there's no way at all anyone could ever falsify the results, as long as I thought maybe they could in the pressure of the moment, that would justify refusing. At least in my mind.
By baywoman (165), southampton on Jul 20, 10 5:59 PM
1 member liked this comment
If the tape showed that she was fine - her attorney wouldn't be challenging the admission of it in court, he would be welcoming its use to exhonerate her. The issue here in the end, is whether the person was driving drunk. The purpose of throwing out the physical evidence is that the trial then relies only on officer testimony, and if the officers involved have done something foolish in the past or done something that questions their honesty (not motivation) then their testimony can be discredited. ...more
By johnnytax (29), new york on Jul 20, 10 8:34 AM
1 member liked this comment
Well said johnnytax IMO, regarding the evidentiary issue about the admissibility of the video of the arrest.

The video could actually HELP Ms. Kabot's case, but Mr. Keahon may have made the tactical decision to ask for its exclusion, in order to raise at trial "reasonable doubt" about the actions of the arresting officer.

Nice call, and yes this will likely go to trial. Hard to imagine either side accepting a plea bargain now.
By PBR (4956), Southampton on Jul 20, 10 1:00 PM
WRONG-WAY KEAHON is still trying to convince the world that it wasn't his fault he was on the wrong side of RTE 347 that fateful night.
WRONG-WAY OR THE HIGHWAY!
By uncleronk (136), southold on Jul 20, 10 8:47 AM
Whoooa! No one died in the Kabot case. Why bring up old, unrelated news?
By Frank Wheeler (1826), Northampton on Jul 20, 10 9:51 AM
delay some more, let her go allready they got nothing, stop wasting our tax dollars.
By banjack (45), port jeff on Jul 20, 10 9:56 AM
Johnnytax makes a good point...why would Kabot's attorney fight the use of a tape that would exhonerate his client?

Clearly the tape is damaging to Kabot's defense. That's what happens when "good cops" do a "good job"; the defense challenges the evidence that is incriminating and everyone pretends it never happened just because their arguement was better than another or the judge had a particular slant in making his decision.

Right now Kabot just wants to be able to say "I told ...more
By Dodger (161), Southampton Village on Jul 20, 10 10:02 AM
1 member liked this comment
Were these Good Cops doing a good job?
Also, these retired police officers who had connections within their old dept that spyed on citizens, pulling phone records illegally. Were they good cops when they were on the job? What about the police officers helping them with illegally gaining access to phone records are they good cops too? Should we not rid ourselves of these types of cops you speak about?
By reg rep (408), Southampton on Jul 20, 10 5:40 PM
In any civil action the attorneys get to examine witnesses under oath before trial (EBT).

A criminal defendant in New York does NOT have the right to such EBTs. SO, a good lawyer seeks pretrial hearings so that he can get to examine witnesses and prepare the defense. Once witnesses testify and it becomes more difficult for the story to change once they have been committed to it under oath (Lt. Gonce notwithstanding).

It would be a mistake to assume that the goal of the hearing ...more
By StopCorruption (19), Southampton on Jul 20, 10 6:35 PM
This article has just been updated, and the print edition will likely contain some interesting details on Thursday.

Jury selection and trial set for late October or early November.

Unlikely IMO that a plea bargain will occur in this high profile case.
By PBR (4956), Southampton on Jul 20, 10 7:18 PM
A plea bargain kind of depends on whether the video is admitted at trial, doesn't it?

Linda Kabot is feisty, but is she feisty fool?
By Frank Wheeler (1826), Northampton on Jul 21, 10 10:30 AM
This is actually going to a jury trial?

Oh yeah, that happens consistently with DWI cases...
By Mr. Z (11847), North Sea on Jul 20, 10 11:20 PM
and if she drives drunk again and gets caught she'll go to jail. DA, let it go, settle it and move on.
By davidf (325), hampton bays on Jul 20, 10 11:24 PM
next time it could be someone's life she takes.
By CC Barbie (7), Westhampton Beach on Jul 21, 10 11:53 AM
high profile? she had her license suspended for refusing a breathalyzer. let it go and save some taxpayer money. she already lost the election, if she wants to run again let her. the mayor of washington d.c. was caught on tape smoking crack and still got re-elected.
By davidf (325), hampton bays on Jul 20, 10 11:23 PM
Law 101, page 1: You do not fight the admissibility of evidentiary material that would exonerate your client.
By peoplefirst (787), Southampton on Jul 21, 10 9:59 AM
page 2 -- unless one has another purpose in mind.
By PBR (4956), Southampton on Jul 21, 10 5:24 PM
this is why i dont drink
By SirHampton (60), quogue on Jul 21, 10 11:27 AM
Those of you that are stating she was drunk, this is what another local paper stated:
The prosecution, those who have viewed the tape say Kabot does not appear intoxicated at all -- she is talking normally, and looks fine.
If you did not view the video, you cannot and should not be saying she was drunk.
I believe she refused to take the breathalyzer for a reason.
By reg rep (408), Southampton on Jul 21, 10 10:51 PM
> "I believe she refused to take the breathalyzer for a reason."

O, and what might that be? (Assuming ishe was NOT intoxicated at all, was talking normally, and looked fine.)
By Frank Wheeler (1826), Northampton on Jul 22, 10 9:47 AM
That is my opinion, that she must have had a reason. If I were in her shoes knowing the police could not stand me, I would have refused also.
All of us that are blogging about this did not see the video but the prosecution did and they said she looked fine. That is good enough for me to think she was not drunk and that they were targeting her. Has it never happed that someone was set up?
By reg rep (408), Southampton on Jul 22, 10 7:33 PM
Those defending Kabot are laughably illogical.

WH Village police are completely independent from SH Town.

If you are innocent you take the test. The only reason not to take the test is because you are guilty. She didn't take it because she was afraid a clean result would be used against her?! You just can't make this stuff up.

All the BS about a conspiracy is just that. The simplest solution is the most likely one. Keahon is deliberately sowing confusion in a desperate ...more
By Noah Way (450), Southampton on Jul 22, 10 11:46 PM
1 member liked this comment
If the WHB Police are so completely independent, why was Aube of the SHT Police called by one of the arresting officers (who later "forgot" to mention it in his affidavit and then suddenly changed his story)?
I am telling you, I smell a rat. And Linda probably smelled one too. That would make me very wary of a breathalyzer test which maybe could be "fixed." I am not sure if the findings on a breathalyzer can be manipulated (have someone else breathe into it after the subject?). But all LK had ...more
By baywoman (165), southampton on Jul 24, 10 5:18 PM
Noah Way did you see the video? I would have to say no way you could have.
I understand that you are not a Linda supporter, but to say she is guilty is laughably illogical.
The WH Village and SH Town have the same rules regarding the 20 year retirement law. They shared a common goal to not ever have this law enforced. By getting rid of Kabot they knew the law would never be enforced.
BTW it never will, Throne-Holst will not touch it ever.
By reg rep (408), Southampton on Jul 25, 10 12:41 AM
Video proves nothing, unless of course it shows her driving erratically (the reason she was pulled over) or falling down drunk. Watery, bloodshot eyes; the odor of alcohol, etc. are not readily evident or even clearly discernible on dashboard video.

Kabot could have demanded a more accurate blood alcohol test to prove her innocence. She was informed of her chemical test rights - which clearly spells this out - at the time.

Thanks, Linda, for continuing to waste taxpayer dollars ...more
By Noah Way (450), Southampton on Jul 29, 10 6:12 PM