By MICHAEL R. SISAK and DAVE COLLINSThe Associated Press
NEW YORK — New York’s highest court on Thursday overturned Harvey Weinstein ’s 2020 rape conviction, finding the judge at the landmark #MeToo trial prejudiced the ex-movie mogul with “egregious” improper rulings, including a decision to let women testify about allegations that weren’t part of the case.
“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,” the court’s 4-3 decision said. “The remedy for these egregious errors is a new trial.”
The state Court of Appeals ruling reopens a painful chapter in America’s reckoning with sexual misconduct by powerful figures — an era that began in 2017 with a flood of allegations against Weinstein. His accusers could again be forced to retell their stories on the witness stand.
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.”
In a stinging dissent, Judge Madeline Singas wrote that the majority was “whitewashing the facts to conform to a he-said/she-said narrative,” and said the Court of Appeals was continuing a “disturbing trend of overturning juries’ guilty verdicts in cases involving sexual violence.”
“The majority’s determination perpetuates outdated notions of sexual violence and allows predators to escape accountability,” Singas wrote.
Weinstein, 72, has been serving a 23-year sentence in a New York prison following his conviction on charges of criminal sex act 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 will remain imprisoned because he was convicted in Los Angeles in 2022 of another rape and sentenced to 16 years in prison. Weinstein was acquitted in Los Angeles on charges involving one of the women who testified in New York.
Weinstein lawyer Arthur Aidala said immediately after the ruling came out: “We all worked very hard and this is a tremendous victory for every criminal defendant in the state of New York.”
Lawyers for the women who accused Weinstein in the New York case did not immediately return messages Thursday.
Weinstein’s lawyers argued Judge James Burke’s rulings in favor of the prosecution turned the trial into “1-800-GET-HARVEY.”
The reversal of Weinstein’s conviction is the second major #MeToo setback in the last two years, after the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal of a Pennsylvania court decision to throw out Bill Cosby’s sexual assault conviction.
Weinstein’s conviction stood for more than four years, heralded by activists and advocates as a milestone achievement, but dissected just as quickly by his lawyers and, later, the Court of Appeals when it heard arguments on the matter in February.
Accusations against Weinstein, the previously influential and feared head of a film studio responsible for movies like “Pulp Fiction” and “Shakespeare in Love,” initiated the #MeToo movement. Many women came forward to make allegations against Weinstein, including well-known actresses like Ashley Judd and Uma Thurman. His New York trial attracted significant attention, with demonstrators shouting “rapist” outside the courthouse.
Weinstein is currently in prison in New York at the Mohawk Correctional Facility, approximately 100 miles (160 kilometers) northwest of Albany.
He maintains his innocence. He argues that any sexual activity was consensual.
Aidala contended before the appeals court in February that Burke influenced the trial by allowing three women to testify about accusations that were not part of the case and by giving prosecutors permission to challenge Weinstein, if he had testified, about his long history of aggressive behavior.
Aidala argued that the additional testimony went beyond the usually permitted details about motive, opportunity, intent, or a common scheme or plan, and essentially put Weinstein on trial for crimes he was not charged with.
Weinstein wanted to testify, but chose not to because Burke’s ruling would have meant answering questions about more than two dozen alleged acts of misconduct dating back four decades, according to Aidala. These acts included conflicts with his movie producer brother, behaving angrily, and mistreating staff.
“We had a defendant who was pleading to tell his side of the story. It’s a situation of one person saying something happened and another person saying ‘that’s not how it happened. Let me tell you how I did it,’” Aidala contended. Instead, the jurors heard evidence of Weinstein’s previous bad behavior that “had nothing to do with truth and veracity. It was all ‘he’s a bad guy.’”
Aidala also raised objections to Burke’s refusal to dismiss a juror who had written a novel involving predatory older men, a subject the defense lawyer argued closely resembled the issues in Weinstein’s case.
A lawyer representing the Manhattan district attorney’s office, which handled the case, argued that the judge‘s decisions were correct and that the additional evidence and testimony he allowed was crucial to provide jurors with context about Weinstein’s behavior and his interactions with women.
“The defendant’s argument was that they had a consensual and affectionate relationship both before and after the alleged incidents,” Appellate Chief Steven Wu argued, referring to one of the women Weinstein was accused of assaulting. The additional testimony “refuted that characterization completely.”
Wu stated that Weinstein’s acquittal on the most serious charges — two counts of predatory sexual assault and a first-degree rape charge involving actor Annabella Sciorra’s allegations of a mid-1990s rape — indicated that the jurors were attentive and not confused or overwhelmed by the additional testimony.
The Associated Press does not normally disclose the identities of individuals alleging sexual assault unless they agree to be named; Sciorra has publicly discussed her allegations.
The Court of Appeals agreed last year to take Weinstein’s case after a lower appeals court. upheld his guilty verdict.. Before their decision, judges on the lower appellate court had questioned Burke’s behavior during spoken arguments. One noted that Burke had allowed prosecutors to present “very unfair testimony” from additional witnesses.
Burke’s term ended in 2022. He was not reappointed and is not a judge anymore.
In the appeal, Weinstein’s attorneys requested a new trial, but only for the criminal sexual act charge. They argued the rape charge could not be retried because it involves alleged conduct outside the time limit.
