Harvey Weinstein’s New York rape conviction was overturned Thursday by New York state’s highest court, which ordered that the disgraced Hollywood mogul should face a new trial.
In a 4-3 ruling, the New York State Court of Appeals found that a Manhattan judge “erroneously” allowed testimony from three women whose allegations weren’t connected to the case.
The trial judge, James Burke, also “compounded that error” by ruling that the former Hollywood producer, if he chose to testify, could be grilled on the witness stand “about those allegations as well as numerous allegations of misconduct that portrayed defendant in a highly prejudicial light.”
“The remedy for these egregious errors is a new trial,” the appeals court said.
The court was looking to see whether allowing the other women to testify would be valuable for jurors to understand Weinstein’s “intent” to carry out the crime — something Weinstein’s lawyers said would unfairly “prejudice” the jury.
Dawn Dunning, Tarale Wulff and Lauren Young testified as “prior bad acts” witnesses, recounted the sexual harassment they allegedly experienced at the hands of Weinstein as young, aspiring actresses hoping to make a big break.
Their testimonies, all of which included stories of them being inappropriately propositioned by Weinstein, were intended by prosecutors to show a pattern of sexual abuse.
Weinstein’s lawyer, Arthur Aidala, told the New York Times that the decision was “not just a victory for Mr. Weinstein, but for every criminal defendant in the state of New York, and we compliment the Court of Appeals for upholding the most basic principles that a criminal defendant should have in a trial.”
Harvey Weinstein's sex crime conviction overturned: Key facts
- Harvey Weinstein’s New York rape conviction was overturned in a 4-3 ruling by New York state’s highest court.
- The New York State Court of Appeals found that Manhattan Judge James Burke “erroneously” allowed testimony from three women whose allegations weren’t connected to the case.
- The 72-year-old 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 and raping two women.
- Weinstein will remain behind bars because of a February 2023 conviction, sentencing him to 16 years in prison for raping an Italian model in 2013.
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 former “Project Runway” production assistant Miriam “Mimi” Haleyi in 2006 and raping hairstylist Jessica Mann in 2013.
In spite of Thursday’s decision, Weinstein will remain behind bars because he was separately sentenced in February 2023 to 16 years in prison in a Los Angeles criminal case for raping an Italian model. She testified that he threw himself onto her after appearing uninvited outside her hotel room during an Italian film festival there in 2013.
He was acquitted of sexual battery by restraint of a Jane Doe 3 and the jury was hung on whether he was guilty of sexual battery by restraint of Jane Doe 2.
Reps for Weinstein did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
A spokesperson for the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office told The Post, “We will do everything in our power to retry this case, and remain steadfast in our commitment to survivors of sexual assault.”
#MeToo accusers called the decision “profoundly unjust” in a statement, noting “This ruling does not diminish the validity of our experiences or our truth; it’s merely a setback. The man found guilty continues to serve time in a California prison. When survivors everywhere broke their silence in 2017, the world changed. We continue to stand strong and advocate for that change. We will continue to fight for justice for survivors everywhere.”
In a scathing dissent, Judge Madeline Singas wrote that the majority was “whitewashing the facts to conform to a he-said/she-said narrative,” and that the appeals court 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.
“This conclusion deprives juries of the context necessary to do their work, forecloses the prosecution from using any essential tool to prove intent, ignores the nuances of how sexual violence is perpetrated and perceived, and demonstrates the majority’s utter lack of understanding of the dynamics of sexual assault.”
“Because New York’s women deserve better, I dissent,” she concluded.
Weinstein’s alleged victims also slammed the decision, one telling the post a group of survivors who speak regularly were “in complete shock” over the decision Thursday.
“We are all on a text thread. We’re all in complete shock,” said Lauren Sivan, a former anchor for News 12 Long Island and Fox 11, who accused Weinstein of masturbating in front of her.
Michael Bachner, a former prosecutor in the Manhattan DA’s office, said he wasn’t surprised by the court’s decision, characterizing Burke’s rulings to let the other women testify as “too extreme.”
“I’m actually not shocked,” Bachner told The Post. “It’s my experience in New York State courts, if you are going to get a reversal, uncharged crimes will do it for you.”
Bachner warned that judges need to balance cases like Weinstein’s in just manner and avoid “ bending over backwards to allow the prosecution and victims’ story to be told in a manner that impacts a defendant’s right to be fairly tried.”
Seth Zuckerman, a defense attorney who has defended #MeToo cases including for director Paul Haggis, said the New York ruling tackles the issue of prosecutors relying on “character assassinations” to win at such trials.
“I think that courts have put their foot down, finally and thankfully, and said, ‘No. We need to actually have evidence of the charges to which the defendant has been charged with and character assassination and innuendo about the prior bad act shouldn’t be enough to sustain a conviction,’” Zuckerman told The Post.
“If you’re charged with one crime and a prosecutor is allowed to put in ten other alleged prior bad acts it’s impossible to get a fair trial,” he added.
The reversal of Weinstein’s conviction is the second major setback to the #MeToo movement in the last two years, after the US Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal of a Pennsylvania court decision to throw out Bill Cosby’s sexual assault conviction.
Weinstein has vehemently maintained innocence despite the tidal wave of women, including famous actresses such as Ashley Judd and Uma Thurman, who came forward with allegations about the studio boss behind Oscar winners such as “Pulp Fiction” and “Shakespeare in Love.”
The one-time Hollywood power player — who is incarcerated in New York at the Mohawk Correctional Facility, about 100 miles northwest of Albany — insists that any sexual activity was consensual.
The Court of Appeals agreed last year to take Weinstein’s case after an intermediate appeals court upheld his conviction.
Weinstein’s lawyer, Aidala. told The Post at the time: “We will ask the Court of Appeals to remind trial courts throughout the state that a defendant cannot be tried based on his character — but must be tried based on the conduct for which he has been accused.
“The trial judge disregarded basic rules of NY law and allowed into evidence acts of misconduct which prevented Mr. Weinstein from testifying in his own defense to powerfully proclaim his innocence.”
Prior to their ruling, judges on the lower appellate court had raised doubts about Burke’s conduct during oral arguments. One observed that Burke had let prosecutors pile on with “incredibly prejudicial testimony” from additional witnesses.
Burke’s term expired at the end of 2022. He was not reappointed and is no longer a judge.
In appealing, Weinstein’s lawyers sought 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 statute of limitations.
With Post wires
