New York's Court of Appeals has found the trial judge in the rape case against movie producer Harvey Weinstein prejudiced proceedings with “egregious” improper rulings.
Weinstein was convicted in February 2020 in Manhattan of sexually assaulting former production assistant Miriam Haley in 2006, and raping aspiring actress Jessica Mann in 2013.
He has been serving a 23-year sentence in a prison in upstate New York.
In its 4-3 decision, the Court of Appeal's majority said it was an “abuse of judicial discretion” for Judge James Burke to allow testimony from other women about "loathsome alleged bad acts and despicable behavior.”
Weinstein's legal team argued it was wrong to let women testify about allegations that Weinstein had not been charged with.
Weinstein's lawyer Arthur Aidala is calling New York’s highest court’s decision to overturn his 2020 rape conviction, “a great day for America.”
“Today's legal ruling is a great day for America because it instills in us the faith that there is a justice system. Even though there's 100 cameras around, that a judge will sit in in her chambers and look at the law and look at the precedent, without fear or favor.”“Today's legal ruling is a great day for America because it instills in us the faith that there is a justice system. Even though there's 100 cameras around, that a judge will sit in in her chambers and look at the law and look at the precedent, without fear or favour.”
Mr Aidala says the Court was right to overturn the original decision which he says was improper.
“It was a over 100-year precedent that was thrown out by the intermediary appellate court. They said the Molineux ruling, which is allowing people who a defendant is not charged with to come into court and testify, they said it was okay in the Harvey Weinstein case. But today, Judge Jenni Rivera, a real, real hero for women on this planet said, ‘You can't convict someone based on their entire life and everything that they've done in their life. You can't allow more witnesses to come in and testify against the defendant than the defendant is actually charged with.’”
But Tarana Burke, an activist and survivor and one of the founders of the #MeToo movement, said the ruling brings questions to the movement.
"Many people, many survivors and those who love and support survivors probably thought that that original verdict meant that there was going to be a change, that that it marked a change. It marked a difference in how this justice system was going to move and operate. And I think that we felt and a lot of us felt, that we were on a road to seeing a different America. And this moment makes it feel like we were wrong."
Legal expert Mitchell Epner - a former Deputy US Attorney - says he understands the misgivings of #MeToo movement supporters.
"As far as whether or not this is an example of the powerful or the repeat bad actors getting away with things that other people would not, there is definitely a basis to have that view. It's also true, at the same time that the entire issue here was whether or not the prosecution could demonstrate that, Harvey Weinstein was, in the words of the majority, they said he's 'a loathsome person.' The question is whether or not the prosecution was allowed to let the jury know he was a loathsome person. And the fact that the majority of the highest court in New York said, the answer to that is 'no,' is problematic."
Associate Law Professor Cherly Bader, of Fordham University School of Law says the victims who came forward should not feel they're not being taken seriously.
"So it feels like a real blow to the #MeToo movement and to the victims here that I think are probably being retraumatized by the overturning of this whole verdict. But I'm hoping that they'll keep in mind that this has nothing to do with their credibility. This is not a decision by the court that this wasn't rape, that these weren't serious charges, that they were not credible. This was really about an evidentiary ruling in the case, and it was a very broad ruling by the judge to allow and quite a bit of evidence that normally is kept out of trials. And I hope that they'll keep that in mind, and that the prosecution here was trying to amplify their voices by bringing in this testimony that often is kept out."
Mr Epner says there are now two possibilites as to what happens next
"Possibility number one is that New York will choose to retry him. If New York chooses to retry him, he likely will be held in New York jail in order to allow for that retrial, because he physically has to be in New York in order to go on trial in New York. And then if he is convicted in New York, he could continue to be sentenced to do additional time in New York. If either, 'a,' New York chooses not to retry him or, 'b,' they retry him and he is acquitted, then he still has a very significant sentence in California. And he would be transferred by the California state authorities in custody from New York to California and put into a California state prison to start serving a sentence of 16 years."
The Manhattan district attorney's office has indicated it plans to retry Weinstein, which means his accusers could be forced to retell their stories on the witness stand.
Weinstein maintains his innocence and contends any sexual activity was consensual.
