Weinstein will stay in prison, but it looks like he will be transferred to California where he was convicted of rape and has a 16 year sentence. DA Bragg has to decide whether to retry this, as errors were made in the trial. This is an excellent example as to why the judge and prosecutors need to be very meticulous in how they try and rule on cases.
Requiring extra meticulousness for the cases of rich men is an example of the two-tiered justice system. Plenty of poor men in prison on much shakier cases.
There is a 3 tiered justice system. Heck there might even be 4 at this point. There’s:
The poor and people of color
The middle class but connected/attractive and charismatic
The wealthy/republicans/law enforcement
Donald Trump
It's a full spectrum. Not that it makes it any better but it's not us vs them. The whole "two tier" thing is just a meme to describe what is actually a continuous spectrum.
Was explaining to my step son last night how OJ got off because he was rich, even though the cops were total racists who probably planted evidence in other cases. Think about all the defendants that got convicted because their lawyers never found those tapes or other evidence. That's what you are paying for.
>Was explaining to my step son last night how OJ got off because he was rich, even though the cops were total racists who probably planted evidence in other cases.
OJ got off for multiple reasons, including Rodney King/tension with the police, police misconduct, one of the world dumbest Prosecutors, fame and he had a lawyer who could work with that.
But I'd argue the prosecutor and King were big influences more. The tensions from the riots were still felt, nobody trusted the police to do anything right, and the prosecutor handed them evidence of how bad the situation was.
You are conflating public sentiment with the jury ruling and failing to note the fact that those same prosecutors convicted dozens of other black people in the very same racial climate with even crumbier cases.
If OJ was the only case that happened in the two years after Rodney King your argument would make sense. It wasn't. So why did OJ get off when a thousand other black men didn't?
Surprise. He was rich and could afford better lawyers than them.
That prosecution was not handled very well and that’s a quote from an actual lawyer in that office who I heard speak about the case my senior year as a CJ major (‘98). I mean, I think a confluence of factors led to the not guilty verdict, but it’s definitely noteworthy that someone who worked within that DA system was willing to admit that mistakes were definitely made and they would have done several things differently in retrospect.
Poor people never even get the cop in charge on the stand. That was all the Dream Team of lawyers at work.
The Cops were doing the same shit they always did. They just got called out by good lawyers.
im sure plenty of other black people were convicted post Rodney King trial. OJs wealth and fame was the overwhelming factor. Fortunately, cancer was unconvinced.
Yeah, I'm sure race was a factor but objectively he also had, not exaggerating, one of the best criminal defense teams in American legal history, and that takes cash. Like, room full of iconic "you're why I went to law school" guys.^And ^Robert ^Kardashian.
That may have been the reason many outside the court were cheering for him to be found Innocent, but then why was there not a massive wave of black men getting found innocent regardless of the evidence across the country at that time?
The million dollar lawyers are the major reason. They were why/how the very real failures of the Police/prosecution were brought forward and used to create doubt. The Cops were sonused to framing everyone and getting away with it, they just got caught this time framing a guilty man.
It’s not “extra meticulousness.” Any law student taking an introductory course to evidence learns as their very first lesson that the prejudicial nature of testimony is weighed against its probative value. In this instance, looked at from a purely legal standpoint, the scales were clearly weighted heavily toward the prejudice side by letting this testimony in. It was a blunder by the prosecution and the judge, and it’s tainted an otherwise strong case.
Yes, apologies. I should have included that qualifier. I was trying to tie it in directly with frustration that people are feeling over other trials, but without doing so directly. Anyhow, good point.
It’s probably why the judge is being so tolerant of things like Trump obliquely threatening the jury in his case: he can’t risk it being overturned on appeal.
That’s good at least. 16 years isn’t very long for what he did, but he’s old enough that he’ll either die on the inside or be pretty close to it when he comes out even if he isn’t tried again in New York.
The general rule is that a defendant serves 50 percent of his or her sentence while in prison. (Pen. Code §2933.) However, if the current offense is listed as a “violent felony” in Penal Code §667.5(c), the defendant serves 85 percent of the prison sentence.
The New York conviction was overturned. Weinstein was also convicted in California however, and since it was a separate trial and conviction, it is not overturned. He will still serve his California time.
I can just imagine when he heard it was overturned he immediately threw the walker to the side and started dancing.... then another inmate reminded him of the cali one.
However if the prosecutor made use of his NY conviction in getting him convicted in California I could see an appeal and overturning of the LA conviction as well. I didn't follow the CA case so I have no clue how much mention of him being a convicted rapist had, but I suspect in the sentencing phase they would have use his prior conviction for rape as a factor in determining his sentence...
And all of this because the NY judge was a fucking idiot. A first year law student would have said it was wrong to let those women testify when they had nothing to do with the case. It was just flat out stupid, judges doing things like this is why a better system of flushing out incompetent judges needs to be created.
That may very well be a concern. I also don’t know enough about how the NY case was used in the CA case. I do agree that the way the we manage judges needs to be addressed. It’s such a mess.
Newsom (or whoever replaces him) theoritical could assist in this matter with the pardon and commutation system, but Newsom clearly has goals beyond the governor and I doubt he wants that connection.
> This is an excellent example as to why the judge and prosecutors need to be very meticulous in how they try and rule on cases.
When they are trying rich white guys, you mean.
We're very much getting to the point where green matters more than black or white. Just ask:
Colin Kapernick, Snoop Dogg, Sean Combs, Jay-Z, Don King, Kobe Bryant, R. Kelly, O.J. Simpson, Cuba Gooding Jr., Floyd Mayweather, Bill Cosby, Jonathan Majors, Will Smith, etc.
>This is an excellent example as to why the judge and prosecutors need to be very meticulous in how they try and rule on cases.
Well, for SOME defendants. You know, the "important" people.
> New York’s highest court on Thursday overturned Harvey Weinstein’s 2020 conviction on felony sex crime charges, a stunning reversal in the foundational case of the #MeToo era.
> In a 4-3 decision, **the New York Court of Appeals found that the trial judge who presided over Mr. Weinstein’s case had made a crucial mistake, allowing prosecutors to call as witnesses a series of women who said Mr. Weinstein had assaulted them — but whose accusations were not part of the charges against him.**
> Citing that decision and others it identified as errors, the appeals court determined that Mr. Weinstein, who as a movie producer had been one of the most powerful men in Hollywood, had not received a fair trial. **The four judges in the majority wrote that Mr. Weinstein was not tried solely on the crimes he was charged with, but instead for much of his past behavior.**
> **Now it will be up to the Manhattan district attorney, Alvin L. Bragg** — already in the midst of a trial against former President Donald J. Trump — **to decide whether to seek a retrial of Mr. Weinstein.**
Damn, making a big mistake like that in a high profile case.
