New York Appeals Court Overturns Harvey Weinstein’s 2020 Rape Conviction
Law lesson: Only call witnesses relevant to the charges in the case.
Law lesson: Only call witnesses relevant to the charges in the case.
The State of New York Court of Appeals overturned Harvey Weinstein’s 2020 rape conviction because the judge allowed testimony from women not connected to the charges.
Weinstein claimed the court judged him on “irrelevant, prejudicial, and untested allegations of prior bad acts.”
The appeals court agreed:
We conclude that the trial court erroneously admitted testimony of uncharged, alleged prior sexual acts against persons other than the complainants of the underlying crimes because that testimony served no material non-propensity purpose. The court compounded that error when it ruled that defendant, who had no criminal history, could be cross examined about those allegations as well as numerous allegations of misconduct that portrayed defendant in a highly prejudicial light. The synergistic effect of these errors was not harmless. The only evidence against defendant was the complainants’ testimony, and the result of the court’s rulings, on the one hand, was to bolster their credibility and diminish defendant’s character before the jury. On the other hand, the threat of a cross-examination highlighting these untested allegations undermined defendant’s right to testify. The remedy for these egregious errors is a new trial.
Weinstein received 23 years for “forcing oral sex on TV and film production assistant Mimi Haley in 2006 and third-degree rape of hairstylist Jessica Mann in 2013.”
Weinstein became the face of the #MeToo movement when a bunch of Hollywood ladies took him out with a huge expose in The New York Times.
The trial court jury acquitted Weinstein “of first-degree rape and two counts of predatory sexual assault from actor Annabella Sciorra’s allegations of rape in the ’90s.”
The court heavily cited People v. Molineux, a case decided in 1901. The prosecution used evidence implying Roland Molineux committed an earlier crime. Molineux’s attorneys appealed and the State of New York Court of Appeals overturned the conviction:
How different is our own common law, which is the product of all the wisdom and humanity of all the ages. Under it the accused comes into a court of justice, panoplied in the presumption of innocence, which shields him until his guilt is established beyond a reasonable doubt. His general character can be thrown into the balance by no one but himself. The incidents of his life, not connected with the crime charged, are his sacred possession. He faces his accuser in the light of a distinct charge, with the assurance that no other will be, or can be, proved against him.
The case resulted in the Molineux rule known as 4.21. Evidence of Crimes and Wrongs (Molineux):
(1) Evidence of crimes, wrongs, or other acts committed by a person is not admissible to prove that the person acted in conformity therewith on a particular occasion or had a propensity to engage in a wrongful act or acts. This evidence may be admissible when it is more probative than prejudicial to prove, for example:
motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, common scheme or plan, knowledge, identity, absence of mistake or accident, or conduct that is inextricably interwoven with the charged acts; or to provide necessary background information or explanation; or to complete the narrative of the subject event or matter.
(2) In a criminal proceeding, where the defendant interposes a defense, the People on rebuttal may prove the defendant’s commission of other crimes or wrongs when such crimes or wrongs are relevant and probative to disprove the defense.
Sorry. Law nerd. I blame law school.
The appeals court reaffirmed “that no person accused of illegality may be judged on proof of uncharged crimes that serve only to establish the accused’s propensity for criminal behavior.”
I love the conclusion: “The trial court’s ruling ran afoul of these time-honored rules of evidence.”
Judge Singas dissented, arguing the majority’s ruling “perpetuates outdated notions of sexual violence and allows predators to escape accountability.”
Except…the Molineux Rule is based on a case of a man convicted of MURDER. So, the courts cannot apply the rule in sexual cases? Is that what Singas is claiming?
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
The “best” part was DA alvie bragg saying he was going to go after hv and this ruling
OHHH THE IRONY
AS the same braggg allows female beaters out on no bail etc etc
so again braggs racism shows through
and please indict the lefty hollywood females who allowed this hv to reign supreme
This will be the result of the Trump trial if there is a conviction also.
Not if, but when and even though this will be over turned that won’t happen until we’ll after November this year.
Not sure about that on appeal. I get the sense Judge Merchan is trying to be unreversable, while doing absolutely everything within that limit to convict Trump. Jury selection? Apparently he allowed very few challenges for cause from Trump’s lawyers — but that’s unlikely to cause a reversal. Access Hollywood tape that proves nothing and everyone knows about anyway? Kept it out “too prejudicial”.
