Page 2 | Harvey Weinstein's New York rape conviction is overturned as appeals court rules he didn't have a fair trial

NonLinguisticRhetoricIsMyKryptonite · 2024-04-25T13:57:41+00:00

*The New York Court of Appeals ruled that the disgraced movie producer did not receive a fair trial when he was convicted of rape and sexual assault in 2020.* *It is unclear if the bombshell ruling will free him from prison as he still has another conviction in Los Angeles for a separate rape.* *Weinstein has been serving 23 years in a New York jail for two sex attacks. He was handed a further 16 years following his conviction in LA in 2022.* *His team in California his appealing the decision and should that be overturned, he could walk free until the new trial.* *Weinstein became the face of the #MeToo movement after dozens of women came forward alleging sexual abuse. * [[https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13349859/Harvey-Weinsteis-New-York-sex-crime-conviction-overturned.html https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13349859/Harvey-Weinsteis-New-York-sex-crime-conviction-overturned.html]]

RedToothBrush · 26/04/2024 09:00

AdamRyan · 26/04/2024 08:34

No.
I'm saying the concept of a "fair trial" in the case of rape is actually a very "unfair trial" as it is overwhelmingly stacked in favour of the man.

If multiple women come forward to say the man demonstrated rapey, entitled behaviour in my opinion that should be included as evidence of the man's character. After all, finding witnesses to say a victim has said "fuck me harder" to another sexual partner was considered admissible and got Ched Evans off his rape conviction.

If men have been WhatsApping each other porn clips and talking about spit roasting the morning after they allegedly group raped someone, that should be admitted as evidence.

Instead we have a situation where the accused rapists rapey behaviour in other situations is excluded because "fair trial" AND 98% of rapists get away with it. Rape is effectively decriminalised.

Maybe if we re-imagined the process to put the victim at the heart of it, that would change.

Show quote history

If the problem is the law, then we consensus build to change the technical issues with the law. Then we get law makers to change the law.

We don't just say well we don't like this judgement in this case and expect someone to be jailed. Because it isn't fair and it's not lawful.

The technically of law does matter even if it's infuriating.

Weinstein should be treated equally with all other men who are accused of rape. He shouldn't have special treatment because he's famous. That works in multiple ways.

justasking111 · 26/04/2024 08:56

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

Overtheatlantic · 26/04/2024 08:56

Ashley Judd spoke brilliantly yesterday in the press conference about this.

AdamRyan · 26/04/2024 08:53

NonLinguisticRhetoricIsMyKryptonite · 26/04/2024 08:51

It was a 4:3 decision by the appeal judges. The dissenting judges have interesting comments.

Reuters has a reasonable overview of Molineux (prior bad acts).

But a 4-3 majority of the New York Court of Appeals, the state's highest court, found that the trial judge should not have permitted three other women to testify that Weinstein had assaulted them as well because their allegations were not part of the criminal charges against him.
Such testimony about "prior bad acts" is usually barred by New York's so-called Molineux rule, named for a landmark 1901 court case. The majority of the court found that the testimony by the three women ran afoul of the rule and made the trial unfair.
…
Dissenting judges in Thursday's decision said the ruling would make it more difficult to prosecute sex crimes committed by people who know their victims and may have ongoing relationships with them, as in Weinstein's case.
Judge Anthony Cannataro, who was among the dissenters, called it "an unfortunate step backwards from recent advances in our understanding of how sex crimes are perpetrated."
Another dissenting judge, Madeline Singas, said the decision would effectively end the use of prior bad acts witnesses in such cases and make it difficult to prove intent.

https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/why-was-harvey-weinsteins-rape-conviction-overturned-whats-next-2024-04-25/

Show quote history

Thanks, interesting.

Original poster

NonLinguisticRhetoricIsMyKryptonite · 26/04/2024 08:51

MrsSkylerWhite · 26/04/2024 08:47

When I served on a jury years ago, we weren’t told of defendants’ previous records because it may prejudice our decision.

If the same applies in US courts, the prosecution was surely aware that this was a potential loophole?

It was a 4:3 decision by the appeal judges. The dissenting judges have interesting comments.

Reuters has a reasonable overview of Molineux (prior bad acts).