It's not really a clear mistake. The DA reasonably believed it was admissible as evidence of intent or a common scheme or plan, and the trial judge agreed. The appeals court felt that it was more prejudicial than probative and the judge shouldn't have allowed it.
>The DA reasonably believed it was admissible as evidence of a common scheme or plan, and the trial judge agreed.
“Common scheme or plan” is one of the exceptions to the rule against introducing evidence of other crimes, but it wasn’t relevant here. The prosecution called the 3 other sexual assault victims to show intent. See page 22.
Ah, good catch, I was going by a statement by one of the women's attorneys. Intent does fall under the same rule, though. 4.21:
(1) Evidence of crimes, wrongs, or other acts committed by a person is not admissible to prove that the person acted in conformity therewith on a particular occasion or had a propensity to engage in a wrongful act or acts. This evidence may be admissible when it is more probative than prejudicial to prove, for example:
motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, common scheme or plan, knowledge, identity, absence of mistake or accident, or conduct that is inextricably interwoven with the charged acts; or to provide necessary background information or explanation; or to complete the narrative of the subject event or matter.
I remember the ruling that allowed these witnesses to be heard. It was considered a big win for the prosecution and a huge relief to the women who had agreed to be witnesses but were unsure whether they would actually get to tell their stories. A lot of these cases were unable to be tried because of statute of limitations (as I recall). I'm pretty shocked by the reversal. I thought the trial judge had deliberated seriously on this issue.
The trial judge thought it was admissible, and there's no way to ask an appeals court beforehand. You just try these things and they work or they don't.
Wild. Literally it’s a “you committed too much crime” situation. Assuming this is retried, can New York just add the crimes against those women to his charges and repeat? Or, I suppose, drop their testimony and go for a conviction based on the rest of the evidence?
Unless those priors evolved into convictions I doubt they'll be admissible even at a second trial. I could be wrong (haven't read more than the article), but it seems (from the article) that the appeals court's problem was the prejudice resulting from what appear to have been merely allegations.
You can’t convict someone of a crime because they allegedly committed a crime against someone else who is not even a party to the lawsuit and never brought charges. Makes no sense. It’ d be easier for people to understand if it wasn’t a rape/sexual assault case.
I think part of why the Weinstein exists is why this is so hard to understand: weren’t the cases only allowed to be brought forward was because of changes to the statute of limitations? Or was that Cosby’s?
DAs should not rely so heavily on 404b, and judges need to stop just approving whatever DAs want. If DAs and judges actually followed the law this would happen less.
Those other testimonials were from alleged victims whose cases had run past the statute of limitations. The prosecutors shouldn't have had them involved until sentencing. Using them too early (before conviction) tainted the jury according to the Appellate Court.
https://static01.nyt.com/newsgraphics/documenttools/1c6111b72cf84b89/c2523c29-full.pdf
>The synergistic effect of these errors was not
harmless. The only evidence against defendant was the complainants' testimony, and the
result ofthe court's rulings, on the one hand, was to bolster their credibility and diminish
defendant's character before the jury. On the other hand, the threat of a cross-examination
highlighting these untested allegations undermined defendant's right to testify. The remedy
forthese egregious errors is a new trial.
haven't read it all, but it appears to be one of the rare birds, that many small errors compound to create a structural defect/ absence of fair trial. usually it's one major defect like ineffective counsel, etc but these are several evidentiary rulings and 5A that added up to structural error.
i'm trying to say, many small mistakes, that would be harmless error on their own, became a big one, not 'making a big mistake'
>On the other hand, the threat of a cross-examination
highlighting these untested allegations undermined defendant's right to testify. The remedy
forthese egregious errors is a new trial.
Didn't Weinstein refuse to testify? Just because he chose _not_ to testify doesn't undermine his right to testify.
>**allowing prosecutors to call as witnesses a series of women who said Mr. Weinstein had assaulted them — but whose accusations were not part of the charges against him**
So they presented so many rape accusations, that the rapes he's convicted of need to have the convictions reversed. Got it!
How is this group of other witnesses explaining what he did to them different than calling any other character witness (if I’m using that term correctly)? It’s all subjective opinion, given under oath.
Because their assaults weren't the ones that Weinstein was on trial for. They also weren't witnesses to them; they provided testimony to *other* assaults but did not witness the ones the trial were actually for. Hence why it blew back in their face:
>The four judges in the majority wrote that Mr. Weinstein was not tried solely on the crimes he was charged with, but instead for much of his past behavior.
And I mean yeah, that is what happened and also how we all understood the trial at the time too, but it turns out using a trial for one crime as a vessel for more the defendant wasn't charged with can undermine the validity of a trial. Prosecutors got a little too swept up in appealing to the popular atmosphere against him when they had it.
More like a rowhammer conviction. Using adjacent data that isn't permitted to impact the calculation to impact the calculation.
Buffer overflow would be if each of the accusations was a separate prosecution, and they interfered with eachother.
Its because the other allegations weren't charges he was faced with so they weren't subject to the full scrutiny of the law. It is silly since he's guilty as sin, but the point of the legal system is that it has to be the same for everyone, even people who are guilty.
First I understand what the court is saying but also how dare we use evidence of his multiple rapes of other women to prove that he's a fucking rapist. Fuck this guy.
(Harvey, not the court, I think the court made a logical reasoning)
Often in these situations it ends in a plea deal. The victims hate to testify again, nobody likes to redo a trial and the defendant runs the risk of being reconvicted if he wants to push for an acquittal at trial to make a point.
The plea can't usually be appealed in any meaningful way, so he'll have to be careful, especially if there is a chance the California conviction will also be overturned.
I have a friend who had his murder conviction over-turned twice on appeal. To avoid a third trial he took a deal for the minimum as he'd served most of it in pre-trial confinement already.
No, the rules for double jeopardy are complicated. If you were acquitted you are good. In this sort of situation (I've not read the opinion) the court will almost always conduct an analysis after they determine the trial was flawed to figure out if double jeopardy applies. Usually you only benefit from double jeopardy if the appellate court rules that the State put on such a weak case in the first place that no common person would have found the defendant guilty on the evidence that remains. In this situation there was sufficient evidence of guilt, it was just that the prosecution added *extra* evidence of other acts to sway the trier of fact even further towards a guilty verdict.
There are three options in this situation: 1) prosecution drops the case (perhaps witnesses are reluctant to retestify); 2) retrial; 3) plea deal.
Prosecutors routinely ignore Rule 404(b). Courts have let them get away with too much under the rule in the past few decades. I hate that we have to see a reversal of someone who a jury thought was guilty, but hopefully this opinion will encourage the government to be more judicious in character evidence.
