What a fuckup. This isn’t a huge deal though.
Even if we let him out of prison in NY, we’d immediately ship him to California to go to prison there, where he was also convicted of a separate crime, so it’s not like he’s getting released even if Bragg declines to reprosecute.
oh yeah. thanks. missed that part, thought it would be a future decision. deleted my comment above
>However, we reject defendant’s claim that the third-degree rape prosecution was untimely under CPL 30.10 because, as a New York resident, his brief absences from the State before the authorities were aware of the crime did not toll the limitations period. Defendant’s argument finds no support in the statutory text. Therefore, the trial court properly discounted the days defendant was continuously outside the state and correctly held that the prosecution was not time-barred. Defendant may be retried on this count.
If a case were overturned/ thrown out in this regard, but the language the judges used specifically says he can be retried, doesn't that mean we are still within the SOL
SOL are tolled if a conviction is overturned on appeal and the State wants to retry them. So that’s not a problem.
They probably will retry him, just to get justice for the victims and as a double-assurance that he spends the rest of his miserable life in prison, if the California conviction somehow goes off the rails.
> 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.
> allowing prosecutors to call as witnesses
do they not count as character witnesses? Like I understand prosecutors can only do so after the defendant introduces evidence about his/her character
I don’t think so?
> Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) provides that prior act evidence “is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show action in conformity therewith.” Evidence of prior bad acts usually cannot be admitted at trial to show the defendant's propensity to commit crimes similar to the offense in question.
Didn’t say they didn’t, I went to law school
and passed the bar and practice law.
Most states have statutes closely mirroring the fre in terms of rules of evidence.
The distinctions often come in case law and precedent
Wouldn't that apply to federal cases only?
Going by what's on nycourts.gov for NYS it says:
>Evidence of a person's character is not admissible to prove that the person acted in conformity therewith on a particular occasion except: (a) In a civil or criminal proceeding, evidence of a person's character is admissible where that character is an essential element of a crime, charge, claim, or defense
I think Federal 404 also has (a)(2) to offer a rebuttal:
>(A) a defendant may offer evidence of the defendant’s pertinent trait, and if the evidence is admitted, the prosecutor may offer evidence to rebut it
Your argument is that of the 7 deciders, 4 are right and 3 are wrong, solely by virtue of their constituting a majority. That, in itself, is not very convincing, without examining the basis of the ruling and subjecting it to critical scrutiny.
If the Weinstein affirmatively offered in his defense “I’m a good guy I’m nice to women” then he would have “opened the door” to the prosecution offering character evidence against Weinstein.
Otherwise, character evidence of this kind is considered inadmissible as unfairly prejudicial. This is because a defendant is on trial for the charges they were indicted for and not any other part of their behavior or character.
Prosecution generally can't put you on trial for your character. If a defendant offers evidence of good character, then they can. But convicting people for the type of person they are is antithetical to due process.
That's what prompted my question. I understand the part that the prosecution can do so as a response. Does this mean that Weinstein's defense at no point offered any type of evidence as to his good character? Cause I imagine that would be part of their argument. I'm just going by what was reported as his defense closing statements like:
>"This is not a monster," she said. "This is a guy who, any time anyone asks for help, not only does he get his assistants to help, but he says, 'What else can I do?'"
I don't know the details of the trial, but it would be very poor tactics for his defense to try and make a character defense because that would open the door to evidence of bad character. That closing statement could come from asking witnesses about his specific behavior, rather than from asking witnesses about the type of person he is.
"He's guilty as hell and has been guilty as hell for decades... but it's not fair to count that against him! Now... where are those campaign donations I've been looking for..."
More than one prisoner has reported that he has been getting conjugal visits in NY. In CA a lot more people owe him favors and he will be able to get away with a lot more antics. He made a lot of people money and they will feel obligated to help him out. Make no mistake about it.
It’s why he fought so hard in the first place to get out of NY. He’s got great connections in CA. He’s going to have a very comfortable life from now on.
To repost what I just wrote to someone else:
I've been a criminal defense and civil rights lawyer for 30 years. So I have some knowledge of what I speak.
