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

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.

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.

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

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?

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?

That's what my husband said last night.

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/

Thanks, interesting.

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

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.

By the way I think Trump is deliberately trying to prejudice his own trial so he can claim he is being treated unfairly. However if his actions are leading to this - are deemed unlawful (that's why they are trying to gag him) - this arguably fails.

He does have special treatment because he's famous, he can afford to pay lawyers to go through every aspect of his case for technicalities.

Spot on. This is sadly very true based on the rape conviction rates which of course leads to fewer women being prepared to bring charges in the first place.

Being "unwise in social life" doesn't mean you deserve to be raped. That is victim blaming.
In the CE case the victim didn't make a complaint, he was arrested and charged based on his own account of what had happened that night.

I don't want the thread to derail on to him, my point was the evidence about the victim that saw his conviction overturned, would not have been admissible if it was similar evidence about his previous sexual history. Double standards that favour the man.

Appalling. The man is a rapist. So many women have come forward with their stories that there is no doubt of his guilt.

I am so sick and tired of men like this being protected and of women having their character questioned when they come forward.

I think the difficulty is there is often a degree of he said / she said in rape trials

men often work hard to demonstrate their good character that what she said he did is so out of character as to make it hard to believe.

in this case the evidence and testimonies showed her claims were absolutely totally positively plausible and the behaviour was totally in character. If that is agreed to be unfair it's hard to see how women could ever be believed.

The difficulty is that you can be an twat with any kind of abhorrent views, and that still does't mean that you are guilty of a specific crime.

The law is meant to find the actual person who in fact committed a specific crime. Not just a twat we could imagine doing it.

Lots of twats never commit a crime. And quite a lot of basically decent people do under the right circumstances.

We really do not want a justice system where it is normalized to weight criminal judgements on whether we think the defendant is a good person or not.

Red is right, this is a direct path to a terrible kind of authoritarianism.

Surely the most basic part of any criminal justice system, is to ensure that only the guilty are found to be so. This can only be done on the basis of evidence in that case. Yes i believe that weinstein is guilty, but my belief is not sufficient to convict a person. Yes we are aware that prior bad acts give credence to current behaviour, but unless there have been convictions, I'm not sure that they should be used as "evidence ". We should, of course, apply the same to the victim, so her previous behaviour should also be disregarded. It is very difficult, but we cannot, imo, change the way we deal with suspects, depending on the alleged crime.

You're right of course @TempestTost. I do get it. I just remember that Ulster Rugby case so clearly (am in NI and it was huge here) and was exasperated that yet another woman didn't get the justice she deserved. And of course, her own character and behaviour were very much up for discussion. You could almost have written the script. T'was ever thus.

It's not about them being "a good person".

It's about the point at which a pattern of behaviour becomes evidence in itself. In cases like rape, where its all very "he said she said" and the evidence is often basically who is more credible, having a number of other witnesses saying the same thing should be considered relevant evidence.

Also, it (sometimes) considered relevant regarding the credibility of the victim. E.g. the CE case. If its not allowed in the case of the defendant, it also shouldn't be allowed in the case of the victim.

In my opinion the way rapes are prosecuted needs an entire overhaul. I would create a "lesser" crime of reckless penetration, so men could still be punished even if they "thought" they had consent (similar to the difference between murder and manslaughter). And I'd make the process more inquisitorial than adversarial.

I would also consider using a panel of specialist judges rather than a jury because juries are too influenced by rape myths.

we cannot, imo, change the way we deal with suspects, depending on the alleged crime.

So are you accepting of the current situation where 98% of rape victims don't see justice (and the counter, where the vast majority of rapists are free to continue raping women)? Is that a price worth paying for a "fair" criminal justice system?

If not, what changes would you make?

The problem begins long before court, imo, societal changes to misogyny, where we still appear to divide women into "Madonna's and whores", changes in police response to rape allegations, a proper understanding of consent, with both men and women understanding what it means. That's a beginning

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-68901032

Good article from the BBC. Looks like he might be retried.

I'm sorry but I think that's still letting rapists of the hook.

I don't think there are that many "accidental" rapists who didn't understand consent or who's partner wasn't clear enough they didn't consent (which in itself is a problematic concept - the onus should be on the man to be 100% sure he has consent, not on the woman to be 100% clear she doesn't want sex).

I think there are a sizeable minority of men who feel so entitled to sex they either don't consider consent to be important so don't perceive themselves as rapists. For example they have beliefs like along term relationship or marriage means a woman always consent as men have needs that women should meet.

https://yougov.co.uk/society/articles/22262-publics-attitudes-sexual-consent

And I think there is a further sizeable minority who know its rape, but think they can get away with it.

E.g.
https://www.salon.com/2015/01/15/the_ugly_truth_about_sexual_assault_more_men_admit_to_it_if_you_dont_call_it_rape/

There has been a whole lot of education but these attitudes still persist. I think a change to the legal system to start prosecuting rapists effectively is required to change attitudes.