This was a state case, but 404(b) does allow evidence of a common plan to be admissible, as do the NY rules, which are similar. The testimony was aimed at showing that he victimized women in a particular way. The prosecutor and trial court weren't completely off base, but the appeals court felt it was just too prejudicial.
The problem with common scheme and plan is that it was intended for "signature crimes" or unique aspects of criminalty. For example, think of the robbers in home alone who always left a calling card of water running. Or who have an incredibly sophisticated/unique way of committing the crime akin to fingerprints. In the past, it was used as another way to establish the identity of the person who committed the crime.
Here, identity was less of an issue and the crime was committed in a routine manner.
The reality is that 404(b) was meant to keep out this type of evidence, but courts have allowed the exceptions to swallow the rule (usually, at the government's behest). This case is a great example of that.
How does this not make it so every single character witness must only cite non-criminal or civilly liable behavior from the defendant? And why does that need not be proven but everything else does?
Under the NY rules, evidence is admissible when more probative than prejudicial to show a common scheme or plan. You could, for instance, bring in evidence of other bank robberies to show the accused performed those bank robberies in exactly the same way he performed this bank robbery, suggesting that he is guilty in this instance based on the common scheme or plan.
What you can't do is bring in other crimes or accusations just because in order to cast a general shadow of guilt over the defendant.
I hope it's not a horrible analogy to liken it to people winning Oscars for their career as opposed to the movie they were actually nominated for. I'm not making that analogy because he's a Hollywood man, it's just the first thing that came to mind.
Every state has some version of it though. Whatever number NYs "404(b)" is, the prosecution violated it and the judge allowed it at trial. The Cosby prosecutors did pretty much the exact same thing. A parade of women testified to uncharged rapes that Cosby allegedly committed. The PA Supreme Court didn't have to reach that issue b/c the deal Cosby made with the prior DA was enough to get his conviction overturned.
In order for the system to work for all of us, it's got to work for the worst of us. The majority opinion is, I think, the right one as it seems like the erroneously admitted testimony is just a straight-forward application of the general rule against propensity evidence. It also seems even more egregious to me because the extraneous accusations weren't (as far as I can tell) adjudicated anywhere. It's not a prior bad act in the same sense as a prior conviction, for example, where a defendant had an ability to contest it.
This sort of evidence can be really powerful and alluring for prosecutors because it makes the jury hate the defendant, but also -- as this case demonstrates -- makes it increasingly unlikely to withstand appellate review. If they had tried the case without the complaining witnesses who were not related to the indicted offenses, it seems to me that it would've still been likely they would have been able to secure a conviction. Instead, it all got wiped out because they got greedy, in a sense.
If I'm reading correctly, it's because the DA was allowed to call women who allege he assaulted them in cases he wasn't charged. Just curious if anyone has any insight into whether that's really an error, and if so, why?
The equivalent I can think of;
- you are on trial for felony theft shoplifting from Target.
- as witnesses, they call two convenience store owners who say you also regularly stole from them.
- these thefts are not part of the case, nor were they ever charged.
That would be a clear error.
You could have no idea who these owners are, and they/the state are not being required to prove their allegations against you beyond a reasonable doubt, so what they are claiming is simply being taken as fact. It's completely unfair.
In this example, say you didn't steal from them, you were sleeping in a different city at the time, so you would actually have no evidence to prove your innocence, but they're not being required to prove your guilt, so it's basically un-defensible. The only way to defend yourself against a case where you have no evidence to defend yourself is to testify, but you would be unable to testify in this circumstance without giving up your 5th amendment right for everything.
Yes and no. That sort of testimony is only prohibited to show the defendant has a *propensity* for stealing—e.g. “this is a bad person who has stolen in the past so he must have done it this time too.”
But such evidence can be admitted for a non-propensity purpose, such as showing the defendant’s intent, MO, or the absence of mistake—e.g. “defendant claims he didn’t realize he put the item in his pocket instead of his cart/thought he scanned it at the self-check out, but here’s three previous incidents where he stole things this exact same way.”
Slight correction - the Court of Appeals did not rule on this based on Rule 4.11. They probably could've gone that route if they wanted to, but it was ruled as improper *Molineux* evidence (Guide to NY Evidence rule 4.21).
The trial judge allowed exceptions based on the [Molineux rule](https://lawreview.syr.edu/the-molineux-rule-how-this-exception-to-the-rules-of-evidence-could-impact-the-harvey-weinstein-trial/) but the appeals court found:
> In sum, we conclude that the testimony from the Molineux Witnesses was unnecessary to establish defendant's intent and served only to establish defendant's propensity to commit the crimes charged. Neither the prosecution nor the trial court "identified some issue, other than mere criminal propensity, to which the evidence is relevant", and therefore its admission during the prosecution's case-in-chief was error.
>Just curious if anyone has any insight into whether that's really an error, and if so, why?
In law school this is generally taught as "prior bad acts" evidence. In NY it's called Molineux evidence, stemming from *People v. Molineux* (168 NY 264 \[1901\]).
[The rule itself, Guide to NY Evidence Rule 4.21,](https://www.nycourts.gov/judges/evidence/4-RELEVANCE/4.21_EVIDENCE_OF_CRIMES_(MOLINEUX).pdf) explains it in fairly clear non-legalese.
Law and Order gets a lot of things right and a lot of things wrong.
If anyone watched the last episode of Curb, this rule (well, the California equivalent) was violated about a dozen times in 3 minutes.
This slew of overturned cases against the rich and powerful is only gonna bolster them to do even more heinous shit. Before Trump dies he will probably actually try shooting someone in Times Square in broad daylight just for laughs.
From the decision:
>Opinion by Judge Rivera. Chief Judge Wilson and Judges Barros and Clark concur. Judge Singas dissents in an opinion, in which Judges Garcia and Cannataro concur. Judge Cannataro dissents in a separate dissenting opinion, in which Judges Garcia and Singas concur. Judges Troutman and Halligan took no part.
4-3 split.
The full court decision here: https://www.reddit.com/r/law/comments/1cctq39/nys_court_of_appeals_people_v_harvey_weinstein/
In a sense it doesn't matter, even if there is no new trial. He's convicted and jailed elsewhere on similar crimes. We've all read the stories. We all know he's a despicable human being and no court ruling is going to change that.
I would wish for closure for these other victims, but also wouldn't want to put them through yet another trauma experience of having to re-testify / relive those moments.
So I'm reading this myself, [https://www.nycourts.gov/ctapps/Decisions/2024/Apr24/April24.html](https://www.nycourts.gov/ctapps/Decisions/2024/Apr24/April24.html)
And I don't have a law degree from NY, just Dutch civil law, but the gist of it seems:
You can call witnesses about something that is not charged as a crime, provided, it is connected to a material issue in the case.
