The New York conviction of Harvey Weinstein is overturned

The women were dubbed Molineux witnesses, a term used to describe trial witnesses who are permitted to testify regarding crimes for which the accused has not been prosecuted. Judge Jenny Rivera, who authored the majority opinion, stated that allowing this kind of testimony in Mr. Weinstein’s case had unjustly caused the defendant to be “diminished before the jury.”. “.

Many legal analysts were not surprised by the verdict, which came four years after Mr. Weinstein was found guilty of raping an actress and forcing an assistant to have oral sex. Some had questioned whether the prosecution had overreached themselves in trying to persuade the jury.

Defendants should only be judged on the charges against them, the court concluded in its ruling, a fundamental premise of criminal trials that had been broken by the prosecution and Justice Burke.

These are the court’s ruling’s five main conclusions:.

The court mentioned “severe mistakes.”. “.

The court ruled that the use of Molineux witnesses and the prosecutors’ revelation that they would question Mr. Weinstein about numerous charges of other crimes and obnoxious, frightening behavior if he took the stand in his own defense had undermined the fairness of the trial.

In the Sandoval hearing, which preceded the trial, Justice Burke agreed to allow the prosecution to question Mr. Weinstein regarding 28 charges, which included assaulting his brother with physical force, threatening to use gardening shears to cut off a colleague’s genitalia, tossing a table full of food, and yelling and swearing at hotel restaurant employees when they informed him that the kitchen was closed.

During oral arguments before the Court of Appeals in February, Mr. Weinstein’s attorney, Arthur Aidala, stated that despite his desire to testify in his own defense, he was unable to do so due to the threat.

The court did agree in its majority opinion.

Judge Rivera stated that the defendant’s right to testify was “undermined by the threat of a cross-examination highlighting these untested allegations.”. A fresh trial is necessary to address these heinous mistakes. “.

Three judges dissented, harshly criticizing the majority.

The three judges are Michael J., Anthony Cannataro, and Madeline Singas. In two brutal opinions, Garcia dissented, charging that the majority was carrying on “a disturbing trend of overturning juries’ guilty verdicts in cases involving sexual violence.”. “.

Judges said that the evidence Mr. Weinstein had demonstrated a pattern of coercion and manipulation—something that the Molineux witnesses had proven—had been disregarded by the court.

According to Judge Singas, the decision will make it more difficult to call these witnesses in sexual assault cases down the road.

“Today’s ruling will benefit men who repeatedly and sexually abuse their dominance over women, particularly the weakest segments of society,” the author stated.

The prosecution’s additional witnesses, according to Judge Cannataro, had contributed to dispelling the widespread belief that a sexual assault always involves “the stereotypical stranger in a dark alley who isolates his victim or waits for her to be alone before launching a violent assault.”. “.

The case clearly caused tension among the court, evident in a series of back-and-forth statements between the judges, with the majority defending itself against the dissenters’ claims that the ruling weakened the ability of accusers to push their cases through the criminal court system.

A portion of Judge Singas’s dissent was referenced by Judge Rivera in her writing, “We do not’shut eyes to the enduring effect of rape culture on notions of consent, and intent.”. In contrast, our analysis is based on the defendant’s constitutional rights to a fair trial and the presumption of innocence, which are in line with our judicial obligations. “.

Activists and victims are heartbroken but unwavering.

One of the Molineux witnesses who testified against Mr. Weinstein, Dawn Dunning, claimed that she was asked if she regretted testifying following the decision.

In a statement, she said, “My answer is a resounding no.”. “I am a stronger person for having done this, and I am aware that by confronting Weinstein in public with other survivors, other women discovered bravery and strength as well. There is no turning back from the way the culture has evolved. “.

She inspired Alvin L., as did others. District Attorney Bragg of Manhattan to take the case back. Trial under Cyrus R. Vance Jr. was held in 2020. the former Mr. Dot Bragg. Mr. Bragg announced via a spokeswoman that he would give the case another go.

