An Update on the Spin Class Fracas
(And a request for legal advice.)
Remember that infamous incident involving spinning class violence? If not, here’s a recap, from Bess Levin of our sister site, Dealbreaker:
Part 937,529 of the greatest story ever told: In June, broker Christopher Carter was acquitted of assault charges for manhandling his fellow spinning class rider, hedge fund manager Stuart Sugarman, who, to Carter’s annoyance, had been shouting affirmations at himself throughout class, like “Yeah!” and “You go girl!”. Though Carter admitted to throwing Sugarman, still seated on his bike, into a wall, the jury decided that they could not say beyond a reasonable doubt that the thrower was the cause of the back and neck pains that hospitalized the throwee for two weeks.Now Carter is asking Manhattan DA Robert Morgenthau to prosecute the audible worker-outer for supposedly perjuring himself on the witness stand, an allegation seemingly supported by the fact that one juror called Big S “a huge liar.” Sugarman’s lawyer Samuel Davis claims Carter’s “perjury pitch” is a “publicity stunt” timed to coincide with Sugarman filing civil suit against him, and what we pray to god will be a reality show on VH1 starring the pair.
In the Dealbreaker comments, there’s a request for legal insight:
Here’s the part I never understood: Carter, who I am soliciting funds to build a memorial to, *admitted* that he threw Sugarman and his bicycle into a wall.What difference does it make to a criminal complaint whether Carter caused Sugarman any *specific* injury? The minute he touched Sugarman, the deed was done and the crime was committed, under any set of criminal laws I ever studied. Everything else is just aggravating factors. Y’all got some weird laws in NY.
So, does anyone studying for the bar have some thoughts on that?
Spinning Class Fracas Keeps On Keeping On [Dealbreaker]
(66) 
Comments
Here's a thought:
Jury's don't like poser jerks.
Second that. There a justification defense for clocking a dude that yells "you go girl," in a spinning class.
I doubt he said that. I think that was just Bess being funny. Dude still sounds like a serious D-bag though.
Dude at the end does not know jack about criminal law. Ever heard of a result crime? Like, you punch a guy, and if he dies you're nailed for one thing and if he lives you're nailed for another?
"The minute he touched Sugarman, the deed was done and the crime was committed, under any set of criminal laws I ever studied...Y'all got some weird laws in NY." - Or we understand the laws that we do have. What an idiot.
A juror's assertion that the jury as a whole formed the opinion that a trial witness was a lying sack of shit(which in my experience might not even be true) is a far cry from proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the witness willfully lied under oath about a matter likely to have affected the outcome of the trial.
This case sounds like a he said-he said, where the jury thought the victim was a jerk and acquitted the defendant on general principle.
No way will there be a perjury prosecution or a substantial recovery in the civil suit.
However, offer the principals enough money and THERE WILL be a reality show.
If people will watch Flava Flave, they will watch anything.
No hes right. 1L torts tell us that any unwanted touching is assault if my memory isnt completely fried. You dont have to prove you were injured at ALL. let along badly.
The guy just must be a big douche, they jury hated him, and thats all there is to it. In the Black Box of the jury room what we learn in law school doesnt really have to be applied.
No JMOL though? Hmmmm
I dont recall crim as well.....crim assault is still any unwanted touching etc right? Forgot the elements.
Correcting myself at 6:17: is there such a thing as JMOL/JNOV in a criminal trial against a defendant? Probably not.
Think crim, not torts, people (and use teh google):
S 120.00 Assault in the third degree.
A person is guilty of assault in the third degree when:
1. With intent to cause physical injury to another person, he causes
such injury to such person or to a third person; or
2. He recklessly causes physical injury to another person; or
3. With criminal negligence, he causes physical injury to another
person by means of a deadly weapon or a dangerous instrument.
Assault in the third degree is a class A misdemeanor.
Think crim, not torts, people (and use teh google):
S 120.00 Assault in the third degree.
A person is guilty of assault in the third degree when:
1. With intent to cause physical injury to another person, he causes
such injury to such person or to a third person; or
2. He recklessly causes physical injury to another person; or
3. With criminal negligence, he causes physical injury to another
person by means of a deadly weapon or a dangerous instrument.