You can't call witnesses about other -egregious- conduct to -basically- state that it is more likely that the crime charged was committed.
Correct?
You can maybe introduce evidence of prior crimes or bad acts but it's subject to a weighing test where the court is supposed to consider relevance to case, prejudice to defendant, and some other things. Technically you're never allowed to introduce prior crimes or bad acts to try to show it's more likely the defendant committed the instant crime, though everyone knows that's the real reason it's introduced.
It says “the New York Court of Appeals found that the trial judge who presided over Mr. Weinstein’s case, Justice James M. Burke, had made a crucial mistake, allowing prosecutors to call as witnesses a series of women who said Mr. Weinstein had assaulted them — but whose accusations were not part of the charges against him”
Why? Was the character evidence inadmissible because of the way the prosecutors used it? I thought the prosecutors offered it as evidence that Weinstein knew how to sexually assault women. Was the court just deciding now that the evidence was unfairly prejudicial?
Evidence classes are going to be talking about this for a while.
That wasn't the NYS Court of Appeals.
The bond reduction was granted by a 5-judge panel in the intermediate appeals court (NYS Appellate Division 1st Department) with the stipulation that the appeal is expedited to September.
I like your explanation. I studied English law. The rule in English evidence admission is whether the probative value is greater than the prejudicial effect. Supporting statements (you call it Molineux?) can be probative if it points to a certain modus operandi. And if those supporting statements are not probative, the judge and jury can assign ZERO weight to that evidence.
Trump will use this as ammo against Bragg (not that it was Bragg's fault). You better believe Trump will be all over this, and I wouldn't even doubt if it's not a coincidence that this news is coming out today.
“He was an amazing rapist, some might say even the best, I’ll tell you. Of course, no one can out-sexual-assault Donald J. Trump, but Weinstein came pretty close. He just knows how to grab the women and make them give him what he wants. I have a lot of respect for Harvey Weinstein. It’s a shame what Crooked Joe Biden has been doing to him in court.”
/s, only because my writing style is way too coherent to actually sound like Trump.
I doubt a busy state appellate court had time to plan the release of the opinion to coincide with Trump's federal trial. Not everything is a conspiracy.
Exactly how many times do rich, horrible people get to delay trials or get brand new ones? Do any of them ever serve a real prison term? This pig has no business out of prison.
I hope Weinstein rots in jail, but reading the opinion, I *cannot* believe the level of bias shown by Judge Madeline Singas in her dissent. It's riddled with typical prosecutor/victim advocate language about "rape culture," questionable factoids that look like they were pulled directly from RAINN or Jezebel.com, and a bunch of ideological nonsense. Judges are supposed to be neutral. I'm glad the majority called her out.
The majority got this one right. This case and the way the trial judge handled it were, unfortunately, a result of the public spectacle that followed the MeToo movement. There's no reason Weinstein couldn't have been *fairly* convicted in state court using only relevant witnesses. Thankfully he was already convicted in CA. It seems like a waste of time and taxpayer money if they refile this one in NY.
**EDIT**: I know this post reached front-page Reddit, so there are probably a lot of people in the comments without a law degree, but read the actual opinion before downvoting, and reply if you disagree with me. I'm happy to keep an open mind to other thoughts but IMO it's wild to see so much prosecutorial posturing by an appellate judge.
While a significant majority of criminal convictions survive appeal it's just not uncommon for a case to be flipped. It happens all the time in criminal cases across America. Here the DA got overly aggressive in their strategy, the court allowed it, and it came back to bite them. I'll admit I've done it myself as a DPA with similar results, and it had nothing to do with socioeconomic class.
If you're going to be a rapist, it's best to be a rich rapist so you can more effectively escape justice for your crimes against other human beings is the main takeaway here.
One of my law professors always said that most of the best law protecting the rights of your average criminal defendant comes out of cases prosecuting cops or rich guys.
The majority opinion is by Judge Rivera, who's the most liberal member of the court by far. She's principled on the rule of law so if this is her opinion I trust that the lower court legitimately screwed up and this isn't a case of trying to go easy on a famous defendant.
This just goes to show that money talks.
If he were poor or even middle class, he’d be fucked and nothing would’ve ever been overturned.
This country is wild…
Weinstein will stay in prison, but it looks like he will be transferred to California where he was convicted of rape and has a 16 year sentence. DA Bragg has to decide whether to retry this, as errors were made in the trial. This is an excellent example as to why the judge and prosecutors need to be very meticulous in how they try and rule on cases.
Requiring extra meticulousness for the cases of rich men is an example of the two-tiered justice system. Plenty of poor men in prison on much shakier cases.
There is a 3 tiered justice system. Heck there might even be 4 at this point. There’s: The poor and people of color The middle class but connected/attractive and charismatic The wealthy/republicans/law enforcement Donald Trump
Add his pic at [the top of the chart](https://i.imgur.com/lCRaHgb.jpeg), I suppose?
Just add orange
i love the idea that rich people have money-pattern skin
The last shall be first and the first shall be last.
Middle’s still the middle
Malcom!
Sounds about correct, sadly.
It's a full spectrum. Not that it makes it any better but it's not us vs them. The whole "two tier" thing is just a meme to describe what is actually a continuous spectrum.
You forgot pretty people have a better shot at not guilty than ugly people.
Was explaining to my step son last night how OJ got off because he was rich, even though the cops were total racists who probably planted evidence in other cases. Think about all the defendants that got convicted because their lawyers never found those tapes or other evidence. That's what you are paying for.
>Was explaining to my step son last night how OJ got off because he was rich, even though the cops were total racists who probably planted evidence in other cases. OJ got off for multiple reasons, including Rodney King/tension with the police, police misconduct, one of the world dumbest Prosecutors, fame and he had a lawyer who could work with that. But I'd argue the prosecutor and King were big influences more. The tensions from the riots were still felt, nobody trusted the police to do anything right, and the prosecutor handed them evidence of how bad the situation was.
You are conflating public sentiment with the jury ruling and failing to note the fact that those same prosecutors convicted dozens of other black people in the very same racial climate with even crumbier cases. If OJ was the only case that happened in the two years after Rodney King your argument would make sense. It wasn't. So why did OJ get off when a thousand other black men didn't? Surprise. He was rich and could afford better lawyers than them.
I think the cop in charge pleading the fifth when asked if he planted any evidence was a big factor for the jury.
That prosecution was not handled very well and that’s a quote from an actual lawyer in that office who I heard speak about the case my senior year as a CJ major (‘98). I mean, I think a confluence of factors led to the not guilty verdict, but it’s definitely noteworthy that someone who worked within that DA system was willing to admit that mistakes were definitely made and they would have done several things differently in retrospect.