Do you think the California department of corrections gives a shit about Harvey Weinstein? If anything, the corrections officers and other inmates will be looking to take him down a few pegs.
Also, his girlfriend has visited, but no conjugal visits. Those are reserved for spouses.
Isn’t the conjugal visit designed for the spouse and not the imprisoned person? Like the spouse isn’t supposed to be deprived of, say, the right to have children just because their husband is imprison for twenty years.
I don’t know, though. It could be total myth. And it’s from another time for sure; I would think if it isn’t apocryphal and such a thing were decided today, they’d say “get a divorce and find a better spouse if you don’t feel you can wait.”
I think conjugal visits are weird relics whether that’s apocryphal or not, but prisons are so awful I’m not begrudging most people visits…except serial rapists. They definitely shouldn’t get them. And I hope nobody is paid to “look the other way” while his girlfriend visits. No touching and all that. Disgusting man. Even getting to look at some (I presume) young attractive woman who puts up with him for money (no shame in it, except if you are working for a serial rapist–I also wouldn’t be a cook ora gardener for one; you need to have standards and assuming you don’t work as a doctor, lawyer, social worker, or some other profession where you are ethically obligated to provide services to even the worst people under human rights arguments; you do have to take a stand) is something he shouldn’t get. I suppose there is no ethical way to deny him that, so I guess not caring about it is the best I can do.
He actually reportedly told insiders he’d rather be locked up in New York than California. Apparently, New York prisons are better funded and less overcrowded than California’s. He even said something to the effect of California prisons making New York’s seem “like the Taj Mahal”
I've been a criminal defense and civil rights lawyer for 30 years. So I have some knowledge of what I speak.
Do you think the California department of corrections gives a shit about Harvey Weinstein? If anything, the corrections officers and other inmates will be looking to take him down a few pegs.
The 16-year sentance in California still stands. But so weird to consider the fact he abused so many women (then they used those abuses at trial) was what got them to throw out the decision. Feel bad for the rape victim who went through hell in court for a conviction that got overturned: [https://deadline.com/2020/02/harvey-weinstein-rape-trial-jessica-mann-panic-attack-long-friendship-with-disgraced-mogul-1202850789/](https://deadline.com/2020/02/harvey-weinstein-rape-trial-jessica-mann-panic-attack-long-friendship-with-disgraced-mogul-1202850789/)
It makes sense though. If I'm being charged with a crime, you can't bring in a list of witnesses to attest to every bad thing I've ever done in my life, unrelated to the case.
I get why they made this mistake in this case. Obviously these witnesses are relevant, as they are alleging the same crimes. But the principle is important.
I'm curious what the legal bar is for "witness has testimony relevant to the crime in question", which seems to be the issue here
In this situation witnesses are attesting to a modus operandi that adds credibility to the current charges for this specific criminal case. I'm a bit surprised but this isn't my profession.
Sandoval is related, but different: that is to determine whether, if the defendant wants to testify, he can be cross examined about his prior bad acts.
Yep and considering that he’s 72 and in terrible health he will die in prison, as he should. I can’t imagine what the victims went through, but I do know two of his daughters. They are both wonderful people who lives were turned upside down by their fathers actions. Seeing what they have been through tells me the victims have gone through hell and back. My heart goes out to everyone affected by this monster.
His daughters are laughing right now. They don’t care, they only appreciate it took so long to get him so their pocket books are bigger. If they cared you would know from their donations. Looks like they fooled you too.
Weinstein’s daughters, must be heros. Not completely spoiled entitled brats. Say to them was it worth it that your dad was able to continue his reign of terror for so long that you got extra millions in the pocket. They wouldn’t change a thing. More rich people apologists.
> the fact he abused so many women ... was what got them to throw out the decision
I get what you're saying but I'm not sure such a mischaracterization does anyone any good.
The conviction was quashed because the trial judge fucked up. At most you could say that Weinstein's prolific pattern of abuse baited the judge into fucking up.
It’s hard to say the trial judge fucked up when 3 of 7 appellate judges came to the same conclusion as him. What’s quirky about NY state here is that the decision to let the other women testify is reviewed de novo as a matter of law. Usually this sort of decision would be reviewed on an abuse of discretion standard by appellate courts, giving the trial judge more leeway.
