- RELATED ARTICLES
- > Appeals Court Denies New Trial For Oddone But Reduces Sentence Nov 16, 2011 11:11 AM
- > Scared Juror, Medical Evidence Slanted Jury Says Oddone Attorney In Appeal May 4, 2011 10:24 AM
- > Oddone Appeal Will Be Heard By Brooklyn Judges On Friday Apr 27, 2011 10:57 AM
- > Oddone attorney files appeal Apr 21, 2010 12:36 PM
- > Oddone sentenced to 22 years in prison Apr 14, 2010 6:55 PM
more
The jury in the Anthony Oddone murder trial apparently has decided that Mr. Oddone is not guilty of murder in the second degree but has reached an impasse on the lesser charge of manslaughter in the first degree, according to accounts of the deliberations aired in the courtroom Friday.
Meanwhile, Judge C. Randall Hinrichs denied alternating motions on Friday by defense attorney Sarita Kedia to dismiss two jurors for disobeying rules for deliberating juries, to ask the jury if they can deliver a partial verdict and to declare a mistrial in the case.
The jury returned to the courtroom on Monday morning, the ninth day of deliberations, to hear testimony from two prosecution witnesses read back by the court reporter. The testimony focuses on two eyewitness accounts of the struggle between... more
Meanwhile, Judge C. Randall Hinrichs denied alternating motions on Friday by defense attorney Sarita Kedia to dismiss two jurors for disobeying rules for deliberating juries, to ask the jury if they can deliver a partial verdict and to declare a mistrial in the case.
The jury returned to the courtroom on Monday morning, the ninth day of deliberations, to hear testimony from two prosecution witnesses read back by the court reporter. The testimony focuses on two eyewitness accounts of the struggle between... more
a charge of manslaughter should've been brought, with the option to convict of a lesser charge.
What a waste of taxpayer resources and money, to say nothing of the emotional toll on both families, and apparently the jurors as well.
reister used VIOLENCE and violence bring violence
then he overused his power and he was not in duty as a correction officer he was doing extra hours as a simple bouncer in club .....2 different jobs 2 different positions 2 different environments 2 different rules & codes......
by the way , I suggest you to dance on a tables ...you need a blast girl
Hope reporter Michael Wright has found a gal pal in Riverhead by now.
Partial verdict that Murder 2 is out, and a hung jury on the rest, equals acquital for now and a re-trial on the lesser charges only.
How is that going to sit here?
Fasten seatbelts.
There is NO official word from the jury on any of this, nor a final ruling by the jury on any of the charges. The story above is based on discussions in open court today about the state of deliberations, based on notes sent to the judge by jury members.
I just want to be clear that there's no final decision made yet.
A partial verdict has not been taken. A request for that to be done has been denied by the judge. While it seems unlikely, the jury could return to it and render a different verdict. As Mr. Shaw said there has been no official partial verdict.
§ 310.70. Rendition of partial verdict and effect thereof
1. If a deliberating jury declares that it has reached a verdict with respect to one or more but not all of the offenses submitted ...more to it, or with respect to one or more but not all of the defendants, the court must proceed as follows:
(a) If the possibility of ultimate agreement with respect to the other submitted offenses or defendants is so small and the circumstances are such that if they were the only matters under consideration the court would be authorized to discharge the jury pursuant to paragraph (a) of subdivision one of section 310.60, the court must terminate the deliberation and order the jury to render a partial verdict with respect to those offenses and defendants upon which or with respect to whom it has reached a verdict;
(b) If the court is satisfied that there is a reasonable possibility of ultimate agreement upon any of the unresolved offenses with respect to any defendant, it may either:
(i) Order the jury to render its verdict with respect to those offenses and defendants upon which or with respect to whom it has reached agreement and resume its deliberation upon the remainder; or
(ii) Refuse to accept a partial verdict at the time and order the jury to resume its deliberation upon the entire case.
