
Attorneys for Anthony Oddone, the former golf caddy sentenced to 22 years in prison last year for killing a part-time bouncer at a Southampton Village tavern in 2008, will make their case in a Brooklyn appeals court this Friday morning that a new trial should be held.
The attorneys for Mr. Oddone will present oral arguments to a four-judge panel on why his December 2009 manslaughter conviction by a Suffolk County jury should be set aside. If the conviction is overturned, the case would be sent back to a Suffolk County court for retrial.
Mr. Oddone was acquitted of the most serious charge he faced, second-degree murder, but was convicted of manslaughter in the death of Andrew Reister, a 40-year-old Hampton Bays resident and father of two who worked part-time as a bouncer at the Southampton Publick House on his days off from his job as a guard at the Suffolk County Jail in Riverhead.
Mr. Oddone, who is serving out his sentence at the Attica Correctional Facility penitentiary upstate, will not be present in the courtroom on Friday. Once a person is convicted of a crime, he or she is not afforded the same rights as an accused defendant, and the State Department of Corrections refused a request by Mr. Oddone’s legal counsel to have him brought to the courtroom for the arguments.
The defense has already filed a brief laying out its arguments for a retrial in detail but declined to allow a copy of the brief to be shared with The Southampton Press prior to Friday’s arguments.
A friend of the Oddone family said the defendant is being represented before the appeals court by Mark Wolinsky of the Manhattan firm Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen and Katz. According to Mr. Wolinsky’s profile on the firm’s website, he is handling Mr. Oddone’s case pro bono and describes Mr. Oddone as having been “wrongly convicted.”
Mr. Wolinsky and his partner, Barry Skovgaard, are members of the The Bridge golf club in Noyac, where Mr. Oddone, who is originally from upstate New York, caddied during the summers while he was attending St. Joseph’s College in Patchogue. The two men and other members of The Bridge are believed to have paid for Mr. Oddone’s trial defense, which may have cost as much as $2 million. His defense attorney from the trial, Sarita Kedia, a former attorney for late mobster John Gotti, is advising on the appeal.
According to Bob Clifford, a spokesman for Suffolk County District Attorney Thomas W. Spota’s office, the defense has requested a half-hour to present its argument to the judges, an unusually long amount of time. Assistant District Attorney Annie Oh will represent the prosecution.
Attorneys familiar with the Oddone case said the trial was rife with issues that could give a court reason to order a retrial.
“I can tell you, there are a number of major issues in that case,” veteran criminal defense attorney William Keahon said this week of the Oddone trial. “I’ve seen the briefs, and they are great—supremely well-written and argued.”
According to attorneys who have argued cases before State Appellate Division panels, appeals arguments typically focus on problems that arose during the initial trial that might have meant the defendant did not get a fair trial, or that might have resulted in a jury being steered toward one verdict or another. The presentation of evidence by either the prosecution or defense, the handling of the case by the trial judge, and the conduct of the jurors themselves are common targets of appeals challenges.
“Basically, the panel of judges have already done extensive reading on the case before there are oral arguments—briefs, transcripts, accounts of the trial, everything,” attorney Joe Ferrante said on Monday. “They are well appraised of what you are arguing, and they present you with questions to make you put a finer point on your argument. Everyone walks out feeling like the judges beat the hell out of them.”
Lawyers arguing appeals sometimes attempt to convince the judges that the sentence handed down was not commensurate with the crime committed. Only rarely do appellate arguments focus on the facts of the case in an attempt to convince the judges that the grounds for the conviction itself are not supported by the evidence presented at trial. Mr. Ferrante, who recently won a retrial on appeal in the case of Zachary Gibian, a teenager who was convicted in 2007 of killing his stepfather with a samurai sword, said that the majority of appeals are dismissed by the appellate court on the grounds that while various problems may have arisen during a trial, they could not be reasonably expected to have had an impact on the outcome.
Based on “Over Zealous” prosecution a new trial is logical and a reversal is required.
Furthermore, the jury was a mess and the story they heard during trial had holes. Twelve people agreeing on guilty without a reasonable doubt, with those facts is Beyond Belief. Oddone deserves a new trial as no reasonable person would want anyone to be convicted under those circumstances.
I know Oddone enough to ...more know he has no anger issues and being pushed off a table created a series of unpredictable events that destroyed his extremely bright future.
