clubhouse, east hampton, indoor, tennis, cornhole, bar, happy hour, bowling, mini golf

Story - News

Nov 17, 2010 9:26 AMPublication: The Southampton Press

Kabot Says District Attorney Should Be Ashamed

Nov 17, 2010 9:26 AM

Former Southampton Town Supervisor Linda Kabot said she is disappointed that her DWI trial was pushed back to early next year, and criticized prosecutors for moving to introduce two new witnesses during a recent court conference.

In an interview a short time after last month’s court appearance, Ms. Kabot said prosecutors asked a judge to allow two new witnesses to testify at trial—a move that pushed back her trial date from October to late January. Ms. Kabot said that if the witnesses, who she said are employees at Magic’s Pub in Westhampton Beach, are allowed to testify, they will say she was drinking alcohol at the Main Street bar some six to seven hours before she was arrested in the early morning hours of September 7, 2009—an account she called “patently false.”

“I am disappointed that my trial date has been delayed yet again, and in open court on October 26 my attorney stated that the assistant district attorneys should be ashamed of themselves,” Ms. Kabot said. “It’s an outrage that the district attorney’s office should use such false testimony and malicious rumors as testimony against me.”

Ms. Kabot said she did not know the names of the two employees who could take the stand, and Robert Clifford, a spokesman for Suffolk County District Attorney Thomas Spota, declined to identify them.

The account by the witnesses would contradict what Ms. Kabot told Westhampton Beach Village Police officers on the morning of her arrest on Labor Day 2009: that she had consumed only two glasses of wine at her sister’s house in East Moriches the prior evening, according to Mr. Clifford.

“Assistant District Attorneys Anthony Baron and Joshua Shapiro stated in court ... that the witnesses’ testimony will establish an ongoing course of conduct by the defendant,” Mr. Clifford wrote in an e-mail. “These witnesses will testify that Linda Kabot was at a bar between approximately 4 and 6 p.m. [on September 6, 2009], and that she ordered two beers and another round. When she was stopped by the police, the defendant claimed she had consumed only two glasses of wine.”

In an interview just weeks after her arrest, Ms. Kabot’s defense attorney, William Keahon, said his client drank two normal-sized glasses of wine over several hours before her arrest on September 7, 2009. At the time, Mr. Keahon said his client had one glass of wine around 7 p.m. and a second glass between 9 and 9:15 p.m. while attending a 40th birthday party at her sister’s house. She was pulled over at 12:25 a.m. on September 7 on Main Street in Westhampton Beach, just down the block from Magic’s Pub.

Riverhead Town Justice Allen Smith had scheduled Ms. Kabot’s trial to begin on October 25, but pushed it back to January 31 while he decides on whether or not to admit the two new witnesses. The decision will come some time in December, according to Ms. Kabot and Mr. Keahon.

In another interview, Mr. Keahon said the accounts offered by the witnesses are irrelevant. He said there would have been too much time between Ms. Kabot’s alleged drinking in the late afternoon and early evening on September 6, 2009, and her arrest at 12:25 a.m. the next morning for the alcohol to have had any effect.

“If they’re claiming she had three beers from 3 to 6, by 7 o’clock all those beers are out of her system,” Mr. Keahon said. “All the alcohol in her bloodstream is out of her system.” In any case, Mr. Keahon said he believes the accounts offered by the witnesses are false.

Ms. Kabot, who lost her reelection bid to Town Supervisor Anna Throne-Holst in November 2009, said she is not considering a return to politics, and 
instead has been “focused on her family, and my own personal well-being and health.” She said she has lost 40 pounds since leaving office, through diet and exercise.

The former supervisor, who lives in Quogue with her husband, Lance, and their three children, said she has taken her LSATs and is considering enrolling in law school. She also said she is considering going back to work on a part-time basis, perhaps at a law office, to help support her family, but is worried that the charges leveled against her may make it difficult to land a job.

“It’s unsettling sometimes to an employer that you’re a controversial former public figure, and there could be news about the situation,” she said.

And Ms. Kabot remains adamant that she is not, and never was, a “closet drunk,” as she said some may suspect based on the charges against her.

“They’re going to be embarrassed at the end of the day,” she said of prosecutors. “Because it’s not true. I do not go to bars.”

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

Already a subscriber? Sign in

Linda should be ashamed, not the District Attorney. Ashamed because she cannot admit that she made a mistake. Her true character sure shines through here.
By RealLocal (76), Bridgehampton on Nov 17, 10 4:09 PM
1 member liked this comment
Of course. and she must deny it....
Linda, the more you make up these silly excuses, the further you are from your constituents.
By 11968shlocal (22), southampton on Nov 19, 10 12:33 AM
wait a sec. Didn't SHE ask for the continuance? What a farce
By littleplains (305), olde england on Nov 17, 10 5:23 PM
Looks a little desperate IMO Linda. You are asking the judge to pre-determine the credibility of the new witnesses? Isn't this what a "trial" is for?

