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, 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.
Earlier: Spinning Class Fracas Lives On!
Spin Rage War Gets Recycled [NYP]
Posted by HAM05 , Jul 16, 2008 1:48PM
this story will never, ever get old.
bess, cant you somehow spin this into a daily miniseries that you email out every morning? much rather read than than morning brief.
Posted by StMarc , Jul 16, 2008 1:51PM
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.
And whether it's grandstanding or not it's a smart move. If he can get Sugarman indicted for perjury, much less convicted, there goes any credibility he might have had in the civil case. He can impeach that sissy like he did an intern in the Oval Office.
M
Posted by guest , Jul 16, 2008 2:02PM
@1:51 - if "unwanted touch" = "crime", then everyone who has ever ridden on the NYC subway should be in prison.
Posted by guest , Jul 16, 2008 2:05PM
1:51 - The jury verdict did not make any sense whatsoever. You're correct that the "specific" injury makes no difference under New York law when dealing with a battery charge. Best guess is the jury was dumb and/or didn't like something about the victim (e.g. didn't mind that a rich guy was thrown into a wall).
Posted by bank_teller , Jul 16, 2008 2:16PM
i wish sammy davis were my jewish lawyer too. cha-cha-cha baby!
Posted by guest , Jul 16, 2008 2:24PM
Bess - you go with this one, girl!
Posted by guest , Jul 16, 2008 2:34PM
NY law often requires a specific level of injury for a given crime. So, for example, if you just shove someone and no injury it is mearly "harassment." Add in a serious injury and you are liable for assault.
Posted by guest , Jul 16, 2008 2:45PM
Someone is obviously studying for the bar.
Posted by guest , Jul 16, 2008 2:50PM
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.
Bottom line, the jury should have at least found him guilty of third degree assault. "Physical injury" is all that's necessary under s120. In other words, the jury basically said, "even though it's undisputed that the defendant drove the victim into a wall - a victim who just happened to end up in the hospital afterwards - we don't think a 'physical injury' was the result of the defendant's actions." Given that the definition of 'physical injury' under the penal code is 'impairment of physical condition or
substantial pain', it's quite a reach to find any logic behind the jury's decision.
Posted by guest , Jul 16, 2008 2:53PM
Talk about "banality". This kcufing story about Carter and that Sugarass clown is even more trivial than a few of my previous posts may have been.
The Guy from Delaware
Posted by guest , Jul 16, 2008 2:54PM
BTW, I think it would be a great idea if CNBC had all female newcasters and did the shows completely naked and fingering themselves. Finance is composed of greedy alpha males who would fucking love it if that happened.
Posted by guest , Jul 16, 2008 2:57PM
re 2:45 - thankfully, no. was smart/lucky enough to escape the legal field and get a job in banking out of law school. the horrors of 1L year however, remain.
Posted by guest , Jul 16, 2008 3:03PM
Guest@2:54pm...
"Naked, female newscasters fingering themselves"...Most certainly, yes.
"Greedy" finance goons = yes.
"Alpha males" = definitely not. Faggots, wimps, ass-licking, pussy-whipped drones would be more like it.
Good post though. I like it.
The Guy from Delaware
Posted by american bandersnatch , Jul 16, 2008 3:26PM
I miss the Other Guy From Delaware. He's much more interesting than the Guy From Delaware. No offense intended.
Posted by guest , Jul 16, 2008 3:29PM
where's the mayo guy
??
Posted by guest , Jul 16, 2008 3:29PM
where's the mayo guy
??
Posted by guest , Jul 16, 2008 3:29PM
where's the mayo guy
??
Posted by guest , Jul 16, 2008 3:41PM
Don't forget to bring a towel
Posted by guest , Jul 16, 2008 5:17PM
btw,,how come we never see any photos of this Chris Carter guy,but many of the Sugarman? does anybody know what this guy looks like?
Posted by guest , Jul 17, 2008 12:00AM
So, the world is collapsing onto itself and everything is bad. But reportage of this magnitude definitely makes me want to turn my computer back on and go for it for another day. As for the guy thrown against the wall... Well, definitely sucks for him, but --- thank you for doing that.
Posted by guest , Jul 17, 2008 3:45PM
I once read about something called "jury nullification," but I forgot what it means. Does anyone know about that?