Assault in the third degree is a class A misdemeanor.
Under NY criminal law, assault requires a resulting injury. Under tort law, only the offensive touching is required. However, only a nominal recovery will be obtained in the civil suit unless the resulting injury is shown by a preponderance of the evidence (lower standard than in a crim case for all you non-lawyers).
No such thing against a defendant - in fact, a jury can find a defendant no matter what and there's nothing that can be done about it.
E.g. The defendant can confess to killing a man and tell exactly how he did it. If he then gives a very plausible reason for it (e.g. victim killed my family) and if the jury sympathizes with him and decides to acquit the defendant, the defendant is not guilty. Bottom line - the jury can acquit for any reason they want no matter what the judge tells them is the standard. Rules of evidence say that you can't tell the jury this (presumably to limit these types of situations), but such an acquittal is completely valid.
I've always wondered why some defense lawyers don't post billboards with this information - if the jury doesn't know this exists, then there's much less chance it'll happen. Though you have to think that the laws about this may change if this information becomes too well known.
No such thing against a defendant - in fact, a jury can find a defendant no matter what and there's nothing that can be done about it.
E.g. The defendant can confess to killing a man and tell exactly how he did it. If he then gives a very plausible reason for it (e.g. victim killed my family) and if the jury sympathizes with him and decides to acquit the defendant, the defendant is not guilty. Bottom line - the jury can acquit for any reason they want no matter what the judge tells them is the standard. Rules of evidence say that you can't tell the jury this (presumably to limit these types of situations), but such an acquittal is completely valid.
I've always wondered why some defense lawyers don't post billboards with this information - if the jury doesn't know this exists, then there's much less chance it'll happen. Though you have to think that the laws about this may change if this information becomes too well known.
6:27 is right on. Also a directed guilty verdict is unconstitutional.
It was jury nullification.
6:17 - you may as well register for the february bar, because you have far too much to learn before the july examination.
That's why we should skip the trial in a lot of these cases and go straight to punishment.
Didn't Sugarman say "make me" when asked to pipe down? I think the common law should be reformed to make that an affirmative defense to people who then do what Carter did.
To paraphrase the jury: “you go girl!”
6:41, you're retarded. Yes, Sugarman was being annoying, obnoxious, and literally asked for what he got. Guess what, we still can't go around attacking people.
THE PROBLEM IS WITH THAT CESS POOL KNOWN AS NEW YORK CITY.
In New York, you can physically attack someone, put them in a wheelchair, and not be punished in any way.
New York is an awful awful TTT hellhole.
With all due respect 6:27, you are incorrect. There can be substantial damages based on the offensiveness of the touching, even if the injury is not "serious" to a layman or reasonable person. Think about spitting on someone at a formal event.
Sounds like grounds for a duel.
What's ridiculous about this is that if Carter were black, he would be in jail right now, for years.
He did, in fact, shout "You go girl" during spin. This was an undisputed fact, and the witness testimony supported it.
TO 7:13 - HAHHAHAHHAHA. Whoever you are, never come to NY or I will hunt you down, forcibly make you join me for a spin class, and go Carter on your ass about 30 minutes in.
all of you people who can't tell the difference between ASSAULT and BATTERY had better not be lawyers or, indeed, persons having finished their 1st year of law school.
also, to the person complaining about NY's indifference to the maiming of a$$holes... ... ...grow a pair, and enjoy Kansas, you boot-licking pantywaist.
Are you allowed to carry a knife for self defense in NYC? You really need one.
Are you allowed to carry a knife for self defense in NYC? You really need one.
Im glad he got hurt. I hope the injuries were real.
NY is garbage, Chi-town is where it is at!
This would never happen to a Cravath associate.
Shearman sent an email out to all of their summers today saying that offers would not be given until TWO weeks after they left the firm.
Sounds like Shearman is gonna ruin their rep once again.
Why are people citing to the criminal code when this is a tort proceeding?
Cravath is willing to hire everyone from Pillsbury and Shearman to work as janitors and foodservice engineers.
Is felching prohibited under NY law?
How frequently does that issue appear on the essay portion of the Bar?
Hey 7:39, in NY, common law battery is called first-degree assualt; and common law assault is called second or third-degree assault.
