Henry Weinstein Conviction Overturned
- Thread starter Jules
- Start date
Jules
SF VIP
From CNN
“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 ruling, written by Judge Jenny Rivera, states.
“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.”
“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 ruling, written by Judge Jenny Rivera, states.
“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.”
hollydolly
SF VIP
- Location
- London England
...has had his New York rape and sexual assault convictions overturned.
The New York Court of Appeals ruled that the disgraced movie producer did not receive a fair trial when he was convicted in 2020.
It is unclear if the bombshell ruling will free him from prison, as he still has another conviction in Los Angeles for a separate rape.
Weinstein has been serving 23 years in a New York jail for the two sex attacks against aspiring actress Jessica Mann and production assistant Mimi Haley. He was handed a further 16 years following his conviction in LA in 2022.
His team in California is appealing the decision and should that be overturned, he could walk free until the new trial.
Weinstein became the face of the #MeToo movement after dozens of women came forward alleging sexual abuse. The ruling on Thursday was described as 'a major step back' by his accusers.
Weinstein's lawyer hailed the decision as, 'not just a victory for Mr Weinstein, but for every criminal defendant in the state of New York'.
'We compliment the court of appeals for upholding the most basic principles that a criminal defendant should have in a trial,' he told the outlet.
In a 4-3 decision, the New York court determined that the original trial judge had made an error in allowing women to testify who were not part of the case.
'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,' the decision read.
'It is an abuse of judicial discretion to permit untested allegations of nothing more than bad behavior that destroys a defendant's character but sheds no light on their credibility as related to the criminal charges lodged against them.'
A new trial has been ordered which could see accusers take to the stand once again.
Weinstein, 72, was jailed in New York for the two attacks in 2006 and 2013.
Harvey Weinstein's New York rape conviction is overturned
The New York Court of Appeals ruled that the disgraced movie producer did not receive a fair trial when he was convicted in 2020.
It is unclear if the bombshell ruling will free him from prison, as he still has another conviction in Los Angeles for a separate rape.
Weinstein has been serving 23 years in a New York jail for the two sex attacks against aspiring actress Jessica Mann and production assistant Mimi Haley. He was handed a further 16 years following his conviction in LA in 2022.
His team in California is appealing the decision and should that be overturned, he could walk free until the new trial.
Weinstein became the face of the #MeToo movement after dozens of women came forward alleging sexual abuse. The ruling on Thursday was described as 'a major step back' by his accusers.
Weinstein's lawyer hailed the decision as, 'not just a victory for Mr Weinstein, but for every criminal defendant in the state of New York'.
'We compliment the court of appeals for upholding the most basic principles that a criminal defendant should have in a trial,' he told the outlet.
In a 4-3 decision, the New York court determined that the original trial judge had made an error in allowing women to testify who were not part of the case.
'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,' the decision read.
'It is an abuse of judicial discretion to permit untested allegations of nothing more than bad behavior that destroys a defendant's character but sheds no light on their credibility as related to the criminal charges lodged against them.'
A new trial has been ordered which could see accusers take to the stand once again.
Weinstein, 72, was jailed in New York for the two attacks in 2006 and 2013.
Harvey Weinstein's New York rape conviction is overturned
Remy
Well-known Member
- Location
- California, USA
Die in jail or get out too old to do anything. He was married to that one judge on Project Runway. I don't know if she divorced him. She's very attractive and was with that individual. Money? I don't get it.
hollydolly
SF VIP
- Location
- London England
Of course Money... same with my husband.. the 20 something thing he went off with, wouldn't have looked at him twice if he didn't have money and status !
Last edited:
I agree with this conviction being overturned. I live in NY, heard the trial and everything surrounding it and I agree. Don't agree with the Perp, but I feel the Rule of Law for this trial was not followed strictly and was over sensationalized.
'It is an abuse of judicial discretion to permit untested allegations of nothing more than bad behavior that destroys a defendant's character but sheds no light on their credibility as related to the criminal charges lodged against them.'
That's what I saw too. The law must be followed. For everyone.
'It is an abuse of judicial discretion to permit untested allegations of nothing more than bad behavior that destroys a defendant's character but sheds no light on their credibility as related to the criminal charges lodged against them.'
That's what I saw too. The law must be followed. For everyone.
Murrmurr
SF VIP
- Location
- Sacramento, California
I doubt he will be released, but if he is he'll be placed on felony probation, probably with electronic monitoring.
The decision was based on the Rules Of Evidence and their relevance. A new trial has been ordered.
In part:
For example, the Molineux Court noted, as far back as Coleman v People, the Court had
explained:
“ ‘The general rule is against receiving evidence of another offence. A person
cannot be convicted of one offence upon proof that [they] committed another,
however persuasive in a moral point of view such evidence may be. It would
be easier to believe a person guilty of one crime if it was known that [they]
had committed another of a similar character, or, indeed, of any character;
but the injustice of such a rule in courts of justice is apparent. It would lead
to convictions, upon the particular charge made, by proof of other acts in no
way connected with it, and to uniting evidence of several offences to produce
conviction for a single one’ ” (id. at 292, quoting 55 NY 81, 90 [1873]).
