Kabot Trial Continues; Defense Grills Officer McManus

Despite cold and icy conditions, the jury turned out on time Tuesday for the ongoing Linda Kabot trial, taking place at Riverhead Town Justice Court. The former Southampton supervisor was arrested just after midnight on Labor Day, 2009, for allegedly driving while intoxicated.

Justice Allen Smith began the day’s proceedings by thanking the jury for arriving in a “timely fashion” and joked that the “blizzard of the century has not started yet.”

Tuesday’s trial events consisted of defense attorney William Keahon’s cross-examination of Westhampton Village Police Officer Steve McManus, one of Kabot’s arresting officers. Highlights of the proceedings included a second presentation of Kabot’s arrest video, during which Keahon asked McManus specific questions about procedure and his observations regarding the former supervisor’s behavior on the night in question.

 9:53 a.m.

 Linda Kabot, dressed in a gray suit and scarf, waits for proceedings to commence. She is joined by her husband, Lance.

 10:08 a.m.

 Justice Smith calls the case. Keahon begins by telling McManus, who is on the witness stand, that he plans to ask specific questions and needs specific answers.

 Keahon asked if, during his interview with Kabot, she slurred her speech.

 “No, sir, she did not appear to,” replied McManus.

 Keahon asked if Kabot needed assistance when exiting her vehicle.

 “No, sir,” he said.

 “When she got out did you see her trip or stumble in any fashion?” asked Keahon

 “No, sir,” McManus replies.

 “When you asked her to come to the rear of the vehicle, she was walking, no problem at all?” asked Keahon.

 “Not that I can recall,” replied McManus.

 The defense attorney asked about the beams from the headlights shining on Kabot. He then asked if she was leaning on her vehicle; McManus said, “Not at that time, sir.”

 Keahon asked if at any time during conversation with her, Kabot lost her balance.

 “There were two times, sir,” McManus answered.

 Keahon asked him to be specific; he repeated that there had been two times, but not while she was standing on two feet.

 “At any time while standing on two feet did she ever sway, or appear uncoordinated?" asked Keahon.

 “While doing nothing else but standing on two feet, not that I observed,” said McManus.

 Keahon then questioned McManus on the timeline of how long the officer spent with his client that night. Keahon asked what shift McManus had been working.

The officer said he was on the 4 p.m. to midnight shift and worked overtime, till 4 a.m., after Kabot was arrested.

Discussion ensued about what sector McManus covers. At one point during the evening, McManus said he joined Officer Ryan Lucas in his police vehicle and the two patrolled together.

 Keahon asks McManus about his police training and McManus said he has worked part-time for the Village of Quogue and also for the New York State University at Old Westbury.

Keahon then asked a series of questions about how many hours of training McManus had received in areas such as field sobriety testing and driving while intoxicated.  Keahon also asked about indicators used to determine if an individual has been drinking, such as bloodshot eyes that indicate something else, such as an individual who is tired.

“At some point in your training did you learn this?” he asked.

 “Yes,” said McManus.

 “You said you saw Linda Kabot and she had bloodshot, watery eyes. Is that your testimony?” asked Keahon.

 “I’m not sure if I said glassy or watery,” said McManus.

 Keahon continued with the line of questioning and McManus said, “Watery eyes could be someone tearing.”

 The defense attorney asked if the Westhampton Village Police department had cameras other than those used for mug shots.

“Yes, we have cameras that are used for evidentiary issues,” said McManus.  Keahon asked if photos could have been taken to focus on Kabot’s eyes. McManus said there were cameras but only the mug shot was taken. Testimony then followed about how far the camera was from Kabot during the taking of the mug shot; McManus testified he did not know who had taken the photo. Keahon then directs McManus to look at the mug shot.

 “As you look at the picture, do you see bloodshot, watery, or glassy eyes,” he asks.

 “I can’t tell from the photo,” said McManus.

 Keahon asks again. “Yes or no.”

Justice Smith told Keahon that McManus had already said he couldn’t tell.

