The highest court in New York overturned Harvey Weinstein's 2020 rape conviction on Thursday, reversing a groundbreaking decision from the #MeToo era. The court determined that the trial judge unfairly permitted testimony against the former movie mogul based on allegations that were not part of the case.
Weinstein, 72, will continue to be in prison because he was found guilty in Los Angeles in 2022 of another rape. However, the New York decision brings back a painful period in America's confrontation with sexual misconduct by influential individuals — a period that began in 2017 with a surge of accusations against Weinstein.
While the ruling on Thursday was a setback for #MeToo advocates, they pointed out that it was based on legal technicalities and not a clearance of Weinstein's actions, stating that the original trial significantly affected cultural attitudes towards sexual assault.
The Manhattan district attorney's office stated that it plans to retry Weinstein, and at least one of his accusers, through her lawyer, indicated her willingness to testify again.
The state Court of Appeals overturned Weinstein’s 23-year sentence in a 4-3 decision, stating that “the trial court erroneously admitted testimony of uncharged, alleged prior sexual acts” and allowed questions about Weinstein’s “bad behavior” if he had testified. It called this “highly prejudicial” and “an abuse of judicial discretion.”
In a strong disagreement, Judge Madeline Singas stated that the Court of Appeals was perpetuating a “concerning pattern of overturning juries’ guilty verdicts in cases involving sexual violence.” She stated that the ruling came at “the expense and safety of women.”
In another dissent, Judge Anthony Cannataro argued that the decision was “endangering decades of progress in this incredibly complex and nuanced area of law” regarding sex crimes after centuries of “deeply patriarchal and misogynistic legal tradition.”
Another setback
The overturning of Weinstein’s conviction marks the second major setback for #MeToo in the last two years. The U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal of a Pennsylvania court decision to overturn Bill Cosby’s sexual assault conviction.
Weinstein has been in a New York prison since his conviction for forcibly performing oral sex on a TV and film production assistant in 2006, and rape in the third degree for an attack on an aspiring actress in 2013. He was acquitted on the most serious charges — two counts of predatory sexual assault and first-degree rape.
He was sentenced to 16 years in prison in the Los Angeles case.
Weinstein’s attorneys anticipate Thursday’s court ruling to have a significant impact on the appeal of his Los Angeles rape conviction. Their arguments are due May 20.
Jennifer Bonjean, a Weinstein attorney, stated that the California prosecution also relied on evidence of uncharged conduct alleged against him.
“A jury was told in California that he was convicted in another state for rape,” Bonjean said. “Turns out he shouldn’t have been convicted and it wasn’t a fair conviction. … It interfered with his presumption of innocence in a significant way in California.”
Weinstein's attorney Arthur Aidala described the Court of Appeals decision as a huge win for all criminal defendants in New York.
Lawyer Douglas H. Wigdor, who has represented eight Harvey Weinstein accusers, including two witnesses in the New York criminal trial, criticized the ruling as a significant setback and different from typical judges' decisions to allow evidence of uncharged acts to help jurors understand a defendant's criminal behavior patterns.
Debra Katz, a well-known civil rights and #MeToo lawyer who represented several Weinstein accusers, expressed that her clients are deeply disappointed by the ruling, but she believed – and reassured them – that their testimony had made a difference in the world.
‘No going back’
“People continue to come forward, people continue to support other victims who’ve reported sexual assault and violence, and I truly believe there’s no going back from that,” Katz said. She predicted Weinstein will be convicted at a retrial, and said accusers like her client Dawn Dunning feel great comfort knowing Weinstein will remain behind bars.
Dunning, a former actor who served as a supporting witness at the New York Weinstein trial, conveyed through Katz to The Associated Press that she was “shocked” by the ruling and dealing with a range of emotions, including asking herself, “Was it all for naught?”
“It took two years of my life,” Dunning said. “I had to live through it every day. But would I do it again? Yes.”
She said that in confronting Weinstein, she had faced her worst fear and realized he had no power over her.
Weinstein's conviction in 2020 was celebrated by activists and supporters as a significant accomplishment, but scrutinized just as quickly by his lawyers and, later, the Court of Appeals when it heard arguments on the matter in February.
Allegations against Weinstein, the once powerful and feared studio boss behind such Oscar winners as “Pulp Fiction” and “Shakespeare in Love,” gave rise to the #MeToo movement.
Many women, including well-known actresses like Ashley Judd and Uma Thurman, came forward to accuse Weinstein. His New York trial garnered intense publicity, with protesters chanting “rapist” outside the courthouse.
“This is what it’s like to be a woman in America, living with male entitlement to our bodies,” Judd said Thursday.
Other side of the story
Weinstein, imprisoned at the Mohawk Correctional Facility, about 100 miles northwest of Albany, maintains his innocence and claims any sexual activity was consensual.
His lawyers argued on appeal that the trial overseen by Judge James Burke was unfair because three women whose claims of unwanted sexual encounters with Weinstein were not part of the charges were allowed to testify. Burke’s term expired at the end of 2022, and he is no longer a judge.
They also appealed the trial judge’s ruling that prosecutors could confront Weinstein over his long history of brutish behavior, including allegations of punching his movie producer brother at a business meeting, snapping at waiters, hiding a woman’s clothes and threatening to cut off a colleague’s genitals with gardening shears.
Weinstein didn't testify because of Aidala's statement.
The court criticized the allegations as terrible but cautioned against tarnishing a defendant's character for the sake of the trial.
The Court of Appeals, in a ruling by Judge Jenny Rivera, stated that defendants should only be accountable for the specific crime they are charged with, and not for previous allegations.
The Court of Appeals agreed to hear Weinstein's case, noting doubts about Burke's conduct and the prejudicial testimony allowed by the trial judge.
Aidala stated at a press conference that more defendants, including Weinstein, may be encouraged to testify as a result of the reversal, allowing them to share their side of the story.
Weinstein expressed to his lawyer his frustration at being imprisoned for something he claims he didn't do, and urged to rectify the situation.