The Court also observed that, the following decade in People v Sharp, Judge Peckham
observed in a separate opinion that “ ‘[t]he general rule is that when a [person] is put upon
trial for one offense [they are] to be convicted, if at all, by evidence which shows that [they
are] guilty of that offense alone, and that, under ordinary circumstances, proof of [their]
guilt of one or a score of other offenses in [their] lifetime is wholly excluded’ ” (id., quoting
107 NY 427, 467 [1887] [Peckham, J.]). The Molineux Court recalled that, a few years
later, Judge Peckham authored the majority opinion in People v Shea explaining:
“ ‘The impropriety of giving evidence showing that the accused had been
guilty of other crimes merely for the purpose of thereby inferring [their] guilt
of the crime for which [they are] on trial may be said to have been assumed
and consistently maintained by the English courts ever since the common
law has itself been in existence.
In part:
For example, the Molineux Court noted, as far back as Coleman v People, the Court had
explained:
“ ‘The general rule is against receiving evidence of another offence. A person
cannot be convicted of one offence upon proof that [they] committed another,
however persuasive in a moral point of view such evidence may be. It would
be easier to believe a person guilty of one crime if it was known that [they]
had committed another of a similar character, or, indeed, of any character;
but the injustice of such a rule in courts of justice is apparent. It would lead
to convictions, upon the particular charge made, by proof of other acts in no
way connected with it, and to uniting evidence of several offences to produce
conviction for a single one’ ” (id. at 292, quoting 55 NY 81, 90 [1873]).
The Court also observed that, the following decade in People v Sharp, Judge Peckham
observed in a separate opinion that “ ‘[t]he general rule is that when a [person] is put upon
trial for one offense [they are] to be convicted, if at all, by evidence which shows that [they
are] guilty of that offense alone, and that, under ordinary circumstances, proof of [their]
guilt of one or a score of other offenses in [their] lifetime is wholly excluded’ ” (id., quoting
107 NY 427, 467 [1887] [Peckham, J.]). The Molineux Court recalled that, a few years
later, Judge Peckham authored the majority opinion in People v Shea explaining:
“ ‘The impropriety of giving evidence showing that the accused had been
guilty of other crimes merely for the purpose of thereby inferring [their] guilt
of the crime for which [they are] on trial may be said to have been assumed
and consistently maintained by the English courts ever since the common
law has itself been in existence.
Murrmurr
SF VIP
- Location
- Sacramento, California
It is horrible. That trial was expensive and important, and the judge blew it by allowing irrelevant (legally), inflammatory testimony.
VintageBetter
Member
This made me very sad. I feel very sad for his victims.
fuzzybuddy
SF VIP
Sadly, the poor stay in prison, the rich get "overturned".
VaughanJB
Scrappy VIP
His life is all but over. He will never walk out of the shadow of his actions. We must respect the law, and sometimes the process goes wrong. Still procedural issues like this take none of the guilt away. Like OJ before him, there will be no forgiveness, no happy ending, regardless is where he breathes his next, or last, breath.
OneEyedDiva
SF VIP
- Location
- New Jersey
He still has to serve time for another crime. But I'll bet the victims in this case are sick to their stomachs. And people wonder why it is so hard for women to come forward. It's a shame that the case was not handled properly and this was allowed to happen. #Me Too. This is from an article about the overturned convction:
".....the ruling does not spring Weinstein from prison.
Weinstein remains behind bars because he was also convicted in 2022 of rape in a Los Angeles court and sentenced to 16 years in prison.
It's a shame that the case was not handled properly and this was allowed to happen. #Me Too. This is from an article about the overturned convction:".....the ruling does not spring Weinstein from prison.
Weinstein remains behind bars because he was also convicted in 2022 of rape in a Los Angeles court and sentenced to 16 years in prison.
Murrmurr
SF VIP
- Location
- Sacramento, California
There will be only 2 results from a new trial - it'll chew up valuable court time, and it'll make the defense attorney richer.
But it is Weinstein's right, and it is protected under the Constitution.
Brookswood
Senior Member
OK, gals. At The minimum, get ready to do the “twirl” again if you want a job in show business.
What a corrupt, sexist, racist, disgusting business is the entertainment industry.
What a corrupt, sexist, racist, disgusting business is the entertainment industry.
VintageBetter
Member
@OneEyedDiva Yup. People still say, "Why don't women make an outcry when these things happen!?"
It's all part of the "What America needs is tougher, smarter victims" theory of law. It's also blame-the-victims rhetoric. When society blames the victims for not being louder, smarter, stronger, knowing the laws of the land, then society doesn't have to take a long, hard, piercing look at itself.
I don't know about your high school, but there was not a PEEP of basic law taught in mine as a required course and I don't think any legal class was required of my kids either.
Nowadays I believe a Basic Economics course is required in high school, to teach good ol' capitalism (which did so well in America partly because past generations exploited the free labor of a a minority race, and of women, for two centuries), but I don't think a basic Constitutional Law class is required.