Ashley Judd, the first actress to publicly make accusations against Harvey Weinstein, described the announcement as “unfair to survivors.”. “.

She remarked, “We still live in our truth.”. “And we are aware of what transpired. “.

Mrs. Judd made an appearance on Thursday at a hurriedly scheduled press conference on the 29th floor of the Millennium Hilton in Midtown, alongside a number of other activists and survivors of sexual assault.

MeToo founder Tarana Burke stated that one of the movement’s main objectives is to persuade the legal system to treat cases of sexual assault with greater gravity. Burke described this process as “long, strategic, and thoughtful.”. “.

“The problem with survivors is that there are a lot of us,” the speaker stated. The fact that there are so many survivors is a plus, though. “.

Alright, Mr. California upheld Weinstein’s conviction.

Mr. Weinstein, whose lawyer is Mr. Aidala, was serving a 23-year sentence at Mohawk Correctional Facility in upstate New York when he was informed of the decision, according to someone at the prison showing him a news report about the ruling.

Just after ten in the morning, he spoke with Mr. Aidala. me. shortly after the decision was made.

Dear Mr. Mr. Weinstein, according to Aidala, “wasn’t emotional, like crying,” but he was “very gracious, very grateful.”. “.

Even with the conviction overturned, Mr. Weinstein is not a free man. In California, a jury found him guilty in 2022 of raping a woman in a Beverly Hills hotel, and he is currently serving a 16-year sentence. After his sentence in New York, he was supposed to serve that term. He may now be moved to California, but more likely he will be moved from state prison to the New York City jail complex known as Rikers Island while he awaits Mr. Bragg’s decision regarding whether to request a new trial.

Still, he’ll file an appeal shortly.

Mr. Weinstein’s California attorney, Jennifer Bonjean, stated following Thursday’s ruling that she anticipated the decision would support her client when he files an appeal of his May 20 conviction.

Forcible oral copulation, forcible rape, and sexual battery by restraint were the charges that a Los Angeles Superior Court jury couldn’t decide on in December 2022. The allegations made by Governor’s wife and documentary filmmaker Jennifer Siebel Newsom were the basis for those charges. Californian Gavin Newsom and model/screenwriter Lauren Young.

However, on three other counts—rape, forced oral sex, and sexual penetration—involving an Italian actress who testified that Weinstein had attacked her in a hotel room in 2013, the jury found Weinstein guilty. A single count of sexual battery against a massage therapist was dropped from Mr. Weinstein’s case by the jury.

Prosecutors were permitted to use witnesses who accused Mr. Weinstein of sexual offenses for which he had not been charged in that instance, just as they were in New York. Nevertheless, California has different laws pertaining to these witnesses.

The bad character evidence that was not legitimate and, in Ms. Dot Bonjean’s words, “tainted the whole trial in California,” left the jury in the California trial “overwhelmed.”.

Reporting was contributed by Hurubie Meko, Jan Ransom, Chelsia Rose Marcius, and Jodi Kantor.

Mrs. The ruling on Thursday, according to Bonjean, will likely strengthen Mr. Weinstein’s appeal in Los Angeles because it determined that he was tried not only for the crimes he was charged with but also for his prior behavior.

“The notion of uncharged accusers and bad acts is equally applicable in the L.A. case, and the New York decision pertains to the excessive use of other accusers. A. case,” Ms. Bonjean stated.

Prosecutors called 44 witnesses in the Los Angeles case; among them were four women who claimed they had been abused by Mr. Weinstein and were permitted to testify to demonstrate a pattern of abuse, even though their testimonies had nothing to do with the charges.

Regarding the jurors in that case, Ms. Bonjean stated, “They were overwhelmed with this bad character evidence that was not legitimate that tainted the whole trial in California.”.

Mrs. Additionally, Bonjean said that the Los Angeles prosecutors erred in telling the jury that Mr. Weinstein had been found guilty in New York, which may have unfairly swayed jurors. Bonjean represented Bill Cosby in the successful appeal of his conviction for sexual assault.

