New York appeals court reverses 2020 rape conviction of Harvey Weinstein

The highest court in New York has said that Harvey Weinstein’s 2020 rape conviction was not legitimate because the judge had made biased rulings during the trial. The judge allowed women to talk about things that weren’t part of the case, which made it unfair for Weinstein.

The court decided that the trial judge was wrong to allow testimony about alleged previous sexual acts that were not part of the current case. “The solution for these serious mistakes is to have a new trial. ”

The ruling by the state Court of Appeals brings back difficult memories of America dealing with powerful people behaving badly, especially in cases of sexual misconduct. This era started in 2017 with many accusations against Weinstein. The people who are accusing him might have to talk about their bad experiences in court again.

The majority of the court said that it’s not fair to allow unproven claims of bad behavior to ruin a defendant’s reputation without any evidence that it affects their credibility in the criminal charges against them.

Judge Madeline Singas strongly disagreed with the majority. She said that they were ignoring important information to make the case seem like it was just one person’s word against another. She also said that the Court of Appeals had been making a concerning pattern of overturning jury decisions in cases of sexual violence.

Singas wrote that most people’s decision continues old ideas about sexual violence and lets predators avoid being responsible.

Weinstein, who is 72 years old, has been in a New York prison for 23 years. He was found guilty of forcing a TV and film production assistant to have oral sex with him in 2006, and of raping an aspiring actress in 2013.

He was found guilty of another rape in Los Angeles in 2022 and will stay in prison for 16 years. Weinstein was found not guilty in Los Angeles for the charges related to one of the women who testified in New York.

Weinstein’s lawyers said that the judge’s decisions favored the prosecution, making the trial unfair for Harvey.

The decision to overturn Weinstein’s conviction is the second big setback for the #MeToo movement in the last two years, following the U. S reneging on its support. The highest court said no to listening to a request to change a decision made by a Pennsylvania court to cancel Bill Cosby’s conviction for sexual assault.

Weinstein’s conviction was celebrated by activists and advocates as a big win after more than four years. But his lawyers and the Court of Appeals quickly analyzed and discussed the case in February.

Accusations against Weinstein, who was a powerful and well-respected studio boss, led to the start of the #MeToo movement. Many women said that Weinstein did bad things to them, even famous actresses like Ashley Judd and Uma Thurman. His trial in New York got a lot of attention, and people outside the courthouse shouted “rapist. ”

Weinstein is in prison in New York at the Mohawk Correctional Facility, which is about 100 miles northwest of Albany.

He says he didn’t do it. He says that both people agreed to the sexual activity.

Weinstein’s lawyer, Arthur Aidala, said in February in front of the appeals court that Judge Burke influenced the trial by letting three women talk about things that were not part of the case. He also said that the judge gave permission for the prosecutors to question Weinstein about his past bad behavior if he had testified.

Aidala said that the extra testimony included too much information about things like why, how, or when the crime happened, and made it seem like Weinstein was being accused of crimes he didn’t actually do.

Weinstein wanted to speak in court but chose not to because the judge’s decision would have meant he had to answer questions about more than twenty-five incidents of bad behavior that happened forty years ago, according to Aidala. He fought with his brother who makes movies, got angry and flipped a table, yelled at the waiters and assistants.

“We had a person accused of something who really wanted to explain what happened from their point of view. ” It’s a case of one person saying one thing and another person saying something else. He is saying “that’s not how it happened. ” Aidala said, “I’ll explain how I did it. ” Instead, the people deciding in court heard about bad things Weinstein did in the past that didn’t have anything to do with telling the truth. He is a bad person.

Aidala didn’t like that Burke wouldn’t replace a juror who wrote a book about older men who harm others, which Aidala thinks is too similar to Weinstein’s case.

A lawyer from the Manhattan district attorney’s office said that the judge made the right decisions and that the extra evidence and testimony he allowed was important. It was to help the jury understand how Harvey Weinstein behaved and treated women.

“Steven Wu, who is the head lawyer of the appeal, said that the person accused of a crime claimed that they had a loving and agreed upon relationship with the woman they were charged with hurting, both before and after the incidents. ” The new evidence completely disagreed with that description.

Wu stated that Weinstein’s not-guilty verdict on the most serious charges meant that the jurors were listening carefully and were not confused or overwhelmed by the other evidence presented.

The Associated Press usually does not say the names of people who claim they were sexually attacked unless they agree; Sciorra has talked openly about what she says happened to her.

Last year, the Court of Appeals decided to review Weinstein’s case after another appeals court confirmed his conviction. Before making their decision, judges on the lower court questioned if Burke behaved properly during the spoken arguments. One noticed that Burke allowed prosecutors to bring in very biased testimony from more witnesses.

Burke’s means belonging to or related to someone named Burke.