Racer Found Not Guilty After Ramming Opponent

"SteveLehto" (stevelehto) 11/06/2015 at 07:30 • Filed to: None

4

37

In a case that might make you think of Tony Stewart for some odd reason, a racecar driver in Michigan intentionally crashed into an opponent in what looked like an attempt to kill him. Charged with the felony of assault with a dangerous weapon, a jury found him not guilty.

Lance Gary was drving his car on May 26 at Galesburg Speedway after the race ended and just happened to ram into the car of Matthew Elsey. Gary and Elsey had been feuding on the track and, where else? - Facebook.

So when people saw the “accident” take place, most believed it was no accident. Among other things, Elsey’s car was in the winner’s circle when Gary rammed into it. And since Gary had not won the race, he had no business being there in the first place.

!!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! is a little short on facts but even the defense attorney appears to have admitted it was no accident:

Gary only intended to catch up to Elsey to “bump” him to let him know he wasn’t happy with Elsey’s actions on the track during that day’s race.

The jury apparently accepted that racers are allowed to “bump” one another whenever they feel like it, even after the race and even in the winner’s circle. Maybe you can follow him home and run him over in his driveway?

Hey, I wasn’t there so maybe there’s more to this story. But having practiced law in Michigan for 24 years I can tell you that juries sometimes get cases horribly, horribly wrong.

EDIT: Sorry. I had read a report that Elsey had died. I fixed it. Still a crazy result.

Follow me on Twitter: !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!!

Hear my podcast on iTunes: !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!!

Steve Lehto has been practicing law for 24 years, almost exclusively in consumer protection and !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! He wrote !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! and !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! .

This website may supply general information about the law but it is for informational purposes only. This does not create an attorney-client relationship and is not meant to constitute legal advice, so the good news is we’re not billing you by the hour for reading this. The bad news is that you shouldn’t act upon any of the information without consulting a qualified professional attorney who will, probably, bill you by the hour.

MasterMario - Keeper of the V8s > SteveLehto 11/06/2015 at 07:47

5

This story makes me sad. People need to chill out, things like racing are not worth someone losing their life over . Sure maybe he meant to just bump him, but he did it in something that weighs a ton. I don’t think a jury would let me off if I shot someone with a gun but just meant to scare him.

RacinBob > SteveLehto 11/06/2015 at 07:49

0

Who did he kill?

“ Elsey had pulled into the winner’s circle when Gary sped up his car and intentionally hit Elsey’s car, causing significant damage, the deputy testified. Elsey was not hurt and had to climb out the passenger side of his racecar. “

Rainbow > SteveLehto 11/06/2015 at 07:50

0

Something something “terrible twos.”

But seriously, that’s awful! Hopefully he at least ends up banned from racing again.

SteveLehto > RacinBob 11/06/2015 at 07:52

0

I assume that is a mistake and he meant to say “Gary.”

SteveLehto > Rainbow 11/06/2015 at 07:54

4

He claims that the race track told him he could race now that the jury cleared him. Even though he admitted he did it on purpose. If true, they need to revisit their rules. (He was found not guilty of a crime. He still admitted he rammed another racer in anger.)

450X_FTW > SteveLehto 11/06/2015 at 07:55

6

Seems vehicular manslaughter is OK as long as it’s on a race track. Seriously messed up.

KusabiSensei - Captain of the Toronto Maple Leafs > SteveLehto 11/06/2015 at 07:59

1

But if you replace the car with a semi automatic handgun, he likely would have been convicted.

Juries are fickle things. They get to judge the facts and the law (although they are not told about this right in most states). In fact, they are not told about this, because of situations like this one.

The upside of it is if I ever get a jury summons, there is a good chance I wouldn’t be selected because of my knowledge. Too many variables for a prosecutor to control.

Nauraushaun > MasterMario - Keeper of the V8s 11/06/2015 at 08:01

0

It’s possible to bump someone’s car with another car without hurting them at all. It’s not possible to shoot someone with a gun without hurting them.

Bad comparison. What the guy did probably felt perfectly acceptable in the context of the race. It seems to have gone pear-shaped.

SteveLehto > KusabiSensei - Captain of the Toronto Maple Leafs 11/06/2015 at 08:02

1

Are you referring to jury nullification? Because juries are TOLD specifically that they are not to judge the law. Just the facts.