2. Following the rendition of a partial verdict pursuant to subdivision one, a defendant may be retried for any submitted offense upon which the jury was unable to agree unless:
(a) A verdict of conviction thereon would have been inconsistent with a verdict, of either conviction or acquittal, actually rendered with respect to some other offense, or
(b) The submitted offense which was the subject of the disagreement, and some other submitted offense of higher or equal grade which was the subject of a verdict of conviction, were so related that consecutive sentences thereon could not have been imposed upon a defendant convicted of both such offenses.
3. As used in this section, a "submitted offense" means any offense submitted by the court to the jury, whether it be one which was expressly charged in a count of the indictment or a lesser included offense thereof submitted pursuant to section 300.50.
No excuses. Just a mistake, and we apologize.
Now...can you compare yourself to that? Maybe not, huh?
that is inappropriate.
This judge is doing his best to keep this trial fair from what I've observed-that's also his reputation.
That one juror's representation may be accurate or inaccurate. The jury may have tentatively reached agreement on Murder 2nd, and are proceeding down the charges. So there may or may not be a final verdict on this count.
At this late point in the proceedings I think ...more it would be prudent to see if there is a verdict on that count. There is always the possibility that this jury falls apart, someone doesn't show up, or gets ill, and the partial verdict hasn't been recorded.
I can imagine the double jeopardy motions that would be made over the refusal to see whether there was such a verdict within the jury room. That could be replete with hearings. A fine mess.
At the same time, over the years Judge Hinrichs has proven to be a fine jurist and his decision to decline to ask for a verdict is certainly within bounds.
It has only been a juror who defense has argued is a defective juror who has reported there has been a decision on the Murd. 2 charge. it could be considered interfering with the ongoing deliberations to ask for a verdict when the jury has not declared it has a verdict.
Suggest that you research the word "reputation" a bit before trying to use it again.
If Anthony had obeyed the order from the staff to get off the table, there wouldn't be a trial~~
Finally some common sense. He will always be a killer. I just hope he gets what he deserves.
Just wondering~~
You just don't get it ~~
Anthony Oddone killed Andrew... The End!!!
I have a feeling that you are the one that doesnt get it.
At least the jury seems to be using their heads.
I really think she needs to dance on her dining table it might wake up some in her..
as you said not that simple and that why they still on it...
"[Prosecuting attorney] Ms. Merrifield also revealed that the incident of violence in the Publick House was not the first for Mr. Oddone: She cited a May 2005 incident in a Cobleskill, New York, bar named Happy Trails, alleging that Mr. Oddone was involved in another assault involving three victims, hitting more than one of them with a beer bottle. No charges were filed in connection ...more with that incident."
In a Sandoval hearing the prosecution offers any prior bad acts or misconduct that she would like to use to impeach the defendant's credibility in the event he should choose to testify at trial. It is at such a hearing that the accuracy of the alleged acts could be challenged and the parties would argue whether such bad acts, if committed, had any bearing on the defendant's credibility.
In a Ventimiglia hearing ...more the prosecution can offer evidence of prior bad acts, crimes, etc. that she contends help to prove the present offense. If successful, the prosecutor could introduce that evidence on her direct case.
That, apparently has not happened in this case. I don't think there has been any reservation of resources, such that if those things had bearing on this case, they would be in the case. This is even more so when the prosecutor has been aware of the alleged incident for more than a year prior to trial.
The reason for this process is evident from the posts on this page.
RULE 3.6:
Trial Publicity
(a) A lawyer who is participating in or has participated
in a criminal or civil matter shall not make an extrajudicial
statement that the lawyer knows or reasonably
should ...more know will be disseminated by
means of public communication and will have a
substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing an
adjudicative proceeding in the matter.