 Further questioning and testimony continued regarding McManus’ training.

 Keahon also pursued a long line of questioning regarding a card he carried listing the points of how to conduct field sobriety tests. Keahon asked McMahon if it was important to say things in the exact order they are listed on the card.

“You should try and hit at the points,” said McManus.

 Keahon replied, “You have to do in by saying specific words in order, otherwise the test will not be validated?”

 “It doesn’t have to be word for word,” said McManus, who said the card was a guide.

 “You’re going to testify you were not trained that you have to be able to do it in order?” asked Keahon.

 “I have been trained that you need to hit those points,” said McManus.

McManus is then asked to read the questions in order on the card; he complies and after further questioning, McMahon said, “You should try and follow the order, Mr. Keahon.”

Keahon asks if Westhampton Village police officers are instructed to carry the card, and by whom, or if the other officers are “just winging it.”

 “It’s not issued departmentally,” said McManus, adding, “It’s best to have it. It’s a guide.”

 Keahon asked, as a training officer, if McManus has suggested using the card.

“I’ve recommended that, yes,” said McManus.

 “Because it’s the proper fashion to do it, yes?” asked Keahon.

 “It should be used as a guide, sir,” answered McManus.

 Next, questioning ensued regarding the walk and turn portion of the field sobriety test. At one point, the judge admonishes Keahon and asks him to please not argue with the witness.

 “Are you able to instruct a person through steps one through nine without the card?” asks Keahon.

 Assistant District Attorney Anthony Baron objects due to relevancy. The judge says Baron can answer the question.

 McManus explains how he would conduct the test without the card.

 Keahon refers to the video, when Officer Lucas asks Kabot “to perform a series of tests” and McManus hands him a card. 

Mr. Lucas “didn’t have a card himself?” he asked.

“No, he didn’t pull one out,” said McManus.

 Keahon asked if McManus was training Lucas. “Yes,” McManus replied.

 Keahon said McManus had testified he had first seen Kabot approaching a traffic circle and asked where he had been prior to that event.

“Just driving around,” said McManus.

Further questioning followed about a log officers keep.

“Did you do one that night?” asked Keahon.

 “I believe I did,” said McManus.

 Further discussion involved the activity sheet, with Keahon asking if McManus had provided a copy to the district attorney’s office.

“I believe I would have,” McManus said.

 McManus said the last time he had met with the district attorney to go over his testimony was last Friday in the Hampton Bays office. He was asked who else was present and gave a list of individuals, one of whom was Lieutenant Trevor Gonce.

 Keahon asked if Gonce was the individual McMahon had called after arresting Kabot at 12:37 p.m.

Testimony ensued explaining Gonce was a sergeant at the time of the arrest, but was since made lieutenant after his position was eliminated for fiscal reasons.

Keahon asked if Gonce had received a cut in pay.

 “Let’s move on,” the judge said.

Discussion followed involving questions about if McManus had viewed the video with the district attorney and how many times he had met with the DA’s office in regard to the case; his answer was approximately five.

Keahon asked McManus about testimony when he said Kabot was traveling at a “fast rate” of speed.

“Was she violating and vehicle or traffic law?” he asked.

 “Maybe it was imprudent speed,” said McManus.

 “Did you write her a ticket?” asked Keahon.

 “No.” said McManus.

 “Did you suggest to Officer Lucas to write a ticket?”

 “No.”

 McManus said the speed on Mill Road is 30 miles per hours.

“Did you see my client go over 30 miles per hour?” asked Keahon/

 “Not that I recall,” replied McManus.

 Keahon asked if there was anything “improper” about Kabot’s driving when she drove through the circle and continued on Mill road to Sunset Avenue.

 “Not that I can recall,” said McManus.

 Keahon asked about whether Kabot had signaled and McManus said he couldn’t answer that without seeing the video.

“If we didn’t write her a ticket, she probably did put on her right-hand signal.”

 A long line of questioning followed about McManus’ testimony regarding Kabot’s allegedly crossing over the double yellow line on Sunset Avenue. Keahon asked what portion, other than her left-hand tires, crossed over.