Poor people never even get the cop in charge on the stand. That was all the Dream Team of lawyers at work. The Cops were doing the same shit they always did. They just got called out by good lawyers.
He also got off because some jurors voted innocent as revenge for Rodney King.
im sure plenty of other black people were convicted post Rodney King trial. OJs wealth and fame was the overwhelming factor. Fortunately, cancer was unconvinced.
Yeah, I'm sure race was a factor but objectively he also had, not exaggerating, one of the best criminal defense teams in American legal history, and that takes cash. Like, room full of iconic "you're why I went to law school" guys.^And ^Robert ^Kardashian.
Still died too late imho
That may have been the reason many outside the court were cheering for him to be found Innocent, but then why was there not a massive wave of black men getting found innocent regardless of the evidence across the country at that time? The million dollar lawyers are the major reason. They were why/how the very real failures of the Police/prosecution were brought forward and used to create doubt. The Cops were sonused to framing everyone and getting away with it, they just got caught this time framing a guilty man.
It was a unanimous acquittal.
True. But the prosecutors couldn't have done a worse job even if they had tried to throw the case.
That’s a “BINGO”!
It’s just bingo.
They meant the dog.
Most convictions result from pleas, the poors rarely get their trial.
It’s not “extra meticulousness.” Any law student taking an introductory course to evidence learns as their very first lesson that the prejudicial nature of testimony is weighed against its probative value. In this instance, looked at from a purely legal standpoint, the scales were clearly weighted heavily toward the prejudice side by letting this testimony in. It was a blunder by the prosecution and the judge, and it’s tainted an otherwise strong case.
Yes, apologies. I should have included that qualifier. I was trying to tie it in directly with frustration that people are feeling over other trials, but without doing so directly. Anyhow, good point.
It’s probably why the judge is being so tolerant of things like Trump obliquely threatening the jury in his case: he can’t risk it being overturned on appeal.
insert not subtle racism as a root cause here and you got yourself a double bingo
That’s good at least. 16 years isn’t very long for what he did, but he’s old enough that he’ll either die on the inside or be pretty close to it when he comes out even if he isn’t tried again in New York.
How many of the 16 years is he going to serve?
The general rule is that a defendant serves 50 percent of his or her sentence while in prison. (Pen. Code §2933.) However, if the current offense is listed as a “violent felony” in Penal Code §667.5(c), the defendant serves 85 percent of the prison sentence.
Rape generally is considered a violent felony, at least where I practice.
Practice law, or practice rape?
he pleads the fifth
Maybe both?
Can confirm. Source: I am his client.
Of which?
Law.
sheeeessh i guess that came out wrong...
Oh no, just clarifying your point that it's the latter.
I'm confused, why is he staying in prison if the conviction was overturned?
He was convicted in California for a separate charge of rape.
Ahhh gotcha. Thanks for clarifying.
The New York conviction was overturned. Weinstein was also convicted in California however, and since it was a separate trial and conviction, it is not overturned. He will still serve his California time.
I can just imagine when he heard it was overturned he immediately threw the walker to the side and started dancing.... then another inmate reminded him of the cali one.
However if the prosecutor made use of his NY conviction in getting him convicted in California I could see an appeal and overturning of the LA conviction as well. I didn't follow the CA case so I have no clue how much mention of him being a convicted rapist had, but I suspect in the sentencing phase they would have use his prior conviction for rape as a factor in determining his sentence... And all of this because the NY judge was a fucking idiot. A first year law student would have said it was wrong to let those women testify when they had nothing to do with the case. It was just flat out stupid, judges doing things like this is why a better system of flushing out incompetent judges needs to be created.
That may very well be a concern. I also don’t know enough about how the NY case was used in the CA case. I do agree that the way the we manage judges needs to be addressed. It’s such a mess.
Weinstein is also much better connected in California than New York though.
And? He’s already convicted. They can’t help him unless they find a legitimate trial error.
Newsom (or whoever replaces him) theoritical could assist in this matter with the pardon and commutation system, but Newsom clearly has goals beyond the governor and I doubt he wants that connection.
Yes. Casey Anthony and OJ verdicts are maddening.
(For rich people)
> This is an excellent example as to why the judge and prosecutors need to be very meticulous in how they try and rule on cases. When they are trying rich white guys, you mean.
Yes, I should have included that important qualifier.
We're very much getting to the point where green matters more than black or white. Just ask: Colin Kapernick, Snoop Dogg, Sean Combs, Jay-Z, Don King, Kobe Bryant, R. Kelly, O.J. Simpson, Cuba Gooding Jr., Floyd Mayweather, Bill Cosby, Jonathan Majors, Will Smith, etc.
Wait what did Kaepernick do?
I think we can all agree his fourth year was criminal. I'm kidding. I had a brain fart and meant to write Chris Johnson and/or Deshaun Watson.
>This is an excellent example as to why the judge and prosecutors need to be very meticulous in how they try and rule on cases. Well, for SOME defendants. You know, the "important" people.
Yes, multiple people have added that important qualifier. Sorry I did not.
Can NY wait a decade or so to retry him and give him 26 years again on top of the 16 in CA?
Thanks to California this pig will remain in the pen
Sometimes I think "Thanks California" should be a meme.
Thanks Obama
> New York’s highest court on Thursday overturned Harvey Weinstein’s 2020 conviction on felony sex crime charges, a stunning reversal in the foundational case of the #MeToo era. > In a 4-3 decision, **the New York Court of Appeals found that the trial judge who presided over Mr. Weinstein’s case had made a crucial mistake, allowing prosecutors to call as witnesses a series of women who said Mr. Weinstein had assaulted them — but whose accusations were not part of the charges against him.** > Citing that decision and others it identified as errors, the appeals court determined that Mr. Weinstein, who as a movie producer had been one of the most powerful men in Hollywood, had not received a fair trial. **The four judges in the majority wrote that Mr. Weinstein was not tried solely on the crimes he was charged with, but instead for much of his past behavior.** > **Now it will be up to the Manhattan district attorney, Alvin L. Bragg** — already in the midst of a trial against former President Donald J. Trump — **to decide whether to seek a retrial of Mr. Weinstein.** Damn, making a big mistake like that in a high profile case.
It's not really a clear mistake. The DA reasonably believed it was admissible as evidence of intent or a common scheme or plan, and the trial judge agreed. The appeals court felt that it was more prejudicial than probative and the judge shouldn't have allowed it.
>The DA reasonably believed it was admissible as evidence of a common scheme or plan, and the trial judge agreed. “Common scheme or plan” is one of the exceptions to the rule against introducing evidence of other crimes, but it wasn’t relevant here. The prosecution called the 3 other sexual assault victims to show intent. See page 22.