Ms. Bonjean stated, “That turned the presumption of innocence on its head, tainted the entire trial, and was even used to enhance his sentencing.” She also stated that she planned to file an appeal in the California case on May 20.

Part of the California prosecution in Los Angeles Superior Court concerned claims that Mr. Weinstein sexually assaulted Jane Doe 1, a woman, in a hotel room in February 2013. In December of 2022, he was found guilty of three crimes: forced sexual penetration by a foreign object, forced oral copulation, and forced rape. On four other counts, however, he was not found guilty.

Mr. Weinstein asked the judge for leniency during his sentencing, arguing that the evidence against him was weak and did not support a lengthy prison term.

“My entire life, I have endeavored to make people happy,” Mr. Weinstein testified. “Please do not give me a life sentence in prison. It’s not something I deserve. “.

The Women’s Equal Justice Project director, Jane Manning, a former sex crimes prosecutor, stated that the Los Angeles case should remain unaffected by the ruling of the New York appeals court.

“Prosecutors are authorized by California law to demonstrate that the sexually predatory behavior of the defendant is consistent with a pattern,” Ms. Manning stated. In sex assault cases, they specifically allow the admission of evidence from similar crimes because they recognize the significance of this evidence. “.

Miss. Yet, according to Manning, New York has no statute that instructs judges on this matter, “so it is left completely to the courts to determine what is and isn’t permissible when it comes to evidence of similar crimes.”. “.

Even worse, she wrote, the court had made it more difficult for victims to hold attackers accountable in subsequent cases.

Judge Singas wrote, “Men who sexually abuse their authority over women on a regular basis, especially the most vulnerable segments of society, will benefit from today’s decision.”.

She showed up alongside Judges Michael J. and Anthony Cannataro. Garcia in the opposition. Judge Garcia concurred with the two dissenting judges rather than writing his own opinion.

Judge Cannataro dissented, arguing that the prosecution’s additional witnesses, who testified that Mr. Weinstein had assaulted them but whose charges did not include such allegations, were essential in demonstrating Mr. Weinstein’s pattern of coercion and manipulation.

The stereotype of a sexual attacker as “the stereotypical stranger in a dark alley who isolates his victim or waits for her to be alone before launching a violent assault” was disproved by their testimony, he wrote. “.

Judge Cannataro noted that Justice James Burke exercised caution in the Manhattan trial when allowing prosecutors to present evidence that suggested more “complex psychological and sociological dynamics” were at work.

Judge Cannataro wrote that the decision to reverse the conviction “represents an unfortunate step backward from recent advances in our understanding of how sex crimes are perpetrated and why victims sometimes respond in seemingly counterintuitive ways.”.

According to Judge Singas, the jury was better informed that the former producer had to have known he did not have the women’s consent based on the witness testimony of the other women, who expressed their disgust and horror at Mr. Weinstein’s advances.

Judge Singas wrote, “Their testimony explained the peculiarities of the entertainment industry that allow assaults to be perpetrated by influential and powerful men against young and relatively powerless aspiring actresses.”.

The majority appeared incensed by the dissenting judges’ vehement remarks, defending their decision in multiple footnotes and in a back-and-forth that suggested the decision had caused a great deal of tension among the judges.

In her majority opinion, Judge Jenny Rivera claimed that Judge Singas “misconstrues” their reasoning for not needing the extra witnesses in order to refute “rape myths.”. “.

Criticizing Judge Singas’s claims as “exaggerated claims,” she disputed the court’s actions in making it more difficult for victims in the future to have their cases prosecuted. “.

Judge Singas’s dissent was partially referenced by Judge Rivera in her statement, “We do not’shut eyes to the enduring effect of rape culture on notions of consent, and intent.”. Rather, in keeping with our judicial function, our analysis is based on the fundamental rules of evidence as well as the defendant’s constitutional rights to a fair trial and the presumption of innocence. “.

March 19, 2018: Gov. New York Governor Andrew M. Cuomo has ordered a review of the 2015 decision by Mr. Vance not to prosecute Mr. Weinstein, raising concerns about the decision-making process.

