The NYT reports. Free access link.
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... had not received a fair trial....
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....
If he is not retried, he still faces a 16-year sentence in California, where he was convicted of rape.
Here's the opinion. Excerpt:
Defendant was convicted by a jury for various sexual crimes against three named complainants and, on appeal, claims that he was judged, not on the conduct for which he was indicted, but on irrelevant, prejudicial, and untested allegations of prior bad acts. 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.
Posts
59 comments:
Well, of course it did...
I can already smell the lack of feminist outrage...
MORE TO COME
...might want to rethink - it looks like a subheadline...
Everyone is entitled to a fair trial under our laws, no matter how unpopular they may be in some quarters. Failing to provide that may result in convictions being overturned, no matter what other evidence may show. Other prosecutors/persecutors in high profile cases should keep this in mind. Unless you are on the Supreme Court, there is someone above you who can overturn a flawed conviction on appeal.
Weinstein soon to give a huge donation to the Biden campaign.
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.
At least they knew what law Weinstein actually allegedly broke though right? Did they get browny points for that?
Isn't that testimony admissable to show a pattern of conduct? Or prior bad acts?
At what point, if ever, do women stop voting for sexual predator Democrats and predator transgendered athletes who are killing Title IX sports? I guess the harem model is taking over from the spouse model in women's minds...this could explain why there's so much lefty support for the radically incompatible Islamic ideology?
The left met the enemy and the enemy was within.
Oh. Kinda like someone else we know. Except that someone else didn't commit any felonys.
Ann, as a law professor, how does this happen?
This seems like a fundamental error. As I understand it, witnesses must have knowledge related to the crimes being prosecuted and unrelated allegations can't be presented. That isn't hard to understand, so who screwed up?
Prosecutors might try to bolster their case by disregarding the rule, but risk having the trial thrown out, as happened in this case.
Were the defense attorneys supposed to object, and didn't?
Can the trial judge call bullshit on the prosecutors without the defense attorneys objecting? Or did the trial judge overrule the defense attorneys?
Also it's all #MeToo crap.
You can say a lot of bad things about Harvey Weinstein, but he's not Donald Trump and he deserves a fair trial as do all mega donors to the Democratic Party.....Nassar and Weinstein got away with sexually assaulting some of the most famous women in America and got away with it for decades. Donald Trump may have had sex one time with a porn star, and the hounds are set loose on him. It's not so much that justice is blind. She's lost her sense of smell. This stinks.
As I (and other objective observers) knew at the time, Weinstein got shafted by that conviction. And as I said at the time: Here are the primary reasons he's got all these legal problems:
1) His wealth and power,
2) His grotesqueness,
3) MeToo hysteria,
4) ...and its spawn -- gold-digging.
Actually, in order of importance, #3 was hands down in fact #1.
And the reasons he was convicted of rape (for which I have yet to see any evidence presented) are the first three above. Now we can add a #4:
"The court’s majority said “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.”
And we kind of knew then that that had happened to Harvey, too, didn't we.
SO, given this. We can count on them to overturn any conviction of Trump in his obviously unfair Kangaroo Court trial, Right?
Wrong. Weinstein is liberal democrat. And big Donor to the ADL. No doubt, he greased a few palms. I was astounded he got ANY jail time. So, at least he got a couple years.
BTW, Arizonia state DA is about to prosecute Trump for "election interfernce" in 2020. Or so I've read. It'd be nice if the SCOTUS would step in and stop this nonsense. But don't count on it. This is what you get when you worship lawyers and let them rule society.
"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...."
Is this what happens when you conduct a witch hunt instead of a trial? On the other hand - I guess now Harvey gets the punishment of another trial.
Nice precedent. I wonder if it will hold up on the next famous person appeal. Nah, who am I kidding, appeal will be denied 0-7.
New York letting off Weinstein, but going all in on a Federalized lapsed misdemeanor to jail Trump. I’m so old I can remember when New York was a great city and state.
Isn’t something similar happening in the current trial of President Trump?
"Citing that decision and others it identified as errors, the appeals court determined that Mr. Weinstein... had not received a fair trial...."
Break out the boners, Harvey. It's party time.
Only old Harvey doesn't seem "up" to it anymore,
https://akns-images.eonline.com/eol_images/Entire_Site/20191111/rs_634x1024-191211091134-634-harvey-weinstein.cm.121119.jpg?fit=around%7C634:1024&output-quality=90&crop=634:1024;center,top
Dave Begley said...
