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

[NonLinguisticRhetoricIsMyKryptonite]

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

Bloody hell. Nowt more to say!

showing that sexual assault and rape was totally in his character made him look bad, allowing too much evidence that made him look bad made the trial unfair.

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

His lawyers have worked hard to persuade a jury that there was a technical fault with the original trial, not that he is innocent of these charges. I guess they've earnt their no doubt exorbitant fees.

While pulling apart the victims personal life is fair game

He stays in jail for his other rape conviction thank god.

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.

1. Women are responsible for what men do even when the power dynamic is in the man's favour.
2. 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.
3. Women speaking for themselves are exclusionary and selfish. Especially when they don't consider how prejudicial this is in a court toom.
4. 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.

1. Women and Feminism must be useful to men or they are worthless.
2. Women who go around being female AT men by menstruating and breastfeeding babies deserve punishment.
3. Women should always be grateful to men for everything.
4. Men are whatever men say they are and women are whatever men say they are.
5. 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.

Disgusting yet predictable.

Wondered when this would happen, not surprised. Money and power in a man's world. Same as Bill. Didn't he walk out with a cane or walker too🙄.

I despair for women. What do we have to do to be spared this misogyny everywhere in society?
elgreco
I am going to print out and keep, possibly on my wall, your brilliant post. Totally nailed it with your analysis.

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.

Sorry. Brilliant post was NonLinguisticRhetoricismy Kryptonite's

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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?

Wonder if this will affect the Trump trial

One woman speaking up is anecdotal

A hundred women speaking up is unfair 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.

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.