(b) A statement ordinarily is likely to prejudice materially
an adjudicative proceeding when it refers to
a civil matter triable to a jury, a criminal matter or
any other proceeding that could result in incarceration,
and the statement relates to:
(1) the character, credibility, reputation or criminal
record of a party, suspect in a criminal investigation
or witness, or the identity of a witness
or the expected testimony of a party or witness;
(2) in a criminal matter that could result in incarceration,
the possibility of a plea of guilty to the
offense or the existence or contents of any confession,
admission or statement given by a defendant
or suspect, or that person’s refusal or
failure to make a statement;
(3) the performance or results of any examination
or test, or the refusal or failure of a person to
submit to an examination or test, or the identity
or nature of physical evidence expected to
be presented;
(4) any opinion as to the guilt or innocence of a
defendant or suspect in a criminal matter that
could result in incarceration;
(5) information the lawyer knows or reasonably
should know is likely to be inadmissible as evidence
in a trial and would, if disclosed, create a
substantial risk of prejudicing an impartial trial;
or
(6) the fact that a defendant has been charged with
a crime, unless there is included therein a statement
explaining that the charge is merely an accusation
and that the defendant is presumed
innocent until and unless proven guilty.
In reading your post, it appears that this rule of professional conduct may not have been followed in this case.
Mr. Oddone was not charged in that incident. He was questioned-along with many others.
The original August '08 report in the SH Press said Mr. Oddone "attacked" Mr. Reister (without any details) which is quite different than what is now written in the press at the end of each of your articles as further info about the circumstances has come to light.
You and the Press have been a pawn of the prosecution since day 1 (not suggesting its' intentional-she's good)
Many ...more people follow this case through your reporting, which, due to the enormity of it, makes it difficult for you to report all of the the testimony (certainly not most of the cross examination) but to say your reporting of the first three weeks of the trial was anything less than incomplete (some might say biased), would be well inaccurate.
at the summation, where you had reporters present you heard both sides and the reporting tide began to change.
Your reporting since the summation has been accurate and excellent(especially considering the time involved).
Why inflame the readers with a statement about a bar incident where Oddone was "involved" (questioned )?
Roughly 70 people were questioned after the incident at the Publick house?
Are you going to write that they were involved?
Respectfully, I request you remove both our posts.
I also will point out that we've reported that people who know Mr. Oddone have said he was not someone who was generally violent, and he worked ...more to put himself through college.
Prior bad acts, if proven, can be introduced to prove intent or absence of mistake. Maybe the proof you think it there, isn't.
We're all "wondering" what happened the night of the incident.
His past might be relevant if there was actual testimony to that effect, rather than merely hearsay-that's why such items are not allowed in court.
My heart goes out to the Reister family, as well as the Oddone family.
Oddone will be held accountable for his actions, if not by this jury by another.
What's sad is that neither the prosecutor nor the defense seem interested in "justice" (or what ...more actually happened), just winning.
My apologies if I offended anyone. I'm done here.
But of course, ED issues would stunt him in the real world.
Just my thoughts, of course. I am no expert. I just think a lot. And of course, I am not pointing the finger....I ...more am just wondering why the system is like this.
Fair enough.
You guys have done an admirable job on a hugely complex and sensitive case which has no doubt been incredibly time consuming for a publication with limited resources.
your crossed mind brought up an interesting point -- with maybe all kinds of possibilities -- just wondering -- but you can end up disgusted wondering.
From ...more start to finish this is a tragedy for all involved. I do not believe that Oddone should be punished for defending himself.
And...if Oddone had gotten down like a gentlemen this wouldn't have happened. Oddone mouthed off, why would he do that if he knew Andrew was staff. Testamony has it that he asked Andrew if he worked there.
So your buddy ...more is alive, my buddy is dead...anything else you want to add??
In the spirit of Christmas, end it~
The increasingly simplistic points of view here are not getting anyone anywhere. The case is in the hands of the jury, and we will be lucky IMO to receive ANY verdict at all. Moreover, I can only picture the family members reading this board, and thinking something ...more like, "Oh my, if the jury is this polarized and emotional, how will justice ever be served for ANY of us?"