Isn't that testimony admissable to show a pattern of conduct? Or prior bad acts?
4/25/24, 8:27 AM
While this may seem reasonable, this should have no bearing on the case in hand. If a person has committed several robberies, and even spent time in jail, that isn't evidence that they committed a specific robbery they may be on trial for.
'He's a very bad man' is not evidence that a specific crime has been committed.
Filed under rapist we don't like
When I was prosecuting that kind of testimony was called "other bad acts" or "prior bad acts" and was admissible to show propensity or intent. It's difficult to imagine that has changed. It was an alternative to stacking every imaginable charge on the defendant. We called that stacking "the chickenshit doctrine," a tactic Trump's prosecutors are familiar with.
Judicial indiscretion. #MeTooToo
An arrogant, stupid, bigoted and incompetent judge in New York ? Exactly how is this different from the rest of the New York legal world ? Asking for a friend.
Yep, Dems scratching a Dem's back (for cash probably). Disgusting
claims that he was judged, not on the conduct for which he was indicted, but on irrelevant, prejudicial, and untested allegations of prior bad acts.
Based on what I have seen, this would fit all of the testimony from at least day 1 of the Trump trial. National Enquirer photoshopped Cruz's dad with Lee Harvey Oswald? How is that remotely relevant to whether Trump mischaracterized a payment to a person entirely unrelated to the Enquirer?
I assumed they'd gotten the testimony in under some exception, such as a denial by the defendant that he'd ever done such a thing, etc.
Reading the screechy fembot dissent tells you everything that was wrong with how that trial was conducted.
- Krumhorn
Unusual situation. Decision 4-3 with a vigorous dissent. And because 2 judges recused themselves half the majority consisted of lower court justices sitting by designation.
I don't remember the reports of oral argument indicating this level of skepticism with the trial.
If i remember right the California trial had more complainants, with convictions on few counts.
Horndogs are ok, so long as their confirmed Democrats, with added immunity of big Democratic campaign contributor and/or benefit organizer too.
Paging Harvey Weinstein, Biden White House wants to schedule your next Hollywood benefit date.
Here we go round again. Are Irrelevant prior acts are introducible to get pattern of conduct evidence in front of the Jury. Is that admissible in evidence or is it not. It’s whatever the latest Judge says. Which means we have here a trial by politically appointed Judges. Not trial by a Jury of peers.
Bottom line is that New York State prefers “the highest bribe wins” system of justice.
Practice Tip: always hire the law firm with the political connections. Not the lawyer with mere court room skills.
Not being Donald Trump is a big advantage in NY courts.
So, the testimony stands unrefuted that he raped one woman, no doubt of that, just a process error in the trial itself because the prosecutor brought in irrelevant but pred-juicy-dicial testimony by lotsa other women who said he was a rapist? Seems this prosecutor has a habit of piling on, higher and deeper, to see what can be made to stick to a defendant even when there is no need to do so.
I don't remember the reports of oral argument indicating this level of skepticism with the trial.
Intentional? MeToo gets the scalp and later when anyone is looking (hardly anyone) we get the mechanism to free our political allies. Somewhere in central Massachusetts Coz is grateful...
If he is not retried, he still faces a 16-year sentence in California, where he was convicted of rape.
How much of the California verdict was influenced by the now-overturned New York conviction?
Anyone who blindly supported #MeToo was doing so purposely, consciously pretending lying wouldn't happen and consciously believing that stupid myth "believe all women", meaning they believe women don't lie, an axiomatic lie itself.
This is why they purported to believe Heard, Ford and now her current mimic.
"National Enquirer photoshopped Cruz's dad with Lee Harvey Oswald?"
Once again, the picture was real. It came from the Warren Commission's investigation. It is held in the National Archives. There was no "photoshopping." A fake photo would be a totally different story.
That particular photo is not yet digitized and available but right here is one taken at the same time and place featuring the same characters - Oswald in the foreground and a man in a skinny black tie who looks somewhat like Cruz's Father.
The linked photo is from the final WC report.
Weinstein is clearly a scumbag, but when he was being exposed in the media, it sure seemed like the relationships were consensual. That doesn’t excuse his taking advantage of his power and status, but I was never sure he actually committed a crime.
