Why Weinstein’s Conviction Was Overturned: The Judge’s “Egregious” Decisions
The surprise ruling by New York’s highest court to overturn Harvey Weinstein’s 2020 conviction on felony sex crime charges hinged on a series of decisions by the case’s trial judge, who was accused of making a series of “egregious” errors that biased the jury.
The judge, Justice James M. Burke, was accused of allowing three women who claimed the producer had assaulted them to testify even though they were not part of the charges at hand (under what’s called “Molineux ruling”). Also, that the 72-year-old Weinstein’s right to testify was infringed by allowing prosecutors to cross examine him on unrelated accusations that demonstrated his “appalling, shameful, repulsive conduct.”
More from The Hollywood Reporter
“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,” the court stated. “Even if we were to regard the evidence against defendant as ‘overwhelming,’ there remains a ‘significant probability’ that, absent the trial court’s erroneous Molineux ruling, the jury would have acquitted the defendant.”
The 4-3 ruling by the New York Court of Appeals spans 77 pages (including a dissenting opinion). Below are some of the key highlights that explain the majority ruling in regards to how the trial judge handled the case which resulted in this highly controversial decision.
— “The accused has a right to be held to account only for the crime charged and, thus, allegations of prior bad acts may not be admitted against them for the sole purpose of establishing their propensity for criminality.”
— “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.”
— “Indeed, we reject the prosecution’s theory … that this testimony showed defendant’s state of mind to use forcible compulsion against complainants and his understanding of their lack of consent. That analysis, if adopted, would eviscerate the time-tested rule against propensity evidence, which, in criminal cases, serves as a judicial bulwark against a guilty verdict based on supposition rather than proof … or on the defendant’s ‘bad character’ alone … evidence of a defendant’s uncharged crimes or prior misconduct is not admissible if it cannot logically be connected to some specific material issue in the case.”
— The additional testimony that the judge permitted were of witnesses saying they refused sexual activity and were attacked, and these situations had differences from the specific instances Weinstein was charged with. “The complainants’ respective testimonies were not ‘equivocal’ on the issue of consent … Thus, even though the prosecution contends (and the Appellate Division agreed) that the jury could believe complainants’ recollections of the sexual attacks yet still believe that defendant thought they were consenting to the sex, we conclude that such is inconceivable.”
— Regarding Weinstein’s right to testify: “The trial court abused its discretion when it ruled
that the defendant, who had no criminal history, could be cross-examined about prior, uncharged alleged bad acts and despicable behavior which was immaterial to his in-court credibility, and which served no purpose other than to display for the jury the defendant’s loathsome character. The ruling necessarily and impermissibly impacted defendant’s decision whether to take the stand in his defense and thus undermined the fact-finding process in this case, which turned on the credibility of the parties.”
— “The court ruled that the prosecution could ask defendant details about whether he allegedly: verbally abused an employee and also threw food at another worker; bullied, overworked and verbally abused his personal assistant; pulled out of business deals; threw staplers and other objects at people; punched his brother at a business meeting; threatened executives in his office; and photoshopped the head of an actress onto the nude body of another without consent. Without question, this is appalling, shameful, repulsive conduct that could only diminish defendant’s character before the jury. But [a prior landmark ruling] does not legitimize destroying a defendant’s character under the guise of prosecutorial need.”
— Yet a dissenting opinion that was filed slammed the ruling: “With today’s decision, this Court continues to thwart the steady gains survivors of sexual violence have fought for in our criminal justice system. Forgotten are the women who bear the psychological trauma of sexual violence and the scars of testifying again, and again. This erosion of precedent, born from a refusal to accept that crimes of sexual violence are far more nuanced and complex than other crimes, comes at the expense and safety of women.”
It’s not yet clear if New York will re-charge Weinstein with a new trial.
In statements to The Hollywood Reporter, Weinstein’s accusers have slammed the ruling as “profoundly unjust” and “a major step back” for the #MeToo movement.
Despite the decision, Weinstein will continue serving time in prison due to a Los Angeles Superior Court conviction of the producer raping an Italian model in 2022.
Best of The Hollywood Reporter