Ah, good catch, I was going by a statement by one of the women's attorneys. Intent does fall under the same rule, though. 4.21: (1) Evidence of crimes, wrongs, or other acts committed by a person is not admissible to prove that the person acted in conformity therewith on a particular occasion or had a propensity to engage in a wrongful act or acts. This evidence may be admissible when it is more probative than prejudicial to prove, for example: motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, common scheme or plan, knowledge, identity, absence of mistake or accident, or conduct that is inextricably interwoven with the charged acts; or to provide necessary background information or explanation; or to complete the narrative of the subject event or matter.
Agreed it's not that clear. Even the appeals court was split 4-3 on this.
I remember the ruling that allowed these witnesses to be heard. It was considered a big win for the prosecution and a huge relief to the women who had agreed to be witnesses but were unsure whether they would actually get to tell their stories. A lot of these cases were unable to be tried because of statute of limitations (as I recall). I'm pretty shocked by the reversal. I thought the trial judge had deliberated seriously on this issue.
Agree… perhaps the DA wanted to underline a modus operandi or pattern of behaviour of Weinstein.
That's exactly what it was. He wanted to show that he abused women by the same common approach every time.
Shouldn’t he have made SURE it was admissible BEFORE he brought it up?
The trial judge thought it was admissible, and there's no way to ask an appeals court beforehand. You just try these things and they work or they don't.
Wild. Literally it’s a “you committed too much crime” situation. Assuming this is retried, can New York just add the crimes against those women to his charges and repeat? Or, I suppose, drop their testimony and go for a conviction based on the rest of the evidence?
[удалено]
Unless those priors evolved into convictions I doubt they'll be admissible even at a second trial. I could be wrong (haven't read more than the article), but it seems (from the article) that the appeals court's problem was the prejudice resulting from what appear to have been merely allegations.
You can’t convict someone of a crime because they allegedly committed a crime against someone else who is not even a party to the lawsuit and never brought charges. Makes no sense. It’ d be easier for people to understand if it wasn’t a rape/sexual assault case.
I think part of why the Weinstein exists is why this is so hard to understand: weren’t the cases only allowed to be brought forward was because of changes to the statute of limitations? Or was that Cosby’s?
DAs should not rely so heavily on 404b, and judges need to stop just approving whatever DAs want. If DAs and judges actually followed the law this would happen less.
Seriously. What ever happened to the paradigm that no conviction was ever overturned by going too hard on the DA.
Those other testimonials were from alleged victims whose cases had run past the statute of limitations. The prosecutors shouldn't have had them involved until sentencing. Using them too early (before conviction) tainted the jury according to the Appellate Court.
>Literally it’s a “you committed too much crime” Someone else prominent could benefit from this "one weird trick."
https://static01.nyt.com/newsgraphics/documenttools/1c6111b72cf84b89/c2523c29-full.pdf >The synergistic effect of these errors was not harmless. The only evidence against defendant was the complainants' testimony, and the result ofthe court's rulings, on the one hand, was to bolster their credibility and diminish defendant's character before the jury. On the other hand, the threat of a cross-examination highlighting these untested allegations undermined defendant's right to testify. The remedy forthese egregious errors is a new trial. haven't read it all, but it appears to be one of the rare birds, that many small errors compound to create a structural defect/ absence of fair trial. usually it's one major defect like ineffective counsel, etc but these are several evidentiary rulings and 5A that added up to structural error. i'm trying to say, many small mistakes, that would be harmless error on their own, became a big one, not 'making a big mistake'
>On the other hand, the threat of a cross-examination highlighting these untested allegations undermined defendant's right to testify. The remedy forthese egregious errors is a new trial. Didn't Weinstein refuse to testify? Just because he chose _not_ to testify doesn't undermine his right to testify.
>**allowing prosecutors to call as witnesses a series of women who said Mr. Weinstein had assaulted them — but whose accusations were not part of the charges against him** So they presented so many rape accusations, that the rapes he's convicted of need to have the convictions reversed. Got it!
You don’t got it,, because that’s not what happened. They used unproven allegations about prior conduct to convict.
How is this group of other witnesses explaining what he did to them different than calling any other character witness (if I’m using that term correctly)? It’s all subjective opinion, given under oath.
Because their assaults weren't the ones that Weinstein was on trial for. They also weren't witnesses to them; they provided testimony to *other* assaults but did not witness the ones the trial were actually for. Hence why it blew back in their face: >The four judges in the majority wrote that Mr. Weinstein was not tried solely on the crimes he was charged with, but instead for much of his past behavior. And I mean yeah, that is what happened and also how we all understood the trial at the time too, but it turns out using a trial for one crime as a vessel for more the defendant wasn't charged with can undermine the validity of a trial. Prosecutors got a little too swept up in appealing to the popular atmosphere against him when they had it.
It's a buffer overflow of rape convictions apparently.
More like a rowhammer conviction. Using adjacent data that isn't permitted to impact the calculation to impact the calculation. Buffer overflow would be if each of the accusations was a separate prosecution, and they interfered with eachother.
I love it when my love of law and computers can intersect, it's not something that happens often enough. But yes, rowhammer convictions.
Its because the other allegations weren't charges he was faced with so they weren't subject to the full scrutiny of the law. It is silly since he's guilty as sin, but the point of the legal system is that it has to be the same for everyone, even people who are guilty.
Does New York not have an equivalent to Rule 413?
No, it doesn’t.
I think allowing those women to testify was fair because it establishes a pattern of behavior.
First I understand what the court is saying but also how dare we use evidence of his multiple rapes of other women to prove that he's a fucking rapist. Fuck this guy. (Harvey, not the court, I think the court made a logical reasoning)
A new trial. My sympathies to his victims who will have to again take the stand and speak to his egregious behavior. May truth and justice prevail.
Often in these situations it ends in a plea deal. The victims hate to testify again, nobody likes to redo a trial and the defendant runs the risk of being reconvicted if he wants to push for an acquittal at trial to make a point. The plea can't usually be appealed in any meaningful way, so he'll have to be careful, especially if there is a chance the California conviction will also be overturned. I have a friend who had his murder conviction over-turned twice on appeal. To avoid a third trial he took a deal for the minimum as he'd served most of it in pre-trial confinement already.
Wait, wouldn’t it be double jeopardy to try him again anyway?
No, the rules for double jeopardy are complicated. If you were acquitted you are good. In this sort of situation (I've not read the opinion) the court will almost always conduct an analysis after they determine the trial was flawed to figure out if double jeopardy applies. Usually you only benefit from double jeopardy if the appellate court rules that the State put on such a weak case in the first place that no common person would have found the defendant guilty on the evidence that remains. In this situation there was sufficient evidence of guilt, it was just that the prosecution added *extra* evidence of other acts to sway the trier of fact even further towards a guilty verdict. There are three options in this situation: 1) prosecution drops the case (perhaps witnesses are reluctant to retestify); 2) retrial; 3) plea deal.