You post makes it sounds like you live in NY. Dick.
Wow, I always assumed that people who commented on this site were lawyers. I guess not.
Hey 9:38, common law battery is a general intent crime; 1st degree assault in NY is an intentional "battery" with an aggravating factor.
I sound like I live in NY because I live in NY.
Bitch.
I have lived in NYC all my life. I have never known any other way of living that did not involve or allow tossing a flaming homosexual from his stationary bike. This is a completely normal reaction and one that happens almost everyday.
9:50 come on, there is no crime of battery in NY. You learn this in the first week of law school.
SUPERLULZ @ 9:57. Thank you for that.
hey 7:13 - you are retarded! this was a criminal case, douchebag...and here in NY, actual physical injury is required to prove assault beyond reasonble doubt! Physical injury, btw, is a term of art which excludes a lot of things deemed "offensive" to retarded texans/southerners like you
9:04 - you win the "I posted the stupidest comment of the thread award." That aside-
Unless an exercise bike is now defined as a deadly weapon, the only possible charge is 3rd Assault in NY (for those non-ny-ers, there is no battery in our fine state). Assault 3 requires an injury in ALL circumstances, not simply a touching under all circumstances.
Its nice to see that all of us do our research on ATL. Now if statutes are too tough for some of us, i refer you to the line straight out of my old Crim Law Barbri outline - "DISTICTIONS: NY MUST have an injury "
Sec. 120.00 Assault in the third degree
A person is guilty of assault in the third degree when:
1. With intent to cause physical injury to another person, he causes such injury to such person or to a third person; or
2. He recklessly causes physical injury to another person; or
3. With criminal negligence, he causes physical injury to another person by means of a deadly weapon or a dangerous instrument.
So, given the fact that Barbri points out that NY requires an injury, the original poster's question is entirely reasonable.
Well, I know in Texas there is the "Sonofabitch had it coming" defense. Maybe New York jurisprudence, and that of hte lesser 49 states, is catching up with Texas.
Anyone who has been to spinning classes regularly has some experience of the jackass who regularly screams out during class. It is almost as annoying as the woman who orders 25 different 1/4 pound cuts of meat at the deli counter. Carter should come to my class. There are some people I need him to take care of!
8:45 p.m.: If true, that means at least one of the summers will get no offered and they don't want you guys around when it happens. My firm did the same thing when I was a summer a couple of years ago. Two people in our class, who behaved like alcoholic cavemen with zero filter between thinking and saying AND did terrible work (I hear), got no-offered.
couldn't they charge him with attempted third degree assault? third degree assault is a specific intent crime, so it should have an attempt inchoate
Not that this matters to anyone but me, but if Shearman no-offers more than a handful, I'm taking one of the better offers I've received, loyalty and all that be damned. I'd encourage anyone else with the opportunity to do the same. It really feels like a sinking ship over at 599 Lex.
Good luck to you all, and may God have mercy on your souls!
oh hai summer, how does it feel like a sinking ship? only two hours left to make lunch plans!
Let me clear up any confusion surrounding this case. There is no such thing as battery in New York criminal law. There are three degrees of assault, generally based on the degree of damage caused or the use of a dangerous/deadly weapon in causing the damage. Here, the defendant was charged with third-degree assault, the lowest form of a assault, and a "class A misdemeanor." Under the subprovision defendant was charged with, the People were required to prove that "with intent to cause physical injury to another person, he causes such injury to such person or a third person."
Physical injury, in turn, is "impairment of physical condition or substantial pain." Penal Law 10.00(9). Under New York law, this is quite a high threshold actually, and requires some type of quantifiable damage resulting in a hospital pain, lingering effects, bleeding, or other type of objective pain. See People v. Chiddick, 8 NY3d 445. Subjective descriptions of minor pain generally does not rise to the level of physical injury.
Now the problem with the People's case here, from my understanding, is that the jury just generally did not believe that the complainant was physically injured. No one at Equinox thought that he should have gone to the hospital, and from my recollection, I believe he got back on his bike after getting pushed. Trials are credibility battles, and when a complainant is lying or exaggerating or even just misrepresenting what happened, cross-examination is a highly effective tool for exposing such tales. Thus, while its easy to say that the jury acquitted the defendant because they did not like him or something like that, the more rational explanation as that the proof simply did not show that he had been physically injured.