Life is complicated, and this tragic incident reflects the complexity of life. If you want a simple solution to this case, you may be in the wrong place and time IMO.
One simple analysis presented recently is that, if Mr. Oddone had just gotten off the table when asked, Mr. Reister would probably still be alive.
OK, if one wants simple solutions here is another one. If Mr. Reister had not made the first physical move, he would probably be alive today to enjoy the holidays.
See, simple answers are not really that helpful, are they?
Peace on Earth begins in the heart of each of us.
Merry Christmas!~
This would never have happened if Oddone got off the table as he was politely asked. He knew Andrew was staff...he asked him. So why did Oddone have to be defiant and tell him to F off.
All Oddone should have done is get down off the table like a mature adult. But he didn't....so now his life is a mess.
In the case that the jury is hung on a lesser charge, the judge can accept a partial verdict. Does he HAVE to accept a partial verdict if they reach one on a higher charge? Or is it simply up to the judge?
Reason being is that I am curious if the jury is in fact hung on a lesser charge, but the judge feels that the higher charge is appropriate, can he refuse to accept a partial verdict so that the defendant cannot avoid ...more another trial on the higher charge due to double jeopardy??
If the judge, over the objection of counsel, refused to make such an inquiry, then defense counsel would have a strong argument against re-trial. Generally ...more the rule is that a judge can not declare a mistrial unless there is a manifest necessity, and this argument would be extended to each offense individually.
In fact, if the judge, over objection of defense counsel, failed to make inquiry as to each offense, there is an argument to be made that, in the absence of any verdict, the only count we could be assured there was not an acquittal on is the lowest count.
I can't say I have found case law on point, but the argument is logical based upon the theory that a defendant, if possible, is entitled to a verdict from the jury he selected.
Are you suggesting that some form of physical violence directed at Mr. Oddone would be justified in the future, even if the jury acquits him of all charges?
Regardless of either person's behavior, he HAD the choice to walk away.
Mr. Oddone did not walk away, and a 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 chokehold.
All Mr. Oddone had to do was walk away...
Was he on anything besides booze?
I sincerely apologize again for that. We corrected it immediately upon discovering it (in fact, it was Mike who pointed it out), and a corrected email went out in less than 30 minutes.
Again, I won't make excuses--it was a bad mistake, and I'm sorry.
Maybe you should read "back and forth above" again.....
And as I post this, it's the last Comment in the thread, and you will note that it is indented below yours posted at 11:24 pm because it directly addresses the one you made.
This is how some comments seem to be out of sequence when in fact they are not.
The Press isn't trying to pull a fast one; you just are focusing on the wrong thing and failing ...more to be observant.
A note was sent and it indicated in substance there had been a verdict of not guilty on the top count. This, however, came from a juror other than the foreman. That is unusual, and could easily give rise to a misunderstanding.
Counsel for the Defendant also asked to have the partial verdict recorded. Appropriate ...more response by defense counsel to make sure an acquittal is recorded, and that juror's note may still reflect the true state of deliberations that has yet to be officially recorded.
The only error was that a reported verdict has not been officially recorded.
The coverage has been terrific. You can not expect the Press to hire attorneys as reporters, and the reporters cover so many stories that this would not necessarily help. They cover municipal governance, school district meetings, criminal proceedings, as well as Easter egg hunts. They do their best.
Until you are ready to pay the hourly legal rate for every story reported, you have to be prepared for some slack in their system from time to time.
If you want to live in ancient times and shoot the messenger, go ahead, and while your at it turn off your internet access they didn't have that in ancient times.
ONLY AFTER 12 .
THANKS
Fasten seat belts!
One could also go to the trial and support Truth and Justice IMO, not a "side," eh?
Do you really think that one side is "right" and the other "wrong?"