Here, I suspect it was a bunch of ignorant people who just think that race cars run into each other all the time, even when they are parked and nowhere near the track.

vondon302 > SteveLehto 11/06/2015 at 08:04

1

Just wow and that’s one hard tap from the pictures.

MasterMario - Keeper of the V8s > Nauraushaun 11/06/2015 at 08:12

0

Updated my post, I should have said shoot someone when I meant to scare him (by shooting near him)

Also, this wasn’t even on the track that this happened

jariten1781 > SteveLehto 11/06/2015 at 08:20

0

But having practiced law in Michigan for 24 years I can tell you that juries sometimes get cases horribly, horribly wrong.

I decided not to go into law after working in my father’s firm for 6-ish years. One of the many interesting things I learned was that juries are crazy unpredictable...barely better than the toss of a dice. Worst was when they were given discretion in contributory negligence cases...after watching probably hundreds I still couldn’t figure out where they were going in like 70% of the cases.

SteveLehto > jariten1781 11/06/2015 at 08:23

0

And that’s what I tell my clients. Juries are unpredictable. They can go either way and often go in a direction NO ONE anticipated. I have seen juries give awards that were technically impossible. Best to settle before you get that far.

SnapUndersteer, Italian Spiderman > SteveLehto 11/06/2015 at 08:29

2

Jeez WTF?!?!!

How is that not a premeditated action with intent to harm when it’s done AFTER the checker? The expression is “checkers or wreckers”, not “checkers then wreckers”

TheBloody, Oppositelock lives on in our shitposts. > SteveLehto 11/06/2015 at 08:31

1

Wow, that is seriously mess up. Although I hope the victims family takes everything including the shirt off his back. Any news on the current status of his racing license? I don’t think this guy should every be allowed behind the wheel of a race car ever again.

jariten1781 > SteveLehto 11/06/2015 at 08:46

1

Yep, one of the other partners had a burnt wood plaque at his house by the wet bar that said something akin to “Abandon All Pride and Settle”.

ttyymmnn > SteveLehto 11/06/2015 at 09:06

0

Charged with the felony of assault with a dangerous weapon

I wasn’t on the jury, so there’s no way of knowing how the testimony or the deliberations went. But I do have a question about how juries work in this sort of thing. I know the jury is charged with determing the guilt or innocence of the defendant, but how important is the actual crime he’s charged with? Is it possible for a jury to say, “Well, we’re sure he did it, but we don’t agree with the charge. We can’t convict him of that.” Is that any of the jury’s business? In this case, I can almost imagine the jury saying, “Yeah, we’re sure he meant to hit the other guy, but he didn’t mean to hurt him. That part was just an accident.” That argument doesn’t work in my house when my son breaks a vase with the ball inside the house (after I told him not to play with it) and then says, “I didn’t mean to break it.” My reply is always, “Sure; you didn’t mean to. But the only way to guarantee that you don’t is not to play with it in the house. You’re still guilty, and you have to pay to replace it.”

Berang > SteveLehto 11/06/2015 at 09:09

0

Steve, your title is a bit misleading. Unless the news story you linked is wrong, Elsey was only injured, not killed in the accident.

SteveLehto > ttyymmnn 11/06/2015 at 09:10

0

Yes, and the jury is given all of the definitions and so on. This was an appropriate charge. If I had to guess, the jury decided that race car drivers run into each other all the time and this was not out of the ordinary.

ttyymmnn > SteveLehto 11/06/2015 at 09:13

2

race car drivers run into each other all the time

On the track, sure. But to hit somebody in the winner’s circle would clearly be premeditated, or at least done in the heat of passion. Instead of having a jury of his “peers,” maybe they should have had a jury of race stewards. If I ever get tried for murder, I want a jury of trumpet players to decide my case.

SteveLehto > Berang 11/06/2015 at 09:18

0

I fixed it. I have read conflicting stories on this now and I agree with you. Sorry for the confusion.

You can tell a Finn but you can't tell him much > SteveLehto 11/06/2015 at 09:24

0

The linked article is not exactly clearly written, but it never mentions Matthew Elsey being killed in the incident. At one point it does mention Mr. Elsey testifying during the trial, so I am fairly confident he was not killed.

Sappanos said jurors heard Tuesday from four witnesses called by prosecutors, including Elsey, Elsey’s girlfriend, Galesburg Speedway’s manager and a sheriff’s sergeant.

