Harvey Weinstein’s New York conviction was overturned by the court of appeals

Harvey Weinstein’s 2020 conviction on felony sex crime charges has been overturned. Weinstein was prosecuted by the state of New York and found guilty of two sexual assault/rape charges in February 2020. He’s been in custody of the state ever since. He was in Rikers for a while, then he was moved to a prison in Rome, New York. In the years since his conviction, the state of California prosecuted him for assaulting and raping women there as well, and California would be happy to take custody of Weinstein and house him at one of their most decrepit prisons. Which might actually happen, because of this overturned verdict:

New York’s highest court on Thursday overturned Harvey Weinstein’s 2020 conviction on felony sex crime charges, a stunning reversal in the foundational case of the #MeToo era.

In a 4-3 decision, the New York Court of Appeals found that the trial judge who presided over Mr. Weinstein’s case had made a crucial mistake, allowing prosecutors to call as witnesses a series of women who said Mr. Weinstein had assaulted them — but whose accusations were not part of the charges against him.

Citing that decision and others it identified as errors, the appeals court determined that Mr. Weinstein, who as a movie producer had been one of the most powerful men in Hollywood, had not received a fair trial. The four judges in the majority wrote that Mr. Weinstein was not tried solely on the crimes he was charged with, but instead for much of his past behavior.

Now it will be up to the Manhattan district attorney, Alvin L. Bragg — already in the midst of a trial against former President Donald J. Trump — to decide whether to seek a retrial of Mr. Weinstein.

“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,” Judge Jenny Rivera wrote on behalf of the majority.

When reached by phone, Arthur Aidala, Mr. Weinstein’s lawyer, said, “This is not just a victory for Mr. Weinstein but for every criminal defendant in the state of New York, and we compliment the Court of Appeals for upholding the most basic principles that a criminal defendant should have in a trial.”

[From The NY Times]

Basically, the appeals court says that the prosecution could not introduce evidence that Weinstein was a serial predator who abused, assaulted and raped over 100 women over the course of decades. I hope Alvin Bragg retries the case, honestly. Charge Weinstein with everything, bring in every single one of his victims and just redo the whole thing with even more charges. Or whatever – send him to California.

Photos courtesy of Backgrid.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

26 Responses to “Harvey Weinstein’s New York conviction was overturned by the court of appeals”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Chanteloup says:

    genuine question: If he is retried and reconvicted [as I sincerely hope] does his sentence then start fresh, making it even longer? Because this rapist trying to be a victim with his fake-ass walker needs to be locked away from hurting more people forever

    • Josephine says:

      He’ll get credit for the time he has served thus far. Between Alito seemingly arguing (quite gleefully) that women (in Idaho, at least) should be denied abortions even when it leads to their deaths and this news, I’m so disheartened and sickened for women everywhere.

      • Lilly (with the double-L) says:

        Yes. So horrible and I hope for some justice and keep going strong. After I 🤮

  2. Megan says:

    Cosby, now Weinstein, women ain’t sh*t to these judges.

    • MizzEliz says:

      This. Or any others, apparently – just this week see AZ, Supremes (seriously considering prioritizing a clump of (non viable) over women bleeding to death in the ER or life-threatening septic shock before treating them, while we pay their salaries — and on and on and on it goes. And ever so much more to come.

    • Tate says:

      That was first thought when I saw this headline

  3. I'mphlyfiremama says:

    They proved his pattern of behavior, to corroborate the accusations against him. He wasn’t being TRIED on those crimes, but those crimes bolstered the claim. This ruling makes zero sense, and by no means is a technicality a “victory”.

    • smcollins says:

      I’m not a lawyer but my understanding is that because he didn’t take the stand in his own defense his past behavior couldn’t be used against him. If he had taken the stand then it would have been fair game. I could be totally wrong, though. Either way this is a major disappointment.

  4. Looper says:

    This is Merica.
    (It still stings, though I’ve known it for most of my many years on this planet.)

  5. Amy Bee says:

    This is Bill Cosby all over again.

  6. Brassy Rebel says:

    This is disgusting. Weinstein is disgusting. That’s all I’ve got.

  7. Concern Fae says:

    Fascinating to see how innocent until proven guilty gets stretched to make sure rape is almost impossible to prove in a court of law. And beyond the legal realm, it’s generally wielded to say that we can’t believe women when they say they’ve been raped, because that might convince someone that a man was guilty of rape.