Is the world really that black and white, consisting of diametrically opposed truths only one of which is correct?
there are no sides here..... only tragedy.
and both the prosecution and the defense have made truth and justice a nearly unknowable thing
From one perspective:
Mr. Oddone is a man who choked Mr. Reister for a period from 2 to 3 minutes. In the process Mr. Oddone broke small bones in Mr. Reister's neck and Mr. Oddone compressed Mr. Reister's carrotid artery until Mr. Reister became unconscious, and Mr. Oddone continued to choke Mr. Reister for a sufficient period of time to cause ...more permanent damage that lead to Mr. Reister's ultimate death.
There have been reports that Mr. Oddone has been involved in a previous violent confrontation in a bar, such that it is fair to assume that Mr. Oddone does not shrink from the use of physical force.
From another perspective:
Mr. Oddone was at a bar dancing, drinking and enjoying himself in the same manner as other patrons of the bar. Mr. Reister, a bouncer at the bar, attempted to enforce a rule and told Mr. Oddone to get down from the table on which he was dancing. Others were dancing on table tops too, but Mr. Oddone was arbitrarily singled out and he refused to stop. Mr. Reister then physically pulled Mr. Oddone from the table top to the floor and a fight between the two ensued.
Mr. Reister substantially outweighed Mr. Oddone, and but for the choke hold Mr. Oddone was able to maintain, Mr. Reister could have mopped the floor with Mr. Oddone. Under these circumstances Mr. Oddone was justified in defending himself from Mr. Reister, justified in putting Mr. Reister in choke hold to protect himself from the larger man.
The proof presented does not show that there was any point in time when BOTH: 1. Mr. Reister no longer posed a threat to Mr. Oddone, AND 2. That the actions of Mr. Oddone, during that period after the threat of violence against him had been neutralized, caused the death of Mr. Reister who had a pre-existing heart condition.
Stated another way, the injury inflicted upon Mr. Reister may have been caused during a time period when his actions were justified, and if he did continue to hold him, it was after that the damage had already been done.
It is also understood that Mr. Reister's chosen vocation is prison guard and he moonlights as a bouncer, such that it is fair to assume that Mr. Reister does not shrink from the use of physical force.
In order to impose CRIMINAL liability on Mr. Oddone the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt rests squarely on the prosecution to prove the first perspective and to disprove the second perspective. The defense has no burden of proof.
The difficulty in proving what happened in a bar when alcohol is flowing, music is blaring, and the hour is late is manifest. There are only a few things that are certain, Mr. Reister is dead, small bones in his neck were broken, Mr. Reister had a pre-existing heart condition, and Mr. Reister outweighed Mr. Oddone substantially. These facts alone are inadequate and the jury is forced to resort to witnesses with an ability to perceive and remember that was, at best, compromised.
Prosecuting combatants in a bar fight is very difficult, rarely done, and is rarely successful.
That testimony may in the end be sufficient, but it is not an easy task for a jury to say that it constitutes proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
As to taking sides, my only hope is that justice, as best it can be served within human limitations, is served. That does not appear to be a simple issue in this case.
Story is now updated to include the latest from this morning. Not much--just listening to readbacks of testimony, as requested by the jury.
Also, to repeat what I said in reply to a commenter above, so everyone can see it: Our reporter, Mike Wright, had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the email that went out Friday with an erroneous subject line. He wasn't involved in any way in the email alert that went out.
I sincerely apologize again for that. We corrected ...more it immediately upon discovering it (in fact, it was Mike who pointed it out), and a corrected email went out in less than 30 minutes.
Your point has been taken, and re-taken, any times.
Mr. Shaw has apologized for the error, also many times.
Life is not perfect. Errors are made. Have you ever made one?
Any chance you could move on?
Peace on Earth includes Forgiveness?
Thank you.
thanks again for your coverage of this case
Just because AR was a CO doesn't mean that he was qualified with his bear hands at that very moment to handle a potentially intoxicated adrenaline rushed angry person. If on the CO job he would have had professional back up and/or a weapon of self defense.
Verdict is in, to be read tonight.
Update coming shortly--watch the home page.
We're working on the story right now. Verdict read about 5:15.