The reversal of Harvey Weinstein’s rape conviction in New York may be “disappointing,” but it came as no surprise to legal experts.
Meanwhile, Los Angeles prosecutors say their case against the fallen movie mogul, which ended with a conviction and 16-year prison sentence, is certain.
The New York Court of Appeals on Thursday found that trial judge James Burke made a series of egregious decisions that prevented Mr. Weinstein from receiving a fair trial.
Among them: that he “erroneously” allowed the testimony of three women who were not included in the indictment, and that the prosecutor who handed down the sentence had committed 28 other “prior cases” that were not included in the case. It also included the possibility of pursuing Mr. Weinstein for “misdeeds.”
Mr. Weinstein’s conviction and 23-year prison sentence will be vacated and the case sent back to a lower court for a possible new trial, although the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office says it wants to move forward.
A New York state high court ruled that Burke should not have allowed witnesses not included in the indictment to testify, but Los Angeles prosecutors said the same law does not apply in California. , said their case would not be overturned by a similar ruling.
Three legal experts told the Post they agree with the New York Court of Appeals’ decision.
“Overturning a conviction is very discouraging to many, but it is based on solid legal grounds,” Los Angeles-based attorney Tre LaBelle told the Post.
“Although it is painful, it is the responsibility of the justice system to bring that person to justice in a way that thoroughly protects that person from evidence that could undermine the specific crime and unfairly sway the jury,” the label said. he explained.
Michael Buckner, a former Manhattan prosecutor and longtime defense attorney, said he was “not actually shocked” by the turnaround. “I thought [allowing the extra witnesses] I was wrong. ”
And Burke’s decision to allow prosecutors to question Weinstein about misdeeds not included in the case was “so irrelevant, so over the top. It made him unable to testify.” ” Buckner added.
Seth Zuckerman, another Big Apple lawyer who specifically defended director Paul Haggis in the #MeToo case, said yesterday’s ruling was “a long time coming.”
“I think the issue here is that prosecutors were trying to win these cases through character assassination, and I think the courts have finally, and thankfully, put a stop to that,” Zuckerman said.
“We are confident that our conviction will withstand appellate scrutiny,” the Los Angeles District Attorney’s Office said in a statement.
The office said it was “disappointed” by the decision in the Empire State, but California law allows innocent witnesses to testify “in sexual assault cases subject to the discretion of the judge.” said.
“During the trial, our office had representatives in New York, and we know that the victims faced extreme difficulties in testifying about the trauma Mr. Weinstein caused them.” said in a statement.
“The legal issues identified by the New York Court of Appeals do not exist in the Los Angeles County case. Unlike New York state law, California law allows for the admissibility of proclivity evidence in sexual assault cases, subject to the judge’s discretion.” ing.
“The defense has filed a notice of appeal in the Los Angeles case, but has not filed a brief. We do not know what arguments the defense will make on appeal, but our conviction stands up to scrutiny. We are confident that this will happen,” they added.
Weinstein’s lawyer, Jennifer Bonjean, told the Post on Thursday that the New York state ruling meant that the jury that convicted Weinstein in Los Angeles “fairly convicted Weinstein in New York.” “It would be more likely that the conviction would be overturned because it was assumed that he had received it.” York, that wasn’t true. ”
If the New York case is retried, a new judge would have to be appointed because Burke is no longer a member of the jury.
Mr. Weinstein has until May 20 to submit evidence in his opening brief in the California appeal.
