The Harvey Weinstein trial should never have heard evidence about his rude treatment of restaurant staff and other irrelevant details, several lawyers have told Newsweek.
A New York appeals court overturned Weinstein's 2020 rape conviction yesterday and ordered a retrial. In its decision, the court ruled that the trial judge erred in allowing evidence of Weinstein's past bad behavior that had nothing to do with the charges.
Weinstein, 72, has been serving a 23-year prison sentence in Mohawk Correctional Facility since he was convicted on criminal sex act charges. He was found guilty of 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.
Weinstein will remain imprisoned since he was convicted of rape in Los Angeles and sentenced to 16 years in prison in 2022. The former movie mogul, who is also appealing the Los Angeles conviction, maintains his innocence and insists that any sexual acts committed were consensual.
New York state's highest court overturned the conviction after ruling that Judge James Burke, who presided over Weinstein's trial, was prejudiced in certain decisions made throughout the trial.
"The remedy for these egregious errors is a new trial," the ruling said.
Newsweek reached out to Weinstein's attorney and Burke's office via email for comment on Friday.
Paul DerOhannesian, an Albany, New York-based criminal defense attorney, told Newsweek that the appeal court has upheld the law by ordering a retrial.
He said the decision upholds a long-established New York law that prosecutors cannot use a defendant's uncharged acts to show that he or she has a propensity for bad behavior.
"The topics [at trial] included Weinstein's bullying and fits of anger toward employees, restaurant workers and business associates. For example, the court would allow Weinstein to be cross-examined about cursing restaurant staff after being told the kitchen was closed, as well as directing a witness to lie to the defendant's wife," DerOhannesian said.
He added that the appeal court "found the acts served no purpose other than to display for the jury Weinstein's 'loathsome character' and could have deterred Weinstein from testifying in his own defense."
"Together with allowing other women to testify about unwanted sexual behavior, the trial court's rulings eclipsed the indicted charges and denied Weinstein a fair trial," he said.
"Unlike Federal law and some states, the decision makes clear that New York does not allow prior uncharged sexual acts to make it more likely that the accused committed the sexual act or intended to."
Eric Anderson, an attorney at Early Sullivan Wright Gizer & McRae in Los Angeles, California, agreed that the trial court had gone too far in admitting evidence, at least under New York law.
"Lay people may have a big problem with these decisions and proclaim that it means victims are not being heard. That is poppycock. This decision neither frees Weinstein nor gives him great hope for an acquittal on retrial. It's a decision that follows the law regarding fair trials," he said.
"If you can't convict a defendant fairly, then you don't deserve to win. Here, the prosecution did everything right, except for putting on four 'bad acts' witnesses. But the trial court allowed it. They had good reason to think they would succeed with a conviction that could stand appeal Review."
Uncommon Knowledge
Newsweek is committed to challenging conventional wisdom and finding connections in the search for common ground.
Newsweek is committed to challenging conventional wisdom and finding connections in the search for common ground.
About the writer
Sean O'Driscoll is a Newsweek Senior Crime and Courts Reporter based in Ireland. His focus is reporting on U.S. law. ... Read more
To read how Newsweek uses AI as a newsroom tool, Click here.