This might be a good time to plea bargain, if the DA is willing.

You may have backed yourself in to a corner, again in my personal opinion.

Of course, all coins have two sides. If the new witnesses are NOT credible for some reason, this may be a good move.

Time will tell.
By PBR (4956), Southampton on Nov 17, 10 6:03 PM
PS -- Previous statements on this case have been made by Mr. Keahon the defense attorney. According to the article, Ms. Kabot's present statement is based on a court proceeding on October 26th, over three weeks ago!

Why didn't her attorney issue a statement? Is Mr. Keahon still Ms. Kabot's attorney on this matter?

Hmmmm. What can we read in here between the "dots?"

. . . . . . .

By PBR (4956), Southampton on Nov 17, 10 6:22 PM
Split the Town in two, right at the canal. Then I wouldn't have think about this crap.
By ride the truth wave (125), southampton on Nov 18, 10 5:11 AM
1 member liked this comment
There could be a conspiracy theory brewing -- with some merit. Hold on for all the facts.
By Mr Suffolk (113), Twin Forks on Nov 18, 10 9:07 AM
The "conspiracy theory" started brewing 15 months ago -- not just here but on your own gossip board: http://631politics.yuku.com/search/topic/topic/14313.

By Frank Wheeler (1826), Northampton on Nov 18, 10 12:49 PM
According to the headline, it claims "Kabot Says District Attorney Should Be Ashamed", but in the story, she is quoted as attributing this statement to her attorney.

Perhaps a small difference, but it's misleading nonetheless.
By Paramarine (28), Raleigh, NC on Nov 18, 10 11:05 AM
1 member liked this comment
It's not a "small difference" at all -- whoever's writing 27East's headlines probably was recruited from a small market TV station's 11 pm news.

It's misleading, and is designed to get the reader interested in the story. In another context, it would be false advertising.
By Frank Wheeler (1826), Northampton on Nov 18, 10 12:52 PM
I thought the same thing. And it's not a small difference - if the defendant is saying the DA should be ashamed of themselves she's really hurting her case. If her attorney is doing it, well, he is just being an attorney. Furthermore, the quote is that her lawyer was reffering to the Assistant District Attorney, not the District Attorney. Thanks for misleading me 27east!
By Nature (2966), Hampton Bays on Nov 18, 10 3:49 PM
I believe that Keaton was referring to the increased cost to Ms. Kabot of another day of court hearings. Attorneys customarily charge a daily court appearance fee on top of their hourly charges, so this latest delay will likely cost Ms. Kabot more than $1K. God knows what the entire case will set her back but her bill has got to be more than $100K.

In the end, I think that the judge and jury will realize that Ms. Kabot's arrest was motivated by the cops' ire at her attempt, while Supervisor, ...more
By highhatsize (4217), East Quogue on Nov 18, 10 12:50 PM
3 members liked this comment
Blah blah blah....kabot frame job.......blah blah blahhh....gestapo police......blah blah blah......(insert big word to make me sound more intelligent).....blah blah blah
By Bayman3142 (249), Southampton on Nov 18, 10 7:03 PM
BS to the bogus bust
If Kabot was DUI....she was DUI!
Who gets excuses?
Who listens to excuses?
Would anyone else be given the leeway that she has?
If she is guilty, she is guilty! and the facts seem to support this.
By 11968shlocal (22), southampton on Nov 18, 10 10:48 PM
perfect summation!
By littleplains (305), olde england on Nov 19, 10 10:45 AM
Charlie Rangel would walk
By loading... (601), quiogue on Nov 19, 10 11:26 AM
Highhatsize should replace his avatar with that of someone wearing a tinfoil beanie.

A simple look at which side has repeatedly requested the delays puts the lie to most of the foregoing conjecture. Keahon (not "Keaton") likes to drag things out, the same strategy he is employing with the hearinsg for the two suspended WHB cops.
Nov 18, 10 1:00 PM appended by Frank Wheeler
That's "hearings."
By Frank Wheeler (1826), Northampton on Nov 18, 10 1:00 PM
to Frank Wheeler;

Correction noted. Apologies.

What you failed to note was that Keahon raised his objection following a CONFERENCE IN COURT, an expensive item. Keahon's own earlier requests for delays were made largely by telephone/fax because they were standard administrative requests.

