The New York State Court of Appeals has overturned Harvey Weinstein’s 2020 rape conviction, paving the way for a new trial. The court found that the judge in the high-profile #MeToo case made prejudicial rulings, including allowing testimony on allegations not related to the case.
In a split decision of 4-3, the court concluded that the trial court’s admission of testimony regarding uncharged prior sexual acts was erroneous as it lacked material non-propensity relevance. Furthermore, it highlighted the prejudicial effect of allowing the defendant to be cross-examined on these allegations and other misconduct, painting him in an unfavorable light. Judge Jenny Rivera denounced these errors as “egregious” and advocated for a new trial, potentially involving Weinstein’s accusers testifying once more.
Attorney Lindsay Goldbrum, who represented six of Weinstein’s accusers, criticized the ruling, viewing it as a setback for the rule of law and expressing concerns about its potential impact on future sexual assault victims. She extended her apologies to all victims retraumatized by the decision, including her client Tarale Wulff, who alleged that Weinstein raped her in 2005 under false pretenses of a movie audition at his Manhattan apartment.
A spokesperson for the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office declared their commitment to retrying the case, emphasizing their unwavering support for survivors of sexual assault.
Douglas H. Wigdor, an attorney representing eight Weinstein accusers, criticized the decision, labeling it as a setback in holding perpetrators of sexual violence accountable. He argued that courts often admit evidence of uncharged acts to help juries understand the defendant’s intent or pattern of behavior.
Wigdor expressed sorrow over the need for the victims to endure another trial due to the conviction being overturned. Judge Madeline Singas, in a dissenting view, accused the majority of distorting facts to fit a simplistic narrative and overlooking the jury’s consideration of Weinstein’s prior assaults. She criticized the trend of overturning guilty verdicts in sexual violence cases.
Judge Anthony Cannataro, in a separate dissenting opinion, lamented the decision as an unfortunate regression.