  8. Lalala says:

    This was totally my WTF moment this morning. The Men Who Are Threatened by Women’s Autonomy are clearly winning at the moment. I feel like I should apologize to my teenage daughters for bringing them into this mess.

    • nutella toast says:

      @lalala me too. First words out of my mouth. All I can say is, these men must not have women in their life who they are AWARE OF that have suffered through this (doubtful as 1 in 4 women, 1 in 6 men do in their lifetime) – they are completely devoid of understanding of the impact of sexual violence and harm. And it shows.

    • Turtledove says:

      I hear you Lalala.
      I try not to be the most Negative Nellie to ever walk the planet but it is hard today.
      I know that objectively, women have gained ground since 1950. But sometimes the news makes me feel like we could slip all the way back in the blink of an eye.

      Yesterday my daughter told me a story. A friend of hers (13) had a pig of an uncle who exposed himself to her. This happened years ago. Two years ago, she had told a boy about it because at the time, they were friends. They are no longer friends and the boy has been posting jokes about what her uncle did to her on social media.

      That girl is 13 and what has she learned so far? Uncles will perpetrate sex offenses on you and your male peers will laugh and use it to hurt you.

      And what about the boy? What kind of man will he grow up to be? And why should we expect better? Look at what the news is showing him.

  9. Charfromdarock says:

    There is no justice for women in legal systems created by and for men.

    • Libra says:

      The odds have been forever stacked against us. I wasted a lifetime hoping for change the will never come. Men will never voluntarily give up their control.

      • Surly Gale says:

        Apparently I, too, wasted a lifetime. Not only did I hope for change that never came (and never will, it seems), I wasted a lifetime fighting, writing, and marching for said change. One woman, one vote. Arms are for hugging. Women Unite, Take Back the Night. Could more have been done to prevent this slide back in time?
        We never made enough progress to become complacent, so that’s not it. Was the progress we did make just too threatening to The Men Who Are Threatened by Women’s Autonomy? Apparently, yes. I feel hope for our collective futures seeping away. I am deeply discouraged.

      • pottymouth pup says:

        the most disappointing part is the number of Zoomers saying they will not vote for Biden against Trump either because “Biden didn’t protect Roe” (which, duh, came about because of Trump and the result of the progressives who refused to vote for Clinton because she didn’t tick all their boxes) and/or because Biden hasn’t shifted foreign policy regarding Israel. They are willing to have Trump get re-elected when Trump’s policies are infinitesimally worse than Biden’s worst stance on every single issue progressives claim to hold dear.

      • bisynaptic says:

        Nope.

  10. OriginalLeigh says:

    The system was not to designed to benefit women or people of color in general. It was built for and by white men….

  11. Bumblebee says:

    So a victim is required to testify to get a conviction, and then her character and past history is fair game. But the accused can remain silent and then the pattern of his past behavior is hidden. When the case is a direct he said/she said, jury decides based on who they believe, then allowing the accused to hide information, does not give them balanced information of both people.
    And judges use this excuse of twisting how the law is interpreted to hide that rich, white, men are favored in all decisions.

    • Surly Gale says:

      Yes, Bumblebee, exactly right. Systemic everything. Racism, misogyny, etc. Transformers, UNITE!
      *referencing Transformers in terms of your bumblebee title. Works cause we really do need to unite and become the force we are. Also works if you’re referencing the protection of bumblebees, because we need to unite to save them from ourselves.

  12. Eden75 says:

    What the actual f*ck??!!! I wish I could say that I am surprised but I am not. I am just pissed at this point. I am not an American but this sets an even worse precedent for the rest of the world.

  13. Raster says:

    Thankfully the California conviction keeps him in prison. Interesting that the ruling was a close 4-3 decision meaning that there was ambiguity and discretion in New York law and perhaps the original trial judge’s intention was to give these additional women a voice in open court even though he wasn’t charged in their cases. Well then the prosecutors should have charged HW with all the crimes alleged by those Molineux witnesses rather than determining those allegations did not meet the standards. All too often prosecutors use their discretion too heavy handed when a sexual assault victim comes forward and decide not enough evidence beyond he said/she said so they won’t even bother with it. Especially when there are multiple victims coming forward, charge the defendant with most if not all and let the jury decide.

  14. bisynaptic says:

    #BringDownThePatriarchy