The instant request, made in court, for a postponement so that the prosecution can introduce witnesses to Ms. Kabot's behavior over six hours before the incident, IS unusual. You may ...more
By highhatsize (4217), East Quogue on Nov 18, 10 2:50 PM
let' go to the video..... chug chug glug glug.... she was pie-eyed and looking for a fight.
By uncleronk (136), southold on Nov 18, 10 2:59 PM
I believe that Westhampton Police department has issues and that Linda was set up. If you have been following the headlines about all the cop problems in Westhampton, you will see a very bad pattern of mismanagement by the chief and officers. Personally, I am not a fan of Linda, but it smells really bad and the amount of time that has passed on this case is terrible - speedy trial.
By BIGjimbo12 (201), East Quogue on Nov 18, 10 4:02 PM
1 member liked this comment
I know someone else who was drinking in Magics and has gotten a DUI...
I think we should look at that connection...
By 11968shlocal (22), southampton on Nov 18, 10 10:50 PM
11968 that was you who was drinking in Magics and got a DUI.
By reg rep (408), Southampton on Nov 18, 10 11:13 PM
Yup..me and Kabot...
By 11968shlocal (22), southampton on Nov 18, 10 11:24 PM
Again Linda says she nevr does anything wrong
She is the joke of Southampton
By oldguy (60), hamptons on Nov 19, 10 11:47 AM
I feel like I went to sleep for a year and didn't miss a beat.
By Ebby (75), Sag Harbor on Nov 22, 10 7:21 PM
they should be ashamed. dont let them get away with this linda. they will delay your day in court forever.
By banjack (45), port jeff on Nov 23, 10 8:50 AM
1 member liked this comment
except... Linda is the one who requested the continuance!
By littleplains (305), olde england on Nov 27, 10 6:48 PM
One can only hope that Ms. Kabot does not accept a plea bargain when she realizes the final cost of defending herself that the states attorney is prepared to exact. On the other hand, personal bankruptcy is no joke.
By highhatsize (4217), East Quogue on Nov 23, 10 2:20 PM
blow into the breathalyzer. if its positive, you're driving under the influence, if not, then not. if you don't trust the one the cops in the car use, then ask to take one back at the police station. if you refuse both, you lose your license. simple really.
By davidf (325), hampton bays on Nov 24, 10 12:27 PM
to davidf:

Would that it were that simple. In fact, a positive breathalyzer result is only one piece of evidence of drunk driving. (The field breathalyzer test doesn't count, by the way. You have to fail several at the station house.) If he wishes, a cop can bust you for drunk driving even if you pass the breathalyzer, as has happened often. In addition, manipulation of a breathalyzer result is a piece of cake.
By highhatsize (4217), East Quogue on Nov 24, 10 12:46 PM
Lost minutes of tape, New witnesses that remember that exact type and amout of alchohol she is accued of consuming. Love linda or hate her , sounds like she is being framed and set-up. She has a very good lawyer and he will leave all the facts on the table. I smell lawsuit.
By 1percent (52), Quogue on Nov 25, 10 5:16 PM
Bartenders remember that stuff - it's their job. They also remember what you tip!
By VOS (1241), WHB on Nov 27, 10 12:30 PM
Many posters have made disparaging comments about Ms. Kabot's personality. I don't know her but, personality aside, I feel both sorry for her and outraged at the apparatchicks who have brought her low.

She is the only Town Councilmember EVER to stand up to the STPD PBA and is being punished for that stand by a spurious charge that she cannot answer personally because all her enemies would jump on her for "whining". It's a great frame-up, using a tactic in which East End cops are well-versed ...more
By highhatsize (4217), East Quogue on Nov 26, 10 1:18 PM
"Highhatsize" appears to equal low IQ. I am interested in how you say the "breathalyzer" results can be easily manipulated. I believe you said it was a "piece of cake" That is so far from the turth, that your comments only embarass yourself and anyone else who listens to them. Please do not attempt to speak intelligently about something you obviously now nothing about.
By Clarity (65), Whb on Nov 27, 10 6:53 PM
To Clarity:

Actually, the turth is that breathalyzer results are correct only if the machine is recalibrated regularly but, even so, the machines only register the alcohol content of the "breath", they don't indicate from whence it came.
By highhatsize (4217), East Quogue on Nov 27, 10 9:56 PM
Just for the record, "breathalyzer" instruments have not been in use since the mid to early 1990's. The correct instrument is an intoxilizer 5000. Also your comment that a roadside breath test does not count is incorrect. Pre-screen breath tests as they are called are now admissible in court. A positive alcohol result on a "PBT", or a REFUSAL TO SUBMIT TO A "PBT" gives an officer probable cause to make an arrest for suspicion of dui or dwi. Search NYS Vehicle and Traffic law section 1194-1b.
By Clarity (65), Whb on Nov 28, 10 11:09 AM
to Clarity:

You are wrong. Thank goodness because if you were right, tainted evidence would be statutorily admissible at trial. A field breathalyzer test measures the alcoholic vapors in a person's mouth in addition to alcohol in his bloodstream. If a suspect has drunk ANY alcohol shortly before the field breathalyzer is administered, it will show him to be beyond the legal limit for blood alcohol even it he spit the alcohol out after swishing it in his mouth.

