NEW YORK − Harvey Weinstein, the disgraced Hollywood mogul whose 2020 rape conviction catalyzed the #MeToo movement, may soon get his day in court − again.

On Thursday, a New York appeals court overturned his conviction on the grounds that testimony provided by women who had not brought cases against Weinstein could have prejudiced the jury against him.

Weinstein’s lawyers hailed the decision, with attorney Arthur Aidala telling reporters outside Manhattan Criminal Court that “the law was not applied fairly.”

Others condemned the ruling as legal maneuvering that will make it harder for victims of sexual assault.

“The decision is wrong,” Douglas Wigdor, who represented eight Weinstein accusers, told USA TODAY. “The evidence was important to show the defendant’s motive and intent.”

While few experts argue with the legalities of the ruling, advocates for sexual abuse victims lament the signal it sends.

“It is reassuring that the law is capable of self-correction when human error clouds the process,” says Juliet Williams, professor of gender studies at the University of California-Los Angeles. “At the same time, it is profoundly disheartening to live under a legal system that continues to fail victims of sexual violence.”

The testimony of women who had been abused by Weinstein but were not part of the lawsuit was relevant and vital, says Ann Olivarius, attorney with McAllister Olivarius, a New York- and London-based law firm.

“The women who reported being raped by Weinstein, those women are terrified,” she says. Which is why, she argues, it was important to allow the testimony of others with “information about reputation.”

The ruling Thursday does not mean freedom for the producer, who leveraged his power to abuse women – from unknown assistants to stars such as Gwyneth Paltrow, Salma Hayek and Ashley Judd − who sought advice and opportunities from the Miramax boss, whose movies minted legends and won slews of Oscars.

Weinstein will likely be transferred to California, where he was convicted of rape in 2022 and received a 16-year sentence. His New York conviction got him 23 years in prison.

Legal experts say the appeals court decision is most likely to send a signal to judges and prosecutors in future cases, cautioning both about the potential inadmissibility of their witnesses.

“Zealous prosecutors will try and bring in everything that can help their case, which just means that it’s up to the judge to slice and dice what’s appropriate,” says Peter Pullano of Albany, N.Y.-based firm Tully Rinckey. (Source: USA Today)

Story Date: April 26, 2024