What was most obvious to me was that EVERYONE in Hollywood knew about it. They were even joking about it at the Oscars, while simultaneously thanking him for his support.
"I assumed they'd gotten the testimony in under some exception, such as a denial by the defendant that he'd ever done such a thing, etc."
The testimony thrown out wasn't under that exception since Weinstein didn't testify in the trial.
You have to wonder who else is shaking in his shoes after a century of bargaining with your body in Hollywood.
For adult victims, the whole idea of crying rape after 5 years, or 5 weeks, or 5 days, when there's no possibility of physical evidence, only she said, needs to end. A fatal flaw of feminism is that it celebrates this weakness while encouraging high-risk behavior. Strong female characters, indeed.
Roll for a role, an exchange.
Roll or never a role, rape.
I am reminded of all the women who spoke up during the Kavanagh hearing.
Dave Begley said...
"Isn't that testimony admissable to show a pattern of conduct? Or prior bad acts?"
Not in Federal court.
NY State rules could be different but probably aren't.
Had Harvey been good looking he would be free and making great movies. Clearly no one would fuck that fat ugly slob for free
A little off topic, but related to NY courtroom action, yesterday's link to NBC quoted them as saying that the Enquirer "mashed up" the photos, which hints at manipulation.
The transcript says they "matched up" the archive photo with photos of a young senior Cruz.
Ratfucking shitweasels claiming the high ground.
Let's hope they don't make the same reversible errors with Pee Diddle Diddy.
"National Enquirer photoshopped Cruz's dad with Lee Harvey Oswald?"
Once again, the picture was real.
My point was not whether or not the photograph was real or faked (I had heard a radio report that the Enquirer person testified that it was faked, but of course we don't know what was really said because we were not there). My point was that the story had/has nothing to do with the accounting decision regarding the Stormy Daniels payment, and appears to be in to just generally show that Trump is a "bad man" or a criminal generally and therefore must be guilty here.
Weinstein was grooming women and girls. I'm surprised that they didn't sue the institutions, as they did in the diverse trans/homosexual cases of preying on boys in public and private spaces.
"Had Harvey been good looking he would be free and making great movies."
From everything that I've seen or read, Harvey Weinstein is a disgusting, demeaning, stinking pig in every sense of the word, not just looks. His persona is the exact opposite of the Dorian Grey story: Beautiful pictures, absolute walking cesspit of a human being. Those starlets should have been scoring hazard pay and wearing HazMat suits while earning their career-making roles.
'He's a very bad man' is not evidence that a specific crime has been committed.
Where do we stand on "We've decided he's a very bad man"? How about on "He must be a very bad man or he wouldn't have switched sides on us"?
"(I had heard a radio report that the Enquirer person testified that it was faked, but of course we don't know what was really said because we were not there)."
Link to trial transcripts.
Not user friendly but posted day after proceeding.
The LA trial had a similar string of unrelated “ witnesses”that could lead to that being overturned as well. In the hysteria of the early metoo era every judge and prosecutor was all in for the heads of the accused. Hear say, statute of limitations, no police reports. Believe all women.
But the Access Hollywood tape is admissible and comes in?
Readering said...
Unusual situation. Decision 4-3 with a vigorous dissent. And because 2 judges recused themselves half the majority consisted of lower court justices sitting by designation.
I don't remember the reports of oral argument indicating this level of skepticism with the trial.
If i remember right the California trial had more complainants, with convictions on few counts.
So the decision was corrupt.
Makes sense.
It is New York after all. The word of the law doesn't matter. Only who/whom.
Hmmm. Wonder what happened to Epstiens client list.
The thing about Hollywood is that it has always turned a blind eye to sexual harassment and sexual assault when there was money to be made. They are still in the dark ages when it comes to being a workplace that promotes on talent and ability rather than promoting on attractive people being required to do sexual favors.
And it's still going on.
Just look at Leslie Headland. She was one of Weinstein's personal assistants, but Disney hired her and put her in a position of authority as a director/producer. There is no way that she didn't know what was going on with Harvey.
Like I said, it's still going on. Hollywood is totally unrepentant.
Average person could not afford the lawyers for appeal and would serve full sentence.
Hussein and Biden need him for their Hollywood fundraiser in June.
I call a pox on both their houses. Weinstein is a despicable piece of shit. And regretting that you allowed him to play with you in order to further your career decades later does not make it sexual assault.
Post a Comment