 “When my client’s tires went over the double yellow, did she swerve in that direction?” asked Keahon.

 “I think a better word would be drifted, sir,” said McManus.

Testimony followed regarding cars that were parked on the right-hand side of that road and where parking exists on Sunset Avenue.

Next, testimony followed involving Kabot’s height and weight at the time and about the distance of the stop sign from Main Street.

The stop sign is setback 25 feet, said Keahon. And asked McManus if Kabot hit her brakes.

“I know there were brake lights,” said McManus.

McManus said Kabot had applied brakes and stopped at an area where she could see in both directions, but without stopping at the stop sign.

“You’re saying she didn’t stop at the stop sign, but she did stop where she had a better view of traffic, am I right?” asked Keahon.

 “Yes,” said McManus.

 Next, testimony followed about Kabot making a left-hand turn onto Main Street; McManus said she signaled.

Pedestrians crossing Main Street crossed outside of the crosswalk, McManus further testified and added he saw Kabot stop for the individuals before “she drove around them.”

He said she was “concerned for the safety of the people.”

 “Did she commit a traffic infraction?” asked Keahon.

 “No, sir,” said McManus.

 The judge called for a ten-minute break.

 11:49 a.m.

 The jury re-enters.

 Keahon asks McMahon about testimony where he said indicators of an intoxicated individual include disheveled clothes and hair.

“Was she disheveled in any fashion?” he asked.

“Not that I could see, sir,” said McManus.

He continued, testifying that her hair was appropriate and that Kabot had no liquor spilled on her clothes that he could see. There was also no open container or alcohol in her car.

 Testimony followed regarding the road and whether it curves left and then right or just right on Main Street; renderings of the street were examined.

Keahon asks McManus if there are portions of Main Street that are not marked by a double yellow line; he said there is an absence of a double yellow line in some areas.

Keahon asked if McManus had come into contact with any of the parked cars on Main Street.

“I would say it was closer than how close I’ve seen other cars,” said McManus.

The map was examined again. Testimony ensued involving Keahon asking if it was true that Kabot parked “perfectly” between the white lines of her space and if she signaled immediately after the police officer’s lights went on, indicating that she stop.

“I don’t know if I agree to the word ‘immediately’ but it was pretty fast,” said McManus.

Keahon said McManus testified that other signs of intoxication were an individual ignoring the flashing lights.

“But did that happen here?” asked Keahon.

“No,” said McManus.

 Keahon asked if Kabot had parked perfectly with equal space between the white lines.

 “I don’t know if the space was equal but she parked between the lines,” he said.

 Questions followed how far a remote microphone can be from the police car to hear a conversation; the answer was approximately 200 feet.

 Keahon asked if, when another police car drove up with Sgt. Fusco, McMahon “walked quickly” to Fusco and said, “We got her! We got her!”

 “No, sir,” said McManus.

 “Did you say ‘look who we got?’” he asked.

 “I don’t recall saying that, sir,” said McManus.

 “Did you hand him Miss Kabot’s license?” asked Keahon.

 “Yes,” said McManus.

 Keahon asked him what he said.

“I don’t know if I said anything. I don’t recall,” said McManus. “Why would I run up to him and say, ‘We got her!’”

 “Do you recall saying ‘Look who we got?’” asked Keahon.

 “I don’t recall,” said McManus.

 Keahon established that Fusco was McManus’ supervising officer that night.

“Did Ms. Kabot appear uncoordinated?” asked Keahon.

“She was having difficulty locating her registration,” said McManus.

He further testified that Kabot was “fumbling through” some papers in the glove box and on the seat.

Keahon asked if McManus had seen Kabot look in the console for her registration.

“I don’t recall,” he answered, but said that the manner in which Kabot looked for her registration and went through her paperwork was consistent with other individuals he’d arrested for DWI.

Keahon asked McManus if he “whispered to Lucas that it was the Southampton Town Supervisor?”