But a 4-3 majority of the New York Court of Appeals, the state's highest court, found that the trial judge should not have permitted three other women to testify that Weinstein had assaulted them as well because their allegations were not part of the criminal charges against him.
Such testimony about "prior bad acts" is usually barred by New York's so-called Molineux rule, named for a landmark 1901 court case. The majority of the court found that the testimony by the three women ran afoul of the rule and made the trial unfair.
…
Dissenting judges in Thursday's decision said the ruling would make it more difficult to prosecute sex crimes committed by people who know their victims and may have ongoing relationships with them, as in Weinstein's case.
Judge Anthony Cannataro, who was among the dissenters, called it "an unfortunate step backwards from recent advances in our understanding of how sex crimes are perpetrated."
Another dissenting judge, Madeline Singas, said the decision would effectively end the use of prior bad acts witnesses in such cases and make it difficult to prove intent.

https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/why-was-harvey-weinsteins-rape-conviction-overturned-whats-next-2024-04-25/

OP posts:

justasking111 · 26/04/2024 08:49

ChardonnaysBeastlyCat · 26/04/2024 08:40

Probably but it's also likely to affect the Ghislaine Maxwell conviction.

Show quote history

That's what my husband said last night.

MrsSkylerWhite · 26/04/2024 08:47

When I served on a jury years ago, we weren’t told of defendants’ previous records because it may prejudice our decision.

If the same applies in US courts, the prosecution was surely aware that this was a potential loophole?

AdamRyan · 26/04/2024 08:41

RedToothBrush · 26/04/2024 00:03

I'm saying that if you have unsafe convictions it undermines the law and whether people respect it and the police too. That leads to a whole world of different problems including potentially deliberate civil disobedience.

I'm saying we should uphold human rights. Noting that the right to a fair trial IS a human right.

Now if you are saying that we should just convict men without safe convictions you are saying that they should have human rights removed.

Are you sure you are left wing and a Labour supporter?

Very clearly not what I'm saying.

I'm saying I don't think Weinstein had an "unfair trial" as I think the many women testifying to his character should be allowed as evidence. That's a structural problem in the legal system that benefits rapists and if I was queen of the world, I'd change it.

I think his conviction was completely safe and what this case shows is that men with the money to pay lawyers to go through every aspect of their case and trial are effectively above the law. See also OJ Simpson, Bill Cosby, Jonny Depp.

Are you sure you are a feminist because arguing in favour of the rights of men in a situation where 98% of rapists walk free isn't a very feminist action?

ChardonnaysBeastlyCat · 26/04/2024 08:40

justasking111 · 26/04/2024 00:11

Wonder if this will affect the Trump trial

Probably but it's also likely to affect the Ghislaine Maxwell conviction.

AdamRyan · 26/04/2024 08:34

TempestTost · 25/04/2024 23:54

You are suggesting an unfair trial is the way to go, then?

I think you might find, down the road, that could bite you in the ass.

Show quote history

No.
I'm saying the concept of a "fair trial" in the case of rape is actually a very "unfair trial" as it is overwhelmingly stacked in favour of the man.

If multiple women come forward to say the man demonstrated rapey, entitled behaviour in my opinion that should be included as evidence of the man's character. After all, finding witnesses to say a victim has said "fuck me harder" to another sexual partner was considered admissible and got Ched Evans off his rape conviction.

If men have been WhatsApping each other porn clips and talking about spit roasting the morning after they allegedly group raped someone, that should be admitted as evidence.

Instead we have a situation where the accused rapists rapey behaviour in other situations is excluded because "fair trial" AND 98% of rapists get away with it. Rape is effectively decriminalised.

Maybe if we re-imagined the process to put the victim at the heart of it, that would change.

OrlandointheWilderness · 26/04/2024 08:25

RedToothBrush · 25/04/2024 23:25

The problem here is that EVERYONE has the right to a fair trial. Even rapists and murderers. And I'm totally fine with that.

The media at the time made that virtually impossible so it shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone that it's happened.

Me too ultimately goes way beyond Weinstein though and this doesn't affect his other convictions.

We SHOULD ensure everyone has a fair trial. So we can really say that those convicted are beyond reasonable doubt.

I'm with Red on this. The entirely of the justice system is built on having a fair trial. And that is for everyone, we can't pick and chose.

Tessisme · 26/04/2024 08:19

AdamRyan · 25/04/2024 15:44

I am so sick of these men.
That's like the Ulster rugby players having their WhatsApp about spit roasting disallowed as "prejudicial".
If a man has rapey entitled misogynistic views that should absolutely be admissible as evidence

I think about this case from time to time and just feel so angry and frustrated that those men walked away, despite their WhatsApp messages, which spoke very much to character. I understand of course that they were seen as prejudicial, but Christ ... that poor woman.

RedToothBrush · 26/04/2024 07:30

justasking111 · 26/04/2024 00:11

Wonder if this will affect the Trump trial

If he is found guilty of course he will use this as a defence. He's trying to set it up to destroy the credibility of the justice system. If he gets in, this then becomes very dangerous indeed.