Somehow there are two lefty lawyers on the jury. Usually lawyers are not on the jury. These are lawyers who will interrupt anyone who wants to bring common sense to the deliberations, and tell them they aren’t following the law.
Merchan is going for conviction and having it stick. On a charge that shouldn’t have even been dreamed up.
Democrats need a conviction as they have nothing else to campaign on.
The conviction is all that matters here and an appeal years down the line will be far to late as the conviction will have achieved exactly what Democrats need, something to campaign on.
It doesn’t matter whether a Judge is trying to make the conviction unappealable. That is neither here nor there simply because the appeal process will happen after November, long after the intellectual Pygmies of the left have forgotten about the case.
That’s not true. Lawyers are subject to jury duty just like everyone else, and routinely are selected for juries. A party might try to keep them off by challenges, if it likes, but it will soon run out of those.
Yeah, as a retired cop, I faithfully showed up for jury duty – but was quickly dismissed. In one case, the defense attorney ran out of challenges and so I was selected – but the case then settled overnight…
Exactly. This is the type of “evidence” that “Justice” Merchan is allowing in the form of the National Enquirer catch-and-kill testimony and Lord only knows what type of cross-ex of Trump will be permitted. I second-chaired prosecutions of police corruption in that courthouse 45 years ago – the judges kept the prosecutors on the straight-and-narrow and could allow common scheme and prior bad act testimony only under rare circumstances. Glad to see the Dem-laden Court of Appeals uphold the law here.
But likely not in time to matter. Appeals of criminal convictions notoriously take years, and Trump’s first stop is a NY appeals court, which is not likely to overturn any conviction of Trump. Even if it was inclined to overturn it I think they’re too biased to act with appropriate haste. I think they would draw it out on their calendar as long as possible to ensure Trump cannot serve as President this term, and hope they are saved by him dying in prison of old age, or perhaps violence.
I’d certainly vote for Trump if he’s sent to prison. I have a lot of qualms about him and I’d only probably vote for him if he’s not, but if he’s in prison, I think it’s vital that he’s elected.
The sickness of this country has to be faced, not avoided. And what’s happened to Trump is sick.
Trump isn’t going to prison even if convicted here. The Secret Service would never allow for that, which is why Dems are trying to revoke his SS protection.
The final leftist stake through the heart of the women’s movement.
“Me too” has become a sarcastic “boo hoo.”
How is it such obvious error gets by the trial level?
Oh, right…
Isn’t this the sane thing happening with Braggs first witness?? Who seems totally irrelevant to the hush money crime supposedly carried out by OMB??
Did anyone explain that “law lesson” to judge Juan Merchan?
He and Ron Jeremy were railroaded. Just 2 victimized handsome playboys.
Weinstein? Handsome? He looks exactly like a pig human
I think you are missing the sarc
I guess you haven’t met any women who judge a man solely by his wallet. As long as the ugly rich guys get the hot shallow women, the human race will remain at 50% attractive, just sayin.
And < 90 IQs.
Fat, dumb, and full of C’mon! is no way to go through life.
Please don’t look in a mirror.
Reminds me of how Bill Cosby dodged rape charges because prosecutors used testimony illegally.
Unserious people cannot prosecute serious cases, least of all high profile cases with wealthy defendants.
These are basic rules of criminal evidence that protect street criminals and drug dealers as well. The nature of white collar crime, where the criminality of conduct is not as blatant as a stabbing or drug sale, invites prosecutors to circumvent those rules by “creative” theories,
This is the irony of going after Trump. They can only persuade incompetent people to do it, because a competent attorney will look at the case and see it for what it is, so the incompetent person goes for it as a chance to get ahead, and in the end succeeds only in exposing their own incompetence and (in the case of Fanny) their own conflict(s) of interest and likely criminal conduct. We are entering a new era where being black, female, and stupid is no longer an acceptable defense to one’s actions. The future isn’t looking too bright for that group of college presidents as well.
Fani Willis has breeding hips and should have spent her days barefoot, pregnant, and on welfare. She’s too militant and stupid to be in the job she’s in.