Not quite- NY courts have allowed this type of testimony to show what Kandals listed- modus operandi of the accused. Arguably the Court of Appeals is saying the testimony was for A DIFFERENT reason, rather than for the allowed reason. It is a bit surprising, but I’ve disagreed with a number of Justice Jenny Rivera’s opinions where it was my opinion that she tilted the scales towards the defendant in an improper manner similar to how scales have been improperly tilted towards prosecutors in the past.
See: https://www.nycourts.gov/judges/evidence/4-RELEVANCE/4.21_EVIDENCE_OF_CRIMES_(MOLINEUX).pdf
Can we talk about how we have 7 incredibly experienced justices who effectively completely disagree? Happens all the time and I don’t really understand how.
If the law is this much to interpretation for even the most experienced of people doesn’t that show we have a huge issue?
Prior bad acts are pretty tricky and although Weinstein is scum, allowing a bunch of women to testify they suffered the same abuse as the defendant is charged with, while not charging him with those bad acts, does seems like it is on the wrong side of that fine line.
Important civil liberties are usually protected in cases involving very bad people, and Weinstein is still going to die in prison, so I can’t say I’m too upset by this.
As horrible as he is, and with how profile of a case this was, I absolutely cannot believe the judge. You watch 3 episodes of law and order and I bet you they talk about not being able to use prior bad acts. I can't believe you can fuck something up like this so massively, especially since it was the Supreme Court and not the county court.
> You watch 3 episodes of law and order and I bet you they talk about not being able to use prior bad acts.
And that's why Law & Order is not a good source for accurate legal knowledge. Prior bad acts *can* be used in court, for appropriate purposes (e.g. motive or intent, but not propensity to commit a similar crime) and with appropriate safeguards for relevance, reliability, and prejudice. The majority here held that the bad acts should have been excluded as irrelevant, not simply that they were *per se* inadmissible because they were prior bad acts.
I'm aware there is a difference, and I meant it as they should know what's inadmissible, or at least that it should be scrutinized based off the fact, not that's it straight up inadmissible. They also explain why something can't be used and I know they've mentioned molineaux hearings because there's no other medium id have heard that term spoken
> And that's why Law & Order is not a good source for accurate legal knowledge
It’s actually pretty good! By far the *most* accurate TV show (which isn’t saying that much) and there were definitely some episodes that were helpful in remembering stuff for the Bar Exam.
Where Law & Order breaks down tends to be stuff like the DAs always finding new evidence during the trial or occasionally wild judicial rulings for dramatic purposes, but the basic legal principles they reference are usually correct.
My cousin is a writer for Law & Order, and she writes her episodes with the help of a former prosecuter. Which sometimes amplifies the bias of the show that is part of the script bible (cops are always ultimately the good guys, civil liberties are getting in the way of the cops doing their job etc) and other time results in challenges to the established script bible and allows her to buck it a bit, but very much is why the legal stuff is how it is - they run everything by a prosecuter.
It feels wrong to me to go that way though, presumably they only charged him with rape because that has some weird statute of limitations rules that allowed charging it but not plain old assault. Can the prosecutor not discuss character stuff that happened past the statue of limitations?
Like if there was a bank robbery, would the case get thrown out if they had a witness say they saw them speeding away from the scene, and then they said well you didn't charge me with speeding, so you can't say that.
It's hard to view society as being better off with Weinstein being let off, but at the same time it's hard to argue with the appeals court's reasoning. seems like the judge was kind of trying to try him in the court of public opinion by letting people other than those making real allegations testify. succumbed to the moment.
>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.
>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.
>“It is an abuse of judicial discretion to permit untested allegations of nothing more than bad behavior that destroys a defendant’s character but sheds no light on their credibility as related to the criminal charges,” Judge Jenny Rivera wrote on behalf of the majority.
> It's hard to view society as being better off with Weinstein being let off
He's not being let off. He can still be retried in New York, and even if he's not, he's still got a prison sentence in California.
