FILE – Harvey Weinstein arrives at a Manhattan courthouse for his rape trial in New York on Feb. 24, 2020. On Monday, Dec. 19, 2022, Weinstein was found guilty of rape at a Los Angeles trial, 5 years after he became a focal point for the #MeToo movement. (AP Photo/John Minchillo, File)
After Harvey Weinstein's 2020 rape conviction, the highest court in New York found significant errors made by the trial court, leading to the need for a new trial.
The New York Court of Appeals, the state's top court (not the New York Supreme Court, the trial court), concluded in a 4-3 decision that the trial court wrongly allowed testimony of uncharged prior sexual acts against people other than the complainants, which served no material non-propensity purpose. Molineux The decision stated that the trial court compounded the error by allowing the defendant to be cross-examined about those allegations and other instances of misconduct, which prejudiced the defendant's character.
The majority stated that the serious errors could be rectified only by a new trial.
The majority explained that the mistakes could only be fixed with a new trial.
According to the ruling, these errors undermined the defendant's right to testify and negatively impacted the jury's perception of the defendant's character.
Weinstein's appeal raised concerns about prejudicial testimony being improperly admitted into evidence and resulting in a 23-year sentence for sexually assaulting Jessica Mann and Mimi Haleyi. The dissenting judges, however, criticized the majority for a significant error, calling the decision a step backward from recent advancements in understanding sex crimes and victims' responses. The dissent criticized the majority for not understanding the importance of credibility evidence in a case where the defendant claims to have had consent and the accusers are lying. The dissent accused the majority of failing to grasp the importance of credibility evidence in a case where the defendant is trying to convince the jury of his innocence. Weinstein was separately convicted of sexual assault in Los Angeles last year and received a 16-year sentence. The dissenters in the New York Court of Appeals accused the majority of making a grave error, endangering decades of progress in law. The dissenting judges accused the majority of making a grave error and endangering decades of progress in law.
The dissent criticized the majority for not understanding the importance of credibility evidence in a case where the defendant claims to have had consent and the accusers are lying.
The dissent criticized the majority for not understanding the importance of credibility evidence in a case where the defendant is trying to convince the jury of his innocence. Molineux The dissent criticized the majority for not understanding the importance of credibility evidence in a case where the defendant claims to have had consent and the accusers are lying.
Law&Crime contacted a spokesman for Weinstein for comment.
Read the 4-3 decision of the New York Court of Appeals. here.