SteveLehto > You can tell a Finn but you can't tell him much 11/06/2015 at 09:24

0

Yes, I fixed it.

You can tell a Finn but you can't tell him much > SteveLehto 11/06/2015 at 09:30

1

Nice ninja edit. Or else you edited before I finished reading / posting. Allow me to flip you a bird for your troubles.

“RichardPettyRoadrunner” by ckirkman at flickr - http://www.flickr.com/photos/ckirkma… Licensed under CC BY 2.0 via Commons -

SteveLehto > You can tell a Finn but you can't tell him much 11/06/2015 at 09:33

0

Someone else pointed it out a split second before you did.

Love anything in Petty blue.

KusabiSensei - Captain of the Toronto Maple Leafs > SteveLehto 11/06/2015 at 11:56

1

What a jury is told in the instructions from the bench and what they are allowed to do are not the same thing. Unless your position is that John Jay is wrong...

If a jury returns a Not Guilty verdict, and chooses not to speak as to the reasons, who is able to challenge the verdict on anything other than procedural grounds with evidence of a desire to disregard a statute?

I would draw the analogue here to prosecutorial discretion. Just as a prosecutor can decline to prosecute, a jury can decline to convict.

I think society should be skeptical of any time there is not a check on government power.

SteveLehto > KusabiSensei - Captain of the Toronto Maple Leafs 11/06/2015 at 12:28

0

I agree with you. But it is not that they “interpret” the law. It is that they simply choose to rule and cannot be made to answer for their ruling. (Hence, they can do whatever they want, up to disregarding the law entirely.)

The net result is the same.

But many people don’t understand how forcefully the courts (judges) tell the jury: 1) here is the law and 2) you decide only the facts and 3) you are to apply the law to the facts and 4) you must follow the law.

In every state as far as I know, it is absolutely forbidden for anyone to tell the jury that they are free to do whatever the hell they want. Presumably if jurors were told this, we’d get a whole lot fewer convictions.

KusabiSensei - Captain of the Toronto Maple Leafs > SteveLehto 11/06/2015 at 14:51

1

Being very honest with you, I am not completely convinced that (i.e. fewer convictions) would be a bad outcome, considering the state of both the US legal and penal systems right now.

$0.02

KusabiSensei - Captain of the Toronto Maple Leafs > ttyymmnn 11/06/2015 at 14:54

1

I get a jury of choirmasters who can sing in Latin, in that case. :)

tromoly > SteveLehto 11/06/2015 at 16:12

1

Please tell me he’s banned for life from that track.

SteveLehto > tromoly 11/06/2015 at 16:21

0

He claims they told him he is welcome back. If so, the track is run by morons.

TheD0k_2many toys 2little time > SteveLehto 11/06/2015 at 19:11

1

hey i live pretty close to galesburg. Kalamazoo speedway is better though. but thats becuase its pretty much in my backyard

RacinBob > SteveLehto 11/06/2015 at 19:28

0

As I read the article, it may be that Elsey is the preditor here. This wouldn’t be the first time that the “winner” took the other guy out and this is payback. Maybe Elsey is the bad guy in this story.......

“Elsey, himself, pleaded no contest to assault with a dangerous weapon in May 2010 for striking a man with his race car in June 2009. The victim, who was not in a car, suffered a broken tibia and ankle in the incident at the Kalamazoo Speedway, according to Kalamazoo County Circuit Court documents.

Court documents show Elsey, 30, was sentenced in 2010 to one day in jail, placed on probation for five years and ordered to pay court fees and more than $22,000 in restitution. However, he later violated his probation and was jailed for three months in July 2013, according to court records.”

SteveLehto > RacinBob 11/06/2015 at 19:38

0

Irrelevant. You can’t ram someone after the race because of something that happened during the rce.

MFEJAL grey because who knows... > SteveLehto 11/11/2015 at 15:56

1

Remember the time when Villeneuve and Arnoux battle around a track, and then they seal the duel with a handshake.

ronmler3 > SteveLehto 11/14/2015 at 13:12

1

And can’t a judge overturn the jury’s verdict, if he feels it is extremely egregious?

SteveLehto > ronmler3 11/14/2015 at 14:42

0

They can flip a guilty to a non-guilty but not so much the other way around.