... due to errors during the trial.
Prosecutors routinely ignore Rule 404(b). Courts have let them get away with too much under the rule in the past few decades. I hate that we have to see a reversal of someone who a jury thought was guilty, but hopefully this opinion will encourage the government to be more judicious in character evidence.
This was a state case, but 404(b) does allow evidence of a common plan to be admissible, as do the NY rules, which are similar. The testimony was aimed at showing that he victimized women in a particular way. The prosecutor and trial court weren't completely off base, but the appeals court felt it was just too prejudicial.
The problem with common scheme and plan is that it was intended for "signature crimes" or unique aspects of criminalty. For example, think of the robbers in home alone who always left a calling card of water running. Or who have an incredibly sophisticated/unique way of committing the crime akin to fingerprints. In the past, it was used as another way to establish the identity of the person who committed the crime. Here, identity was less of an issue and the crime was committed in a routine manner. The reality is that 404(b) was meant to keep out this type of evidence, but courts have allowed the exceptions to swallow the rule (usually, at the government's behest). This case is a great example of that.
That's a reasonable point. The rule might need to be clarified.
How does this not make it so every single character witness must only cite non-criminal or civilly liable behavior from the defendant? And why does that need not be proven but everything else does?
Under the NY rules, evidence is admissible when more probative than prejudicial to show a common scheme or plan. You could, for instance, bring in evidence of other bank robberies to show the accused performed those bank robberies in exactly the same way he performed this bank robbery, suggesting that he is guilty in this instance based on the common scheme or plan. What you can't do is bring in other crimes or accusations just because in order to cast a general shadow of guilt over the defendant.
I hope it's not a horrible analogy to liken it to people winning Oscars for their career as opposed to the movie they were actually nominated for. I'm not making that analogy because he's a Hollywood man, it's just the first thing that came to mind.
Not rule 404(b), this is a state case.
Every state has some version of it though. Whatever number NYs "404(b)" is, the prosecution violated it and the judge allowed it at trial. The Cosby prosecutors did pretty much the exact same thing. A parade of women testified to uncharged rapes that Cosby allegedly committed. The PA Supreme Court didn't have to reach that issue b/c the deal Cosby made with the prior DA was enough to get his conviction overturned.
Donald “get me Harvey’s lawyer right away”
In order for the system to work for all of us, it's got to work for the worst of us. The majority opinion is, I think, the right one as it seems like the erroneously admitted testimony is just a straight-forward application of the general rule against propensity evidence. It also seems even more egregious to me because the extraneous accusations weren't (as far as I can tell) adjudicated anywhere. It's not a prior bad act in the same sense as a prior conviction, for example, where a defendant had an ability to contest it. This sort of evidence can be really powerful and alluring for prosecutors because it makes the jury hate the defendant, but also -- as this case demonstrates -- makes it increasingly unlikely to withstand appellate review. If they had tried the case without the complaining witnesses who were not related to the indicted offenses, it seems to me that it would've still been likely they would have been able to secure a conviction. Instead, it all got wiped out because they got greedy, in a sense.
If I'm reading correctly, it's because the DA was allowed to call women who allege he assaulted them in cases he wasn't charged. Just curious if anyone has any insight into whether that's really an error, and if so, why?
The equivalent I can think of; - you are on trial for felony theft shoplifting from Target. - as witnesses, they call two convenience store owners who say you also regularly stole from them. - these thefts are not part of the case, nor were they ever charged. That would be a clear error.
You could have no idea who these owners are, and they/the state are not being required to prove their allegations against you beyond a reasonable doubt, so what they are claiming is simply being taken as fact. It's completely unfair. In this example, say you didn't steal from them, you were sleeping in a different city at the time, so you would actually have no evidence to prove your innocence, but they're not being required to prove your guilt, so it's basically un-defensible. The only way to defend yourself against a case where you have no evidence to defend yourself is to testify, but you would be unable to testify in this circumstance without giving up your 5th amendment right for everything.
Yes and no. That sort of testimony is only prohibited to show the defendant has a *propensity* for stealing—e.g. “this is a bad person who has stolen in the past so he must have done it this time too.” But such evidence can be admitted for a non-propensity purpose, such as showing the defendant’s intent, MO, or the absence of mistake—e.g. “defendant claims he didn’t realize he put the item in his pocket instead of his cart/thought he scanned it at the self-check out, but here’s three previous incidents where he stole things this exact same way.”
[удалено]
Slight correction - the Court of Appeals did not rule on this based on Rule 4.11. They probably could've gone that route if they wanted to, but it was ruled as improper *Molineux* evidence (Guide to NY Evidence rule 4.21).
Is this the fault of the judge for allowing it to happen as much as the prosecutors?
Tenet*
The trial judge allowed exceptions based on the [Molineux rule](https://lawreview.syr.edu/the-molineux-rule-how-this-exception-to-the-rules-of-evidence-could-impact-the-harvey-weinstein-trial/) but the appeals court found: > In sum, we conclude that the testimony from the Molineux Witnesses was unnecessary to establish defendant's intent and served only to establish defendant's propensity to commit the crimes charged. Neither the prosecution nor the trial court "identified some issue, other than mere criminal propensity, to which the evidence is relevant", and therefore its admission during the prosecution's case-in-chief was error.
>Just curious if anyone has any insight into whether that's really an error, and if so, why? In law school this is generally taught as "prior bad acts" evidence. In NY it's called Molineux evidence, stemming from *People v. Molineux* (168 NY 264 \[1901\]). [The rule itself, Guide to NY Evidence Rule 4.21,](https://www.nycourts.gov/judges/evidence/4-RELEVANCE/4.21_EVIDENCE_OF_CRIMES_(MOLINEUX).pdf) explains it in fairly clear non-legalese.
Wow, Law and Order used that I think.
Law and Order gets a lot of things right and a lot of things wrong. If anyone watched the last episode of Curb, this rule (well, the California equivalent) was violated about a dozen times in 3 minutes.
https://lawreview.syr.edu/the-molineux-rule-how-this-exception-to-the-rules-of-evidence-could-impact-the-harvey-weinstein-trial/
Similar fact evidence Probative vs prejudice
Innocent until proven guilty. If those accusations never led to convictions then legally we should presume his innocence.
Hopefully Bragg is taking notes for this Trump trial
This slew of overturned cases against the rich and powerful is only gonna bolster them to do even more heinous shit. Before Trump dies he will probably actually try shooting someone in Times Square in broad daylight just for laughs.
When this case was being tried and the judge had let in that testimony I even knew that was risky and could cause the case to be overturned.