“Yes,” said McManus.

Keahon asked if there was a computer in the police car that could be used to check a vehicle’s license plate number and find out who a car was registered to, while driving.

McManus said there was.

Keahon asked if it was working that night.

McManus said there had been problems with the computer in that vehicle.

Testimony followed about the calls made by McManus on his cell phone that night.

McManus said “technology hasn’t helped the police department” and that there were many times when the camera stops recording, which is why, he testified, he stopped the camera from videotaping. He wanted to check that the events that had transpired were captured and also to check the time.

During the course of testimony, Keahon asked if McManus and Lucas had cell phones or watches to check the time and asked why they felt it necessary to stop recording for the missing three to four minutes.

Testimony ensued about the tests administered to Kabot.

Keahon asked why Kabot was given a test on an imaginary line when there were actual white lines, delineating empty parking spaces, only a short distance away.

12:44 p.m.

The judge calls for a lunch break.

 1:59 p.m.

Jurors return.

Testimony continues about the activity log and then turns to the man on the bicycle who witnessed Kabot’s arrest.

“How long was he there?” asked Keahon.

“Until I removed him from Main Street,” said McManus.

Keahon asked about the microphone; McManus said Lucas was wearing it.

Keahon asked if the man on the bike had said, “Leave her alone. She’s not drunk.”

“I recall, ‘Don’t blow; don’t blow,” said McManus.

Further testimony involved the microphone and the individual on the bike.

Keahon asked why McManus directed Lucas to turn off the tape and the microphone despite a memo and direct orders from the chief of police not to do so at any point in an arrest.

Testimony continued about the man on the bike. “You said he should move on or he would get arrested?” asked Keahon.

“In sum and substance,” said McManus.

“Did he say, ‘She’s not drunk. Leave her alone?’” asked Keahon.

“I don’t recall that, sir,” said McManus.

Keahon asked McManus if he was a member of the Westhampton Beach Police Benevolent Association and about the Suffolk County Police Conference. He also asked if McManus had been a delegate.

McManus said he was and had been.

Later, Keahon asked if the organization endorsed Kabot’s opponent, Anna Throne-Holst, in the election and also asked if he realized the Southampton Town Police Benevolent Association, of which Patrick Aube was president, opposed Kabot.

Keahon said he did not recall if an official endorsement was made at the time.

2:44 p.m.

The judge tells the jury they will be given a five-minute break. During that time, Margaret Rebholz, a representative for Mothers Against Drunk Driving, tells Patch that she is observing the trial because she lost her son to a drunk driver.

Of Kabot, she said, “She was the town supervisor. If she was not drinking, she could have taken the Breathalyzer, proven her innocence, and ended it right there. But she refused.”

At the time of the arrest, Rebholz said she congratulated police for arresting a town supervisor. “She could have ended it right then. But now we’re in a trial and it’s costing the taxpayers money.” Police, she said were just doing their job. “They shouldn’t be raked over the coals.

2:57 p.m.

The jury re-enters.

A large part of the afternoon was spent watching the videotape of Kabot’s arrest for the second time, with Keahon asking questions.

In the tape, Kabot appeared angry with the officers.

“I want to call my husband,” she said in the tape, adding she wants him to pick her up.

“I refuse to take the test,” she said.

In the video, Kabot said, “I feel that I am not intoxicated.”

She then says that she advised another woman not to drive kids to the movies after drinking.

“I’d like to have my husband pick me up, sir,” she said, adding she would leave her car on Main Street, if it were legal to do so.

The officer asked why she would do that. Kabot said she would be happy to leave her car because the officers pulled her over and accused her of driving while intoxicated.

“You are accusing me of driving while intoxicated,” she said.

During further questioning, Keahon asks if it was true that in the video, Officer Lucas, while driving Kabot to the station, crosses over a double yellow line and does not signal.

4:30 p.m.

The judge concludes the session and tells the jury to return at 10 a.m. He urges them to be careful driving home on icy roads; there was a multiple car pileup on Country Road 105.