Briefly, the reason why the jury probably didnt convict on attempted assault (which doesnt require a showing of physical injury), is that attempted assault still is a specific intent crime, that requires the prosecutor to show that the defendant intended to physical injury the complainant. Here, the defendant merely picked up his bike, causing him to fall off. While this might have been "reckless" or "negligent" it does not sound like he intentionally tried to cause physical injury, and there are not "attempt" crimes for recklessness or negligence.
7:13: except if you're a white guy taking on more than 1 black guy. Then it's life in prison for hate crimes.
10:39: Thanks for clearing that up. Under those facts, I'm astounded that the jury didn't find that the defendant intended physical injury. I know that the plaintiff was a jackass and he probably did exaggerate his injuries, but it does seem strange that the defendant's conduct isn't criminal in some way. There were so many things he could have done short of throwing the guy against the wall (i.e. leaving the class and demanding his money back for the month for being subjected to this guy).
@10:39, thank you for the very thoughtful and erudite post, which manages to educate without referring to anyone else as "retarded" or "TTT".
10:39 back again, commenting on 10:47 -- Now the defendant probably was guilty of harassment at the very least. See Penal Law 240.26(1). However, this is only a violation, not even a misdemeanor, so its sort of like, who gives a cr*p. Further, I dont know if harassment was originally charged in the criminal court complaint, thus enabling the trial court to take jurisdiction (you cannot convict someone of a crime for which they were not originally charged). The thing to remember is that when we're dealing with misdemeanors, things happen very quickly, and not much attention is given to these crimes. The result is that frequently, wrong decisions are made early on that sort of percolate through the process. Usually these mistakes cure themselves, as so few of these cases go to trial ...
Do any of the articles make it clear that he fell off the bike?
@10:47, I think its plausible that the jury didn't believe there was intent to cause physical injury. Some accounts say he picked up the front of Sugarman's bike and dropped it (and Sugarman hit the wall), some say he "threw him against the wall," so it may come down to whose version you believe. The jury apparently found Sugarman not credible.
But yes, it would have been better if Carter had just left the class. Press accounts say he did ask the instructor to get Sugarman to quiet down, but the instructor didn't want to get involved. This whole thing sounds a lot like road rage - pent up anger and frustration boiling over in a way that is out of proportion to the original offense.
It took this site 51 comments and just under 17 hours to produce 10:39's thoughtful and reasonably accurate response to the original query.
NY CrimLaw to 190K!!!!!!!!
In new york, we have the affirmative defense of 'he was being an ass.'
10:39/10:08 is right on the law has it right. He even brought up harassment, which this guy was almost definitely guilty of. Someone who didn't know what he or she was talking about wouldn't have mentioned it.
Thread over. (Unless someone wants to handicap the guy's chances of winning a civil suit--I woudln't want to be his lawyer.)
10:39/10:08 has it right. He even brought up harassment, which this guy was almost definitely guilty of. Someone who didn't know what he or she was talking about wouldn't have mentioned it.
Thread over. (Unless someone wants to handicap the guy's chances of winning a civil suit--I woudln't want to be his lawyer.)
Chances are the kind of guy that shouts "you go girl" while spinning will also be the kind of guy that acts like an italian soccer player when accosted. Probably grabbed his shin and pretended to cry when it happened to. Then got up, looked at the instructor and threw his hands in the air. Then went home and had a double expresso.
11:31 = 10:08
11:34 - so, so true. Great post.
6:54 - don't be such an asshole. If 6:41 kicked your ass and I was on the jury, I'd find a way to get him/her acquitted also.
And lastly, to the idiot who typed this: "If people will watch Flava Flave, they will watch anything." -- it's FLAVOR FLAV dumbass. Stop talking and get back to your business of finding ways to be more white.
Wouldn't mind turning Carter loose on some of my clients some days. What he did is even more amusing because he did it to a hedge fund focker, who are, almost without qualification, total and utter d-bags.
Did anyone else read the NY Post story? Apparently Carter lifted Sugarman over his head during the attack. May be this guy is an incredible hulk.