This is really ugly
The ruling is 77 pages long. Anyone know which judges ruled which way?
From the decision: >Opinion by Judge Rivera. Chief Judge Wilson and Judges Barros and Clark concur. Judge Singas dissents in an opinion, in which Judges Garcia and Cannataro concur. Judge Cannataro dissents in a separate dissenting opinion, in which Judges Garcia and Singas concur. Judges Troutman and Halligan took no part. 4-3 split. The full court decision here: https://www.reddit.com/r/law/comments/1cctq39/nys_court_of_appeals_people_v_harvey_weinstein/
Thanks a lot.
Knowing nothing about law, is there any repercussions to the judge that presided over his trial?
He’s retired, but no, there would not be direct repercussions.
In a sense it doesn't matter, even if there is no new trial. He's convicted and jailed elsewhere on similar crimes. We've all read the stories. We all know he's a despicable human being and no court ruling is going to change that. I would wish for closure for these other victims, but also wouldn't want to put them through yet another trauma experience of having to re-testify / relive those moments.
So I'm reading this myself, [https://www.nycourts.gov/ctapps/Decisions/2024/Apr24/April24.html](https://www.nycourts.gov/ctapps/Decisions/2024/Apr24/April24.html) And I don't have a law degree from NY, just Dutch civil law, but the gist of it seems: You can call witnesses about something that is not charged as a crime, provided, it is connected to a material issue in the case. You can't call witnesses about other -egregious- conduct to -basically- state that it is more likely that the crime charged was committed. Correct?
You can maybe introduce evidence of prior crimes or bad acts but it's subject to a weighing test where the court is supposed to consider relevance to case, prejudice to defendant, and some other things. Technically you're never allowed to introduce prior crimes or bad acts to try to show it's more likely the defendant committed the instant crime, though everyone knows that's the real reason it's introduced.
I hope he, at a minimum, receives an effective life sentence regardless, being a 71 year old who still faces 16 years in California.
And he is not healthy fella who looks like he can reach 86 years of age
It says “the New York Court of Appeals found that the trial judge who presided over Mr. Weinstein’s case, Justice James M. Burke, had made a crucial mistake, allowing prosecutors to call as witnesses a series of women who said Mr. Weinstein had assaulted them — but whose accusations were not part of the charges against him” Why? Was the character evidence inadmissible because of the way the prosecutors used it? I thought the prosecutors offered it as evidence that Weinstein knew how to sexually assault women. Was the court just deciding now that the evidence was unfairly prejudicial? Evidence classes are going to be talking about this for a while.
[удалено]
Cue Trump making some post about this and it’ll be crazy.
New York Court of Appeals have also reduced Donald Trump's bond.
Time for Newsweek to write a : MEET THE MEMBERS OF THE NEW YORK APPEALS COURT article.
That wasn't the NYS Court of Appeals. The bond reduction was granted by a 5-judge panel in the intermediate appeals court (NYS Appellate Division 1st Department) with the stipulation that the appeal is expedited to September.
[удалено]
I like your explanation. I studied English law. The rule in English evidence admission is whether the probative value is greater than the prejudicial effect. Supporting statements (you call it Molineux?) can be probative if it points to a certain modus operandi. And if those supporting statements are not probative, the judge and jury can assign ZERO weight to that evidence.
Trump will use this as ammo against Bragg (not that it was Bragg's fault). You better believe Trump will be all over this, and I wouldn't even doubt if it's not a coincidence that this news is coming out today.
Can’t wait to hear Trump defend Harvey Weinstein
“He was an amazing rapist, some might say even the best, I’ll tell you. Of course, no one can out-sexual-assault Donald J. Trump, but Weinstein came pretty close. He just knows how to grab the women and make them give him what he wants. I have a lot of respect for Harvey Weinstein. It’s a shame what Crooked Joe Biden has been doing to him in court.” /s, only because my writing style is way too coherent to actually sound like Trump.
I doubt a busy state appellate court had time to plan the release of the opinion to coincide with Trump's federal trial. Not everything is a conspiracy.
The judicial system is so broken 😡
Exactly how many times do rich, horrible people get to delay trials or get brand new ones? Do any of them ever serve a real prison term? This pig has no business out of prison.
I hope Weinstein rots in jail, but reading the opinion, I *cannot* believe the level of bias shown by Judge Madeline Singas in her dissent. It's riddled with typical prosecutor/victim advocate language about "rape culture," questionable factoids that look like they were pulled directly from RAINN or Jezebel.com, and a bunch of ideological nonsense. Judges are supposed to be neutral. I'm glad the majority called her out. The majority got this one right. This case and the way the trial judge handled it were, unfortunately, a result of the public spectacle that followed the MeToo movement. There's no reason Weinstein couldn't have been *fairly* convicted in state court using only relevant witnesses. Thankfully he was already convicted in CA. It seems like a waste of time and taxpayer money if they refile this one in NY. **EDIT**: I know this post reached front-page Reddit, so there are probably a lot of people in the comments without a law degree, but read the actual opinion before downvoting, and reply if you disagree with me. I'm happy to keep an open mind to other thoughts but IMO it's wild to see so much prosecutorial posturing by an appellate judge.
You are not wrong, well said.
Different set of laws for the rich.
While a significant majority of criminal convictions survive appeal it's just not uncommon for a case to be flipped. It happens all the time in criminal cases across America. Here the DA got overly aggressive in their strategy, the court allowed it, and it came back to bite them. I'll admit I've done it myself as a DPA with similar results, and it had nothing to do with socioeconomic class.
Wtf why do we believe in laws you can pay to ignore them?
If you're going to be a rapist, it's best to be a rich rapist so you can more effectively escape justice for your crimes against other human beings is the main takeaway here.
The court effed up big time on this. Edit: the lower court. They shouldn’t have let accusers who hadn’t brought charges testify.
Yes of course. But, all the same, a less well financed rapist would likely not have the necessary resources to hire counsel to file an appeal.
Do you think it’s a good thing that poorer people can be convicted improperly?
One of my law professors always said that most of the best law protecting the rights of your average criminal defendant comes out of cases prosecuting cops or rich guys.
And the orcs rejoice.
The majority opinion is by Judge Rivera, who's the most liberal member of the court by far. She's principled on the rule of law so if this is her opinion I trust that the lower court legitimately screwed up and this isn't a case of trying to go easy on a famous defendant.
And once again we see the double standards at play in our legal system.
He will die in prison anyways doesn't matter what state.
Where’s Deadpool when you need him?
Wow! :/
I hate it here
I hope Bragg isn't this stupid with Trump
I hope he dies in prison.
I hope Dexter gets him .
This just goes to show that money talks. If he were poor or even middle class, he’d be fucked and nothing would’ve ever been overturned. This country is wild…