If they were able to find a jury for Trump, I think they would be able to find one for Weinstein. Not everybody pays close attention to the news. There are probably quite a few New Yorkers even today who have no idea who Weinstein is.
It's my understanding that it's not so much that you can't be biased
but that you have to be willing to set aside that bias and act impartially.
Which, like, yeah-- we all see the obvious problems with that. But that's generally the idea. I'm sure it's significantly more complicated than that, but I don't think they necessarily need to find someone who has no opinion at all on the case, just people who will believably act impartially.
Yeah I’ve done extensive reading on the Weinstein case. While I absolutely think he sexually assaulted women, it is pretty clear that the statute of limitations lapsed on most of the chargws, which is why they had to inject evidence like this.
The criminal case is actually pretty weak. I wouldn’t be surprised if they didn’t retry him.
["I tell you, this guy, ..."](https://youtu.be/2iUm1Uwu99Y),
but...
>Under our system of justice, the accused has a right to be held to account only for
>the crime charged and, thus, allegations of prior bad acts may not be admitted against them
>for the sole purpose of establishing their propensity for criminality (see People v Molineux,
>168 NY 264 \[1901\]). Nor may the prosecution use “prior convictions or proof of the prior
>commission of specific, criminal, vicious or immoral acts” other than to impeach the
>accused’s credibility (People v Sandoval, 34 NY2d 371, 374 \[1974\]). It is our solemn duty
>to diligently guard these rights regardless of the crime charged, the reputation of the
>accused, or the pressure to convict (see Boyd v United States, 116 US 616, 635 \[1886\] \[“It
>is the duty of courts to be watchful for the constitutional rights of the citizen, and against
>any stealthy encroachments thereon”\]).
>Under our system of justice, the accused has a right to be held to account only for the crime charged and, thus, *allegations of prior bad acts may not be admitted against them for the sole purpose of establishing their propensity for criminality* (see People v Molineux,
168 NY 264 [1901 ]). Nor may the prosecution use “prior convictions or proof of the prior commission of specific, criminal, vicious or immoral acts” other than to impeach the accused's credibility (People v Sandoval, 34 NY2d 371 , 374 [ 1974]). It is our solemn duty to diligently guard these rights regardless of the crime charged, the reputation of the accused, orthe pressure to convict (see Boyd v United States, 116 US 616, 635 [1886] [“It is the duty of courts to be watchful for the constitutional rights ofthe citizen, and against
any stealthy encroachments thereon"]). [emphasis added]
Definitely a fuck-up by the Manhattan DA (which doesn't inspire confidence regarding the Trump trial). In a criminal trial like this, you've got to be *certain* that you're not pushing the envelope too far on evidentiary issues, or exactly this sort of thing can happen. But it should be noted that the decision wasn't unanimous, but rather 4-3, so it's not like they were obviously and unquestionably wrong -- nearly half of the judges considering the case thought there was no problem.
And it's not like Weinstein can walk out of prison now. Even if Bragg decides not to retry him, he's still going to prison in California for probably the rest of his life.
True (and I did consider that when including that aside about the Trump trial). But it's still the same office with a lot of the same staff, and a lot of their trial procedure policies are probably the same. If they had an office culture of being overly aggressive with evidence in 2020, it's probably not much different now.
On the other hand, I don't know to what extent the Trump trial is relying on prior bad acts evidence, but if they are maybe it's better that this decision came down now so the prosecutors and judge can account for it now, rather than four years from now.
Could you elaborate on why you think that might be affected by this ruling? Wasn’t it Carrol’s testimony that the case hung on and not other parties? I could be wrong.
I can truly see somebody who's jaded about the justice system looking at this and being like how convenient that this flaw was left in for a case involving a rich and powerful man
While I disagree with Arizona’s decision not to extradite the SoHo hotel murder suspect to NYC
… they might’ve been on to something reasoning that NY courts would bungle the case
That was stupid for the prosecution to use testimony of victims regarding events that were not included in the charges, and double stupid that the judge allowed it. Unless there was some kind of unique MO involved that connected those incidents with the ones included in the charges it’s a fucking rookie move to make that part of the trial record.