And the thing is, when you live in a society that ignores you, you do begin to realize that over the years. You learn your place. It's just like a bad marriage - you learn your role, your place in the hierarchy of things, and you also know that if you dare to keep what you have, you cannot rock the boat.
Hollywood is a dysfunctional system all its own and believe me, women know their places there. They go along with the unwritten rules (like, one rule is don't piss off a powerful man or you will never work again) because they are trying to get hired to work.
Mira Sorvino, a really good actor, was put on Weinstein's blacklist I believe because she wouldn't meet with him for one of these sordid hotel meetings? She was on the A-list for a while, starred in a very funny film, Romy & Michele's High School Reunion, Roger Ebert gave it 3 of 4 stars.
After that she kind of disappeared into small role purgatory. When all the Weinstein stories were coming out, that's when I'd heard on one of the entertainment shows that she had been unofficially blacklisted by Weinstein because she would not "play".
Her father, Paul Sorvino, was a strong character actor with a very long career - one of those guys you've seen in a hundred things.
ANYWAY - don't tell us, establishment, this is not how life works in oh so many fields. People, male or female, don't want to piss off their powerful bosses lest they never work again.
Even in retirement - how many of us would talk trash IN PUBLIC about former employers? Some would, but others might remain silent because we know the bosses' supporters will shout us down. Free speech ain't free, regardless of what the laws of the land say.
It's all part of the "What America needs is tougher, smarter victims" theory of law. It's also blame-the-victims rhetoric. When society blames the victims for not being louder, smarter, stronger, knowing the laws of the land, then society doesn't have to take a long, hard, piercing look at itself.
I don't know about your high school, but there was not a PEEP of basic law taught in mine as a required course and I don't think any legal class was required of my kids either.
Nowadays I believe a Basic Economics course is required in high school, to teach good ol' capitalism (which did so well in America partly because past generations exploited the free labor of a a minority race, and of women, for two centuries), but I don't think a basic Constitutional Law class is required.
And the thing is, when you live in a society that ignores you, you do begin to realize that over the years. You learn your place. It's just like a bad marriage - you learn your role, your place in the hierarchy of things, and you also know that if you dare to keep what you have, you cannot rock the boat.
Hollywood is a dysfunctional system all its own and believe me, women know their places there. They go along with the unwritten rules (like, one rule is don't piss off a powerful man or you will never work again) because they are trying to get hired to work.
Mira Sorvino, a really good actor, was put on Weinstein's blacklist I believe because she wouldn't meet with him for one of these sordid hotel meetings? She was on the A-list for a while, starred in a very funny film, Romy & Michele's High School Reunion, Roger Ebert gave it 3 of 4 stars.
After that she kind of disappeared into small role purgatory. When all the Weinstein stories were coming out, that's when I'd heard on one of the entertainment shows that she had been unofficially blacklisted by Weinstein because she would not "play".
Her father, Paul Sorvino, was a strong character actor with a very long career - one of those guys you've seen in a hundred things.
ANYWAY - don't tell us, establishment, this is not how life works in oh so many fields. People, male or female, don't want to piss off their powerful bosses lest they never work again.
Even in retirement - how many of us would talk trash IN PUBLIC about former employers? Some would, but others might remain silent because we know the bosses' supporters will shout us down. Free speech ain't free, regardless of what the laws of the land say.
Same with Ashley Judd who refused to play his game. I don't think it's victim blaming to say I admire these two women and think how quickly Weinstein would have been out of the business if all the women had done the same.
I'm glad he's in prison for the separate rape case, but I agree that this particular case was handled badly.
I was propositioned a lot when I was young. I was supporting myself and my son with no child support or help of any kind, but when a customer would put his hand on my knee while looking at his loan together I didn't hesitate to look him in the eye and say, "Don't touch me," before going back to the loan. Sometimes these men were colonels or generals and not used to that, but none ever tried to get me fired. When even younger, I worked in places like K-Mart and sometimes managers would try something out. I walked off two jobs when that happened. I always got another job the next day.
When you're willing to take low paying jobs, or make a change, you really don't have to put up with as much as you might think. Powerful men usually have better things to do than follow the career of someone who rejected them. In Ashley and Mira's case he did follow up to try to ruin them, but they have their self-respect and I think that means so much more than any particular part in a movie.
We do have freedom of speech, but we must have the courage to use it. There's a lot of talk these days about "Girl Power" and women describing themselves as "strong," but it should be more than words.
Last edited:
VintageBetter
Member
I was just speaking generally - that so many in media and outside of media say stuff like, "Why didn't the victims speak up sooner?" as if ALL communities are kind, caring, well-informed, unbiased, advocacy communities. Ha!
If America were kind, caring, well-informed, unbiased, or advocacy-based, we'd have zero homelessness.
If America were kind, caring, well-informed, unbiased, or advocacy-based, we'd have zero homelessness.
At his age he might. I see lots of seniors with walkers all the time.