Harvey Weinstein's 2020 rape conviction overturned by New York court of appeals, retrial ordered

The disgraced producer was convicted of a criminal sex act in the first degree and rape in the third degree in 2020.

New York’s highest court has overturned disgraced Hollywood mogul Harvey Weinstein’s 2020 rape conviction and ordered a retrial. 

On Thursday, the State of New York’s Court of Appeals found in a shocking 4-3 decision that the judge who presided over the original trial, Justice James M. Burke, made a critical error when he allowed the jury to hear testimony from women who alleged that Weinstein had sexually assaulted them, but whose claims were not part of the charges for which he was on trial.

“We conclude that the trial court erroneously admitted testimony of uncharged, alleged prior sexual acts against persons other than the complainants of the underlying crimes because that testimony served no material non-propensity purpose....” the majority said in court documents which were reviewed by Entertainment Weekly. “The remedy for these egregious errors is a new trial.”

Weinstein was sentenced to 23 years in prison after he was convicted of a criminal sex act in the first degree and rape in the third degree following a highly-publicized trial and the #MeToo movement. However, a New York judge ruled that the producer could appeal his conviction in 2022.

The court's decision does not mean that Weinstein will be released from prison; he received an additional 16-year sentence in California last year after a Los Angeles Superior Court jury found him guilty of raping and sexually assaulting a woman in 2013.

In its decision, the majority said that the basis for admitting these additional testimonies to be heard in court was “a candid acknowledgement that the true purpose of this evidence was to bolster complainants’ credibilities by showing that others behaved similarly towards defendant even after he made unwanted sexual demands.” It continued, “Of course, this is an impermissible propensity purpose and the trial court therefore should not have admitted the evidence.”

They added that the judge’s ruling to allow Weinstein to be cross-examined about “uncharged alleged bad acts and despicable behavior which was immaterial to his in-court credibility” only served to “display for the jury defendant’s loathsome character" and discouraged him from taking the stand. In doing so, they stated that both rulings "had a synergistic effect that deprived defendant of his right to a fair trial."

In a statement, a spokeswoman for the Manhattan district attorney’s office told EW, “We will do everything in our power to retry this case and remain steadfast in our commitment to survivors of sexual assault.”

A representative for Weinstein did not immediately respond to EW's request for comment, however, his lawyer Arthur Aidala praised the court “for upholding the most basic principles that a criminal defendant should have in a trial" in a statement to the New York Times.

In her dissent, Judge Madeline Singas claimed that "fundamental misunderstandings of sexual violence perpetrated by men known to, and with significant power over, the women they victimize are on full display in the majority’s opinion." She continued, "By whitewashing the facts to conform to a he-said/she-said narrative, by ignoring evidence of defendant’s manipulation and premeditation, which clouded issues of intent, and by failing to recognize that the jury was entitled to consider defendant’s previous assaults, this Court has continued a disturbing trend of overturning juries’ guilty verdicts in cases involving sexual violence."

She stated that the majority appeared to be "oblivious to, or unconcerned with, the distressing implications of its holding," noting that "Men who serially sexually exploit their power over women—especially the most vulnerable groups in society—will reap the benefit of today’s decision" moving forward.

"Under the majority’s logic, instances in which a trafficker repeatedly leverages workers’ undocumented status to coerce them into sex, or a restaurant manager withholds tips from his employees unless they perform sexual acts becomes a series of individual 'credibility contests' and unrelated 'misunderstandings,'" the judge said. "After today’s holding, juries will remain in the dark about, and defendants will be insulated from, past criminal acts, even after putting intent at issue by claiming consent. Ultimately, the road to holding defendants accountable for sexual assault has become significantly more difficult."

Judge Anthony Cannataro also called out the majority in his dissent, adding, "Today’s majority decision represents an unfortunate step backwards from recent advances in our understanding of how sex crimes are perpetrated and why victims sometimes respond in seemingly counterintuitive ways, endangering decades of progress in this incredibly complex and nuanced area of law."

Related content:

• Harvey Weinstein found guilty of rape, sexual assault in Los Angeles trial

• Harvey Weinstein granted a chance to appeal his 2020 rape conviction

• Harvey Weinstein sentenced to 23 years in prison

Read the original article on Entertainment Weekly.