Harvey Weinstein’s rape conviction is overturned in New York
NEW YORK
In a bombshell ruling Thursday morning, the New York state Court of Appeals overturned fallen movie mogul Harvey Weinstein’s Manhattan rape and sex-crime convictions.
The 4-3 ruling reverses a Manhattan Supreme Court jury’s 2020 verdict that Weinstein, 72, was guilty of rape for an attack on an aspiring actress at the DoubleTree hotel in 2013 and a criminal sex act for assaulting a film assistant at his SoHo loft in 2006.
The panel ruled that Judge James Burke shouldn’t have allowed testimony of “uncharged, alleged prior sexual acts against persons other than the complainants of the underlying crimes,” then further erred by ruling Weinstein could be crossexamined on those allegations and others.
“The result of the court’s rulings, on the one hand, was to bolster their credibility and diminish defendant’s character before the jury,” Judge Jenny Rivera wrote in the majority opinion. “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,” Rivera wrote.
Weinstein’s unmasking as a sexual predator helped launch the #MeToo movement. He was also found guilty of rape and sexual assault by a Los Angeles court in 2022 and sentenced to 16 years in prison. Those verdicts still stand.
“We will do everything in our power to retry this case, and remain steadfast in our commitment to survivors of sexual assault,” said Emily Tuttle, a spokeswoman for Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg.
Weinstein remained in custody Thursday morning in the Mohawk Correctional Facility in Rome, N.Y., where he was serving his 23-year sentence. A spokesman for the Department of Corrections and Community Supervision said the agency is waiting for guidance from the court before releasing him.
In a blistering dissent, Judge Madeline Singas wrote that the panel fundamentally misunderstands sexual violence by men with powerful positions.
“By whitewashing the facts to conform to a hesaid/she-said narrative, by ignoring evidence of defendant’s manipulation and premeditation, which clouded issues of intent, and by failing to recognize that the jury was entitled to consider defendant’s previous assaults, this Court has continued a disturbing trend of overturning juries’ guilty verdicts in cases involving sexual violence,” Singas wrote.
The majority decision “ignores the nuances of how sexual violence is perpetrated and perceived, and demonstrates the majority’s utter lack of understanding of the dynamics of sexual assault,” she wrote. “Because New York’s women deserve better, I dissent.”
On Thursday afternoon, Weinstein’s lawyer, Arthur Aidala, stood alongside his legal team across the street from the Manhattan courthouse where the Miramax founder was convicted in 2020, and praised the ruling.
“From our collective hundreds of years of experience, we knew Harvey Weinstein did not get a fair trial,” Aidala said. “At this courthouse behind us, at that trial, the law was not applied fairly to Harvey Weinstein. What the
Court of Appeals, the highest court in the greatest state in the greatest country, said today is that no one is above the law but no one is below the law either.”
At issue was testimony by three women — one testified that Weinstein sexually assaulted her at work when she was a waitress at Cipriani’s and raped her inside his SoHo loft in 2005; one said he pinned her against a hotelroom sink in Beverly Hills in 2013 while groping her and masturbating; and one testified about running out of a hotel when Weinstein tried to force her into a threesome in 2004 to get a movie role.
“The trial court abused its discretion when it ruled that 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 defendant’s loathsome character,” Rivera wrote.
Lawyer Dougals Wigdor, who represents two of those women, blasted the court’s “tragic” decision.
“Today’s decision is a major step back in holding those accountable for acts of sexual violence. Courts routinely admit evidence of other uncharged acts where they assist juries in understanding issues concerning the intent, modus operandi or scheme of the defendant,” Wigdor said. “The jury was instructed on the relevance of this testimony and overturning the verdict is tragic in that it will require the victims to endure yet another trial.”