Says the asshole pedophile who has never commented anything but nastiness.
Go fuck yourself.
I am hoping that you come down with a fatal disease that leads ti a long and painful death.
We all laugh at Fani Willis but she seems to have got the judge in her pocket and to be winning the case.
Let’s not underestimate how extreme and dangerous the rot in this country is. Everything is not OK. Very little is OK. There isn’t much connective tissue left.
The Danny Masterson trial was in a different state obviously. But, there were several ‘prior bad acts’ witnesses who were allowed to testify at that trial as well. I wonder how that might impact his appellate strategy.
The strength of that Masterson case was significantly less than the overall strength of the state’s case against Weinstein. In fact, I’m not sure why prosecutors chose to use those witnesses. They weren’t really necessary. Weinstein would have certainly been convicted without that testimony. Dumb move by prosecution.
When defendants are tried by the media, the story must be sensationalized. That can’t happen unless fiction is amply applied.
You are correct. The case was strong enough that these superfluous witnesses were not needed.
More is not always better.
Wait – I have zero sympathy for this F-ing pig, but this was a 4-3 decision? Three appeals judges said it was just fine that the trial court judge tipped the scales?
Oh, of course. After reading the emotional nonsense disguised as a legal dissent (the media calls it “scathing”!), I get it.
It will only get worse.
Nice knowing you, America.
We have become a judicial system built on trial by opinion at this point.
Or trial by threat of mob actions. Cough, George Floyd, cough.
Nice city you have there. It would be a shame if it burned down.
Ah, but an opinion implies actual thought, analysis, logic.
What we have here are feelinz. Simple (in every sense of the word) reactions to emotive agitprop.
do they intend to retry ..
Yeah, that’s my question, too. Or will he suddenly be found to “have suffered enough?”
Now free Ron Jeremy while your at it!
I believe Ron is suffering from dementia and is in a memory care facility
Wait a minute. If the evidence of uncharged allegations was not presented during trial, could a jury have still returned a guilty verdict based on the other evidence?
I thought the standard when appealing is showing that no reasonable jury would have returned a guilty verdict without the prejudicial evidence.
What say you, LI?
I am not a lawyer, and in this case that probably really matters. But it seems to me that is a hard determination for an appeals court to make. Now the appeals court becomes a trier of fact in determining whether the remaining evidence was sufficient? Maybe it wasn’t.
After all my impression is that Weinstein ran a casting couch for consenting adults, and they consented actively, greedily, for that fame and fortune Weinstein offered. And that isn’t rape. Maybe for this reason, they reversed and gave the prosecution to try again, with only relevant evidence this time, before a proper factfinding jury.
No, that’s not the standard for all appeals.
That is the standard for one particular grounds for appeal, of which there are many.
Evidence class said that character evidence is admissible to prove the defendant had a pattern of behavior only in sexual crimes cases. This was a result of the feminist lobby of the 90s. NY appears to have applied a limitation.
I’m not sure a new trial is the right remedy. The jury pool is surely irremediably tainted by sensationalist media coverage and their own knowledge of the struck off testimony.
That’s not Weinstein’s problem. If he gets “lucky” because of it, he certainly had enough bad luck before it.
“Judge Singas dissented, arguing the majority’s ruling “perpetuates outdated notions of sexual violence and allows predators to escape accountability.”
Except…the Molineux Rule is based on a case of a man convicted of MURDER. So, the courts cannot apply the rule in sexual cases? Is that what Singas is claiming?”
Close. This is a particular category of crime for which The Enlightened Righteous get to rewrite the rules ad hoc so judgements come out right, They are free, nay required, to do this because they are on a mission from Gaia.
Or as Dingy Harry Reed said when confronted about his pee-election smear that Romney didn’t pay any taxes: “He lost, right?”
Today’ Democrats are either on a mission from Gaia or a mission from Gaza.
It’s amazing how little difference one letter makes.
Will old harvey’s health suddenly improve?/sarc
John Adams said that the US Constitution was made for a “moral and religious people” , and would work for none other. We are watching an immoral and irreligious people engaging in the art of self-destruction on all sides.
We were lost as a nation long before teachers were told that they’d better regard the Bruce Jenners and Richard Levines as being “women” as much as their own mothers, wives, and sisters.