New trials are rare and only reversed if rules were broken according to law. Present lawyers handling Oddone’s case know the law. The prosecution has had their hands full and will continue to do so when new trial granted. Therefore, expect a new trial, a new version of what happened and hearing about Oddone’s good character.
From my knowledge, the guilty is the Publick House having lackluster security and about 100 not so good Samaritans that watched. All should be ashamed!
If Zachary Gibian can be granted a new trial for chopping off his step-fathers head with a Samaria sword because the judge cut off Keahon’s closing argument; expect Oddone to be granted a new trial for defending himself from a continuing attack because the judge allowed the prosecution to be over zealous.
In reply to your over zealous response, may I add that no reasonable person would want anyone to be choked and murdered the way Andrew Reister was put to death.
With Oddone's history, and the way he acted the night of August 8, 2008 PROVED without doubt that he has anger issues. He acted like an animal on prey. Fearing for his life...I think NOT! Andrew was his prey, Andrew was the victim.
His anger issues created a series of events that destroyed Andrew's bright ...more future, and marred the happiness of his two precious children.
May the judges see this as it truly happened.. A lifetime sentence is to short for Oddone.
I don't even think Oddone claimed self defense did he? What is wrong with you people?
He had MAJOR anger issues in bars. It's documented but not allowed during the trial.
Your remarks arestupid as to be otherworldly and would have been infuriating- but all ofus on this comment thread went through this last year with you morons who defended this murderer during the trial.
BTW Everyone here also noticed that this was your very first comment on 27 East.
There's some real dirt in this relationship- Guaranteed!
Justice will prevail.
The cause was a popular hometown father of 2 and he was in a horrible accident. The judge permitted the D.A. excessive latitude in a variety of areas and denied reasonable requests by the defense, which is not fair and it is not the law. Subsequently, the judge ...more ordered an overzealous 22 year sentence for someone who was attacked while dancing and had no motive to harm anyone.
Unless you are an expert, it is ridiculous for you to determine anyone’s anger issues by their history or how anyone will react after being pushed off a table. I believe, Oddone was denied an expert.
It is horrible what happened but: Did the disc jockey tell him to get down over the microphone? Did the Publick House have enough bouncers to prevent a haphazard situation that is reasonable foreseeable in that environment? Finally, I am not buying anybody made a real attempt of breaking it up although plenty said they tried with several different versions.
Regardless, this was an unforeseeable, unavoidable dilemma for anyone, Oddone was caught off guard.
I believe the trial was unfair to Oddone for one of several reasons including overzealous prosecution.
Neither my opinion, nor yours matters. Fortunately, excellent lawyers will argue the legal issues to determine if the trial judge was erroneous. If at least 3 of those judges interpret the law like I do, Oddone gets a new trial.
An expert in what, anger issues? This sentence, not surprisingly, makes little sense.
Would he have listened to the DJ say get down, after being told to get down by someone else? He was told to get down more than once. He didn't.
"Oddone was caught off guard". ...more
Again, no clue what that is referring to.
Please know that, aside for the obscenely absurd comments from the ridiculous person called "R Spor"t, mostly all commentators here agree with you wholeheartedly.
I know that I do!
It's obscene that the family of Mr. Reister needs to once again think about this murderer.
Your remarks are so true, Summertime. Thank you.
I am just wondering if you have it all correct...
Andrew was not Larry's brother....
It was Larry, George & a sister...
Andrew was George's son. And, yes, he was a wonderful son.
I remember two brothers but I don`t recall a sister, what was her name??
Where's the follow up from Friday's hearing?
It was a referral to the question elliot asked. No private, confidential information revealed. ???
Regardless of either person's behavior (rsport), Mr. Oddone had the choice to not be belligerent. He had the choice to NOT be disrespectful, and he HAD the choice to walk away. Most any establishment DOES NOT permit dancing on a table. It is not only unsafe, it can result in serious personal injury. It is not the DJ's job to stop it, it is security's job to do so. And frankly, we DON'T have a genuine "reasonably foreseeable" history of needing that type of "additional security" in the Publick House. When you're told you are being an a$$, usually 99.9% of the patrons comply. And, most of us just simply act better than that.
Mr. Oddone did not walk away, chose to use lethal force, and a good man is dead for it.
He is responsible for this man's death, as HE made the decision to assault, and place Mr. Reister in a potentially lethal chokehold. He chose to NOT follow the non-violent principle of martial arts.
All Mr. Oddone had to do was realize dancing on a table is wrong, as well as unsafe, disrespectful behavior, and walk away.
He DID NOT...