April 25, 2018: The investigation is given a new prosecutor’s assignment by Mr. Dot Vance.

On May 25, 2018, Mr. Weinstein turns himself in to the authorities following his indictment for rape and criminal sexual act. An alleged attack on Jessica Mann, an aspiring actress, at a Manhattan hotel in 2013 gave rise to the rape charge. During a 2004 meeting in Mr. Weinstein’s office, marketing executive Lucia Evans allegedly told investigators that she was coerced into having oral sex with him. This led to the accusation of criminal sexual act.

July 2, 2018: In response to claims that Mr. Weinstein coerced former production assistant Miriam Haley into having oral sex with her in his Manhattan apartment in July 2006, prosecutors have filed new charges against the designer.

Oct. 11, 2018: After the prosecution admits that the lead detective in the case withheld material information that a witness had raised concerns about Ms. Evans’s account, a judge dismisses the forcible oral sex charge against Mr. Weinstein against Ms. Evans.

August. 26, 2019: After securing a fresh indictment against Mr. Weinstein, the prosecution is now able to call actress Annabella Sciorra as a witness. Sciorra claimed that Mr. Weinstein had sexually assaulted her in her Manhattan apartment in 1993/4.

Jan. 6, 2020: Mr. Weinstein is charged in Los Angeles with raping one woman and following up with two days of groping and masturbating in front of another in February 2013. The legal parties in Mr. Weinstein’s New York trial initial convene in Manhattan on the same day that the California charges are filed in order to deliberate jury selection and related legal issues.

Feb. 18, 2020: Following a month-long trial during which they heard testimony from a number of witnesses, including Ms. Mann, Ms. Haley, and Ms. Sciorra, the jurors in New York started hearing arguments.

Feb. 24, 2020: Mr. Weinstein is found guilty of rape and criminal sexual act by the jury, which is made up of five men and seven women. However, he is found not guilty on three other counts, including the two most serious charges against him, which include being a sexual predator.

Mr. Weinstein receives a 23-year prison sentence on March 11, 2020. He enters the infamous Rikers Island jail complex as inmate No. 1 on his first visit to the New York prison system. 310000153.

April 10, 2020: Mr. Weinstein is now charged by Californian prosecutors, who claim he assaulted a woman in a Beverly Hills hotel in May of 2010.

On April 5, 2021, Mr. Weinstein files an appeal against his conviction in New York, arguing that the testimony of multiple women who had accused him of sexual assault was improper.

June 2, 2022: In a unanimous ruling, a New York appeals court maintains Mr. Weinstein’s 2020 felony sex crime conviction.

December. 19, 2022: Following an October 2022 trial, Los Angeles jurors return a mixed verdict, finding Mr. Weinstein guilty of one count of sexual assault and rape and not guilty of another. On three other counts, they are unable to reach a verdict.

Feb. 23, 2023: Mr. Weinstein receives a 16-year prison sentence in the Los Angeles case; the sentence will start after he completes his New York prison sentence.

April 25, 2024: New York’s highest court reverses the 2020 verdict, finding that Mr. Weinstein was tried for a lot of his prior actions rather than just the crimes for which he was charged.

The evidence of Mr. Weinstein’s sexual misbehavior is overwhelming, even outside the legal system. Almost 100 women came forward with stories of Mr. Weinstein’s pressure and manipulation after The New York Times published accusations of the producer’s abuse in 2017. Their testimonies ignited the global MeToo movement.

The Annotated Harvey Weinstein Appeal Ruling.

Read the ruling from New York’s highest court, which reversed Harvey Weinstein’s 2020 conviction in Manhattan for felony sex crimes, along with background information and an explanation from New York Times reporters.

However, not all of Mr. Weinstein’s purported victims could take up an entire courtroom and be the focal point of a criminal trial in New York. Numerous terrifying tales concerned sexual harassment, which is a civil rather than a criminal offense. Some, mostly from California, were out of state. A few others were past the legal deadline. Due to claims of wrongdoing by the police, one of the initial accusers was removed from the trial.