HereForTheFreeLunch · 26/04/2024 07:23

One woman speaking up is anecdotal

A hundred women speaking up is unfair trial

justasking111 · 26/04/2024 00:11

Wonder if this will affect the Trump trial

RedToothBrush · 26/04/2024 00:07

Article 6, Human Rights Act 1998 - the right to a fair trial.

Which bit of this article do you disagree with exactly? Why do you want to remove human rights of people you dislike?

In the ongoing vein of a theme of censorship - who decides whether someone is worthy of human rights? Or is everyone, no matter how unpleasant they are, worthy of human rights?

Why do we ensure all people are covered by human rights?

RedToothBrush · 26/04/2024 00:03

I'm saying that if you have unsafe convictions it undermines the law and whether people respect it and the police too. That leads to a whole world of different problems including potentially deliberate civil disobedience.

I'm saying we should uphold human rights. Noting that the right to a fair trial IS a human right.

Now if you are saying that we should just convict men without safe convictions you are saying that they should have human rights removed.

Are you sure you are left wing and a Labour supporter?

TempestTost · 25/04/2024 23:54

AdamRyan · 25/04/2024 23:33

red are you fine with 97.6% of rape victims not seeing justice? Because that is the flip side of "fair trial". It's not fair, it's stacked in favour of men.

You are suggesting an unfair trial is the way to go, then?

I think you might find, down the road, that could bite you in the ass.

AdamRyan · 25/04/2024 23:33

red are you fine with 97.6% of rape victims not seeing justice? Because that is the flip side of "fair trial". It's not fair, it's stacked in favour of men.

RedToothBrush · 25/04/2024 23:25

The problem here is that EVERYONE has the right to a fair trial. Even rapists and murderers. And I'm totally fine with that.

The media at the time made that virtually impossible so it shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone that it's happened.

Me too ultimately goes way beyond Weinstein though and this doesn't affect his other convictions.

We SHOULD ensure everyone has a fair trial. So we can really say that those convicted are beyond reasonable doubt.

MarieDeGournay · 25/04/2024 22:04

In fairness, he is going to stay in prison, he is going to be tried again and may well be found guilty again. It's not like he's been set free or anything..
The appeal court decided there was something wrong about the process of his first trial. The fact that it was HW in the dock doesn't change the requirement for legal procedures to be followed correctly.

The same court system that is being condemned here as as corrupted by money, power and misogyny also put HW away for 16 years for rape, and that conviction stands.

AdamRyan · 25/04/2024 20:39

NonLinguisticRhetoricIsMyKryptonite · 25/04/2024 15:55

For now…

Weinstein may yet walk free. It feels like Rules of Misogyny: Judicial Version. I stopped re-writing after #4 because negative emotions kicked in.

Rules of misogyny.

Women are responsible for what men do even when the power dynamic is in the man's favour.
Women saying no to men is a hate crime. Many of them speaking up together in a way that depicts a man's actions and character accurately means he can't have a fair trial.
Women speaking for themselves are exclusionary and selfish. Especially when they don't consider how prejudicial this is in a court toom.
Women’s opinions testimonies are violence against men, thus male violence against women is justified as is the ability to walk free from acts of violence against women.

Women and Feminism must be useful to men or they are worthless.
Women who go around being female AT men by menstruating and breastfeeding babies deserve punishment.
Women should always be grateful to men for everything.
Men are whatever men say they are and women are whatever men say they are.
Men always know the “real reasons” for everything women do and say.

10. The worst thing about male violence is that it makes men look bad. 11. Whatever women suffer from, it is worse when it happens to men. 12. Women’s ability to recognize male behavior patterns is misandry. 13. Angry women are crazy. Angry men have trouble expressing themselves. 14. Women have all the rights they need: The right to remain silent. 15. Men are the default human. Women are strange subhuman others.

Show quote history

Yeah. It makes me want to cry.
For me there is nowhere else the patriarchy is so starkly illuminated. The right to a "fair trial" (ie one stacked in favour of rapists) is more important than the right of victims to get justice.
The victims are treated as if they are the criminal, but with no comparable rules to protect them.
The media always covers these stories with some "life ruined" story from a man, for balance.
And society largely accepts it.

RedToothBrush · 25/04/2024 16:58

Tbh, I'm not surprised because it probably was impossible to have a fair trial at the time. I think it would be hard to argue he did if we are honest.

This does not mean he is innocent though.

LlynTegid · 25/04/2024 16:54

Delphinium20 · 25/04/2024 16:52

So sick of men like this eating up our judicial system. He should have been locked up and the key thrown away years ago. So many young women's lives ruined because he's a perverted, entitled and powerful man.

It's the US judicial system, though as Jimmy Savile never faced a UK court, somewhat similar.

Cantalever · 25/04/2024 16:53

Sorry. Brilliant post was NonLinguisticRhetoricismy Kryptonite's