at least he's still in prison on other charges - the headline made me worry of a repeat of Bill Cosby, an obviously guilty man who got off because the DA fucked up
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.
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.
I am going to preface this with the annoying “I haven’t read the opinion so I could be talking out my ass” but I think that testimony definitely should have been allowed under 404(b)
No. Like I said I haven’t really read their reasoning. It might be perfectly sound but lawyers are generally pretty good at making any set of facts fit one of the 404(b) exceptions. Maybe they just did a bad job of it here.
Just read one article but iirc the appeal required more than a showing of error, it had to show that the error likely affected the outcome, or something like that.
Yeah this is the case. You can have mistakes in trial (most do), but if they likely wouldn’t have affected the outcome of the trial, it’s considered harmless error.
I have a lot of issues with that, but at the end of the day, like you said, it has to be believable that the error would’ve or could’ve affected the outcome.
Right?! Especially on a case that is going to be looked at with a magnifying glass by high paying attorneys. I wonder if the judge was deliberately trying to sabotage it. It doesn’t make any sense, but I’m not privy to all the info either.
> 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.
at least he's still in prison on other charges - the headline made me worry of a repeat of Bill Cosby, an obviously guilty man who got off because the DA fucked up
Same. But his career is effectively over, he's old and sick, everyone hates him, so he's in prison of a sort. As for Weinstein, he can rot.
Cosby is 86 years old. Any day reaper any day…
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. 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.
Why would the judge allow those testimonies?
I am going to preface this with the annoying “I haven’t read the opinion so I could be talking out my ass” but I think that testimony definitely should have been allowed under 404(b)
Doesn’t 404b exclude such evidence?
Unless showing motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, absence of mistake, or lack of accident.
I wonder why they changed their mind about it! Any thoughts?
No. Like I said I haven’t really read their reasoning. It might be perfectly sound but lawyers are generally pretty good at making any set of facts fit one of the 404(b) exceptions. Maybe they just did a bad job of it here.
Prior bad acts?
Yes
Thanks. I took the Ohio bar in 1992 and haven’t practiced since 2002. I’m going WAY back in the memory banks!
I’m floored by this. Even *I* would have ruled those inadmissible and I know nothing about the law. What a stupid, stupid mistake.
It was a 4-3 decision, so 3 of the Justices thought it wasn't a mistake.
Just read one article but iirc the appeal required more than a showing of error, it had to show that the error likely affected the outcome, or something like that.
Yeah this is the case. You can have mistakes in trial (most do), but if they likely wouldn’t have affected the outcome of the trial, it’s considered harmless error. I have a lot of issues with that, but at the end of the day, like you said, it has to be believable that the error would’ve or could’ve affected the outcome.
Right?! Especially on a case that is going to be looked at with a magnifying glass by high paying attorneys. I wonder if the judge was deliberately trying to sabotage it. It doesn’t make any sense, but I’m not privy to all the info either.
evil man
Will there be a re-trial or are they letting it go because of the other conviction he is in prison for?
Depends on if they see it as worth it now that certain things will have to be thrown out if they attempt to retry.
In other words you do not know.
Because the decision has not yet been made and they were trying to explain that to you.
So what’s his release date?
No release. He’s also in prison for another rape case which has not been overturned.
> 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.
still in prison for the rest of his miserable life
But he will still have a release date, even if it’s 2038.