Just imagine ...more
By highhatsize (4217), East Quogue on Nov 28, 10 1:40 PM
HH: You are so off base on this. You are obviously a pompus know it all who has over 500 comments on this site who tries to act as if they are the authority on every subject that is discussed. I will tell you this, That since january of 2010, field breath tests have been admissible in Suffolk county courts, that means from supreme court to all towns and village courts. The district attorney must prove that the police officer who administered the test followed proper procedures in administering the ...more
By Clarity (65), Whb on Nov 28, 10 5:54 PM
All to be determined at trial.


Peace on Earth.
By PBR (4956), Southampton on Nov 28, 10 6:15 PM
to Clarity:

There is being a pompous know-it-all and then there is being right. You cited a statute and, upon examination, it didn't say what you thought it did. You then follow up with a slew of anecdotal statements without citation.

However, I was wrong to state that field breathalyzer evidence is STATUTORILY inadmissible. Rather, I should have said that field breathalyzer tests ARE NEVER entered as evidence by the state without the evidence of the results of subsequent tests ...more
By highhatsize (4217), East Quogue on Nov 28, 10 9:46 PM
Once again you are wrong. The whole reason for push to have the field breath test admisible was because so many people were refusing the chemical test at the police station. This allows the judge or jury to hear the bac of he subject at the time of arrest. This has led to many convictions in the surrounding town and villag courts. Also you say the second to fourth tests, what exactly do you mean?, or did you make that up as well??
By Clarity (65), Whb on Nov 29, 10 3:25 PM
to Clarity:

According to my information, every driver who takes the field breathalyzer test is retested at the station house, usually more than once. That IS, after all, what the statute YOU cited referred to.

DWI cases can be brought under the DWI "per se" law (based only on alcohol level, not impairment) or under traditional common law (where the prosecution must prove impairment). You imply that the courts are now according unreliable field breathalyzer tests the same authority ...more
By highhatsize (4217), East Quogue on Nov 29, 10 5:55 PM
A person who submits to a pre screen breath test is under no obligation to submit to a breath test at the station. More likely than not, a person refuses at the station after being read the chemical test warnings, which are outlined in section 1194 of the vtehicle and traffic law. A person has the right to submit to a chemical test at the station house if they so wish. A breath test is offered in alcohol cases and either blood, or urine in drug cases. Once again you say the field breth test is uneliable. ...more
By Clarity (65), Whb on Nov 29, 10 9:16 PM
to Clarity:

Following is a link to a site that discusses at some length the problem of inaccuracy in breathalyzer tests both in machine malfunction and sample preparation. In fact, your suggestion that I am making up the fact of suspects being given successive tests indicates that you are unaware that this is ONE of the precautions that must be taken for proper testing.


Apparently, ALL breathalyzer testing ...more
By highhatsize (4217), East Quogue on Nov 30, 10 5:42 AM
Like talking to my dog, he just won't listen.....................
By Clarity (65), Whb on Nov 30, 10 3:23 PM
1 member liked this comment
to Clarity:

He IS listening, and thinking that a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds.

By highhatsize (4217), East Quogue on Nov 30, 10 6:37 PM
Speaking of foolish, Vince, an all knowing man like yourself should know that the Brethtalyzer is no longer used, except on rare occassions. It was replaced 15-20 years ago with the Intoxilyzer.
A VERY different instrument.
By Terry (380), Southampton on Nov 30, 10 6:51 PM
to Terry:

Yes, I did know that. Had you read my discussion with Clarity, you would see that she pointed that out several days ago. I was using breathalyzer generically, like kleenex,a brand name that has come to stand for a product. If the state continues to unfairly penalizes people for drunk driving who merely have a certain percentage of blood alcohol (regardless of manifesting perfect coordination), the Intoxilyzer will eventually be replaced with yet a more exact tester of blood ...more
By highhatsize (4217), East Quogue on Nov 30, 10 8:27 PM
By cedric (22), Southampton on Dec 2, 10 6:41 PM
Could it be that the owner of Magic's might have a little ($82 million) axe to grind with Linda over some of his rental properties?

Only now the DA finds out about these "witnesses"? Interesting how their memories come to the surface on the eve of trial?
By cedric (22), Southampton on Dec 2, 10 6:44 PM