New York’s highest court on April 25 overturned Harvey Weinstein’s 2020 rape conviction, finding that the judge in the landmark #MeToo trial biased the ex-movie mogul with “blatantly” inappropriate statements, including a decision to let women testify about allegations that were not part of the case.
“We conclude that the trial court improperly admitted testimony of uncharged, alleged prior sexual acts against persons other than the complainants of the underlying crimes,” the court’s 4-3 decision said. “The remedy for these glaring errors is a new trial. .â€
The Supreme Court’s ruling reopens a painful chapter in America’s reckoning with sexual misconduct by powerful figures — an era that began in 2017 with a flood of accusations against Weinstein. His accusers could be forced to relive their traumas on the witness stand.
The majority of the court said: “It is an abuse of judicial discretion to allow untested allegations of nothing more than bad conduct that destroys a suspect’s character but sheds no light on their credibility in connection with the criminal charges have been filed against them.”
“The majority’s determination perpetuates outdated views on sexual violence and allows predators to escape responsibility,” Singas wrote.
Weinstein, 72, is serving a 23-year sentence in a New York prison following his conviction on charges of criminal sexual act for forcibly performing oral sex on a TV and film production assistant in 2006 and third-degree rape for an assault on an aspiring actress in 2013.
He remains imprisoned because he was convicted of another rape in Los Angeles in 2022 and sentenced to 16 years in prison. Weinstein was acquitted in Los Angeles on charges leveled by one of the women who testified in New York.
Weinstein’s lawyers argued that Judge James Burke’s rulings were in favor of the accuser, making the trial a “1-800-GET-HARVEY.”
The overturning of Weinstein’s conviction is the second major #MeToo setback in the past two years, after the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal of a Pennsylvania court decision to overturn Bill Cosby’s sex abuse conviction explain.
Weinstein’s conviction lasted more than four years, was heralded as a landmark case by activists and advocates, but was just as quickly dissected by his lawyers and later by the Court of Appeals when it heard arguments on the case in February.
Accusations against Weinstein, the once powerful and feared studio boss behind Oscar winners like “Pulp Fiction” and “Shakespeare in Love,” sparked the #MeToo movement. Dozens of women came forward to accuse Weinstein, including famous actresses like Ashley Judd and Uma Thurman. His trial in New York was highly publicized, with protesters outside the courthouse chanting “rapist.”
Weinstein is incarcerated in New York at the Mohawk Correctional Facility, about 100 miles northwest of Albany.
He maintains his innocence. He claims that any sexual activity was consensual.
Weinstein attorney Arthur Aidala argued before the appeals court in February that Judge Burke influenced the trial by allowing three women to testify about allegations that were not part of the case and by allowing prosecutors to charge Weinstein, if he had testified, to confront his long history of brutal behavior.
Mr. Aidala argued that the additional testimony went beyond the normally permitted details of motive, opportunity, intent or a common plan or plan, and essentially tried Weinstein for crimes of which he was not accused.
Mr. Weinstein wanted to testify but chose not to because Burke’s ruling would have meant answering questions about more than two dozen alleged acts of misconduct dating back four decades, Mr. Aidala said. These included arguing with his film producer brother, turning over a table in anger, snapping at waiters and shouting at his assistants.
“We had a defendant who begged to tell his side of the story. It’s a matter he said, she said matter, and he says, ‘That’s not how it happened.’ I’ll tell you how I did it,†Mr Aidala argued. Instead, jurors heard evidence of Weinstein’s previous bad behavior that had “nothing to do with truth and veracity.” It was all ‘He’s a bad guy.’
Mr Aidala also took issue with Burke’s refusal to dismiss a juror who had written a novel about predatory older men, a subject the lawyer said was too similar to the issues in Weinstein’s case.
An attorney for the Manhattan district attorney, who prosecuted the case, argued that the judge’s statements were accurate and that the additional evidence and testimony he allowed was important to give jurors context about Weinstein’s conduct and the way he treated women.
“Defendant’s argument was that they were in a consensual and loving relationship both before and after the alleged incidents,” appellate chief Steven Wu argued, referring to one of the women Weinstein was accused of assaulting. The additional testimony “just completely refuted that characterization.”
Wu said Weinstein’s acquittal on the most serious charges — two counts of predatory sexual assault and a first-degree rape charge involving actor Annabella Sciorra’s accusations of a rape in the mid-1990s — showed that jurors were paying attention and they weren’t confused or overwhelmed by the additional testimonials.
The Associated Press does not generally identify people who claim they have been sexually assaulted unless they agree to be named; Sciorra has spoken publicly about her allegations.
The Court of Appeal agreed to hear Weinstein’s case last year after an interim appeals court upheld his conviction. Before their ruling, lower appeals court judges had raised doubts about Burke’s conduct during oral arguments. One of them noted that Burke had allowed prosecutors to proceed with “incredibly damaging testimony” from additional witnesses.
Burke’s term expired at the end of 2022. He has not been reappointed and is no longer a judge.
On appeal, Weinstein’s lawyers demanded a new trial, but only on the sex charges. They argued that the rape charge could not be retried because it involved alleged conduct outside the statute of limitations.