Pressured to press charges after not doing so earlier, Manhattan prosecutors took a number of risks.

First, they moved forward with a trial based only on the testimony of two victims, who acknowledged to having consensual sex with him on other occasions while also accusing him of sexually abusing them. Many experts argue that this combination is too messy to result in convictions. The prosecution had little hard proof to support their case against Mr. Weinstein, who refutes any claims of having sex without consent.

The attorneys therefore used a contentious technique to influence the jury, which ultimately resulted in the conviction being overturned. They put additional women with accounts of abuse by Mr. Weinstein — so-called Molineux witnesses — on the stand to establish a pattern of predation. Against the backdrop of the MeToo movement, Mr. Weinstein was forced to face a chorus of testimonies from numerous women, so the decision seemed appropriate at the time.

The women’s testimony was brutal, and it appeared that the prosecution had increased the opportunities for holding sex offenders accountable when Mr. Weinstein was found guilty in 2020 and given a 23-year prison sentence.

In an interview following the trial, Dawn Dunning, a supporting witness, stated, “I did it for all of us.”. “I completed it on behalf of the women who were unable to testify. I was unable to refrain from doing it. “.

However, the move ran the risk of breaking a fundamental principle of criminal trials: defendants must be judged on the acts they are being charged with. This is because New York law is ambiguous about when those witnesses are permitted.

Mr. Weinstein used that as the primary justification for his numerous appeals of his conviction. His attorneys have maintained for years that the inclusion of witnesses who weren’t relevant to the charges made his trial inherently unfair. Prosecutors presented character witnesses who depicted Mr. Weinstein as a cruel, erratic person in addition to the victims of the alleged sexual assault.

Following a contentious discussion among the judges, a New York appeals court rejected those objections and maintained his conviction in 2022. Their statement stated that the testimony of the other witnesses had been crucial in demonstrating that the producer did not view his victims as “romantic partners or friends,” but rather that “his goal at all times was to position the women in such a way that he could have sex with them, and that it did not matter to him whether the women consented or not.”. “.

The producer’s last-chance appeal was heard by New York’s highest court in February, but not much was made of the proceedings. But they felt subtly dramatic: seven of the highest ranking judges in the state, four of whom were women, were arguing over whether the man whose alleged misdeeds served as the impetus for the MeToo movement had received a fair trial.

Today the court decided, with a majority that included three of those female judges, to throw out the conviction and order a new trial. Mr. Weinstein is still on trial in California and might be sent there for prison.

In their ruling on Thursday, the judges stated, “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 opinion went on, “No one accused of illegality may be judged on proof of uncharged crimes that serve only to establish the accused’s propensity for criminal behavior.”.

However, the decision was made by the narrowest of margins—4 to 3—with judges dissenting sharply, citing their concern over the court’s potential ramifications. Judge Madeline Singas stated that witness rules had changed to be more lenient, stating that “the majority’s determination perpetuates outdated notions of sexual violence and allows predators to escape accountability.”. The majority has created an innocent story by omitting the practical and legal requirements of demonstrating a lack of consent. “.

When contacted by phone shortly after the court’s ruling, Ashley Judd—the first actress to publicly make accusations against Mr. Weinstein—remained steadfast in her assessment. She criticized the decision, saying, “That is unfair to survivors.”.

According to her, “We still live in our truth.”. And the outcome is known to us. “.

The New York judges’ contentious back and forth, coupled with the decision’s immediate aftermath, sparked a new discussion about whether the standards for sexual misconduct convictions should be revised.

According to Ms. Tuerkheimer, “the MeToo movement demonstrated how crucial it is to have accounts from multiple accusers.”. Witness rules, however, can create an “alternate universe” in which the jury is frequently denied access to material relevant to sex crimes due to their strict enforcement. “.

She stated, “At its core, there is tension, and prosecution in the MeToo era will continue to grapple with this conundrum.”. “.