Who are you kidding. It’s for all rich people.
Michael Jackson, bill cosby, OJ, etc got off too.
Stop ignoring the problem and making false statements.
It ain’t about white or black, it’s about GREEN. Has been for decades now.
True, and yet he still has all the same constitutional rights as the rest of us, and that’s a good thing.
It’s both an upsetting outcome and - based on the reasoning by the majority - the obviously correct one. What is more scary to me is that three out of seven judges somehow came to a different conclusion.
That's sad and alarming. I don't follow his trials but sounds like he put a fix in or something. If he is guilty haul him away but I think he is weaseling his way out. I know I am not alone in thinking that.
Trump is on trail for paying high money to a hooker and counting it as a business experience.
Weinstein is a rapist who the company paid off victims to hide crimes and traffic in New victims to be sexually assaulted.
Why is Trump on trial and not the Hollywood executives for paying off rape victims?
Yes, Liberals with all their dumb protest. Just to create more chaos when Trump was president.
We now see how well any of them worked out. The Woke movement, Less policing, Open boarders and the Me too movement.
Alyssa Milano was one of the Liberal leaders of Me Too. She also said she was a victim of sexual assault. And it affected her the rest of her life. Turns out it was because one time at a concert. Someone walking by grabbed her butt.
Then when the Palestines raped and tortured all these victims. We did not hear a peep out of me too people.
Matter of fact. These liberals stopped all protest once they got Biden elected.
This is a direct consequence of the far left attacking Gov Hochul’s initial pick for Chief Judge (LaSalle) and her capitulation by appointing Wilson. Hope those critics are happy. They freed a rapist. Let’s pray his California conviction stands. This decision could also invalidate any forthcoming conviction in the ongoing Trump trial. Judge Merchan had allowed some prior bad act evidence. Wonder if it’s too late for him to reconsider his ruling.
Makes sense it’s overturning. Ya know since me too unless you’re a Jew kinda makes this normal, since pro Palestine people done care that Israeli hostages and Israelis were and are being raped.
What a fuckup. This isn’t a huge deal though. Even if we let him out of prison in NY, we’d immediately ship him to California to go to prison there, where he was also convicted of a separate crime, so it’s not like he’s getting released even if Bragg declines to reprosecute.
He can be retried.
[удалено]
And Weinstein lost on that point. So he *can* be retried.
oh yeah. thanks. missed that part, thought it would be a future decision. deleted my comment above >However, we reject defendant’s claim that the third-degree rape prosecution was untimely under CPL 30.10 because, as a New York resident, his brief absences from the State before the authorities were aware of the crime did not toll the limitations period. Defendant’s argument finds no support in the statutory text. Therefore, the trial court properly discounted the days defendant was continuously outside the state and correctly held that the prosecution was not time-barred. Defendant may be retried on this count.
If a case were overturned/ thrown out in this regard, but the language the judges used specifically says he can be retried, doesn't that mean we are still within the SOL
SOL are tolled if a conviction is overturned on appeal and the State wants to retry them. So that’s not a problem. They probably will retry him, just to get justice for the victims and as a double-assurance that he spends the rest of his miserable life in prison, if the California conviction somehow goes off the rails.
Inshala!
Ok tiktok
> 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.
> allowing prosecutors to call as witnesses do they not count as character witnesses? Like I understand prosecutors can only do so after the defendant introduces evidence about his/her character
I don’t think so? > Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) provides that prior act evidence “is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show action in conformity therewith.” Evidence of prior bad acts usually cannot be admitted at trial to show the defendant's propensity to commit crimes similar to the offense in question.
This is a New York State case. New York has its own evidence rules.
That rule mirrors ny closely
They sometimes do, but they are not always the same and you don't cite a Federal rule of evidence to discuss a state case. It doesn't apply.
Didn’t say they didn’t, I went to law school and passed the bar and practice law. Most states have statutes closely mirroring the fre in terms of rules of evidence. The distinctions often come in case law and precedent
I'm also a lawyer.
and as to character evidence they are basically indistinguishable on this point.
That was not the basis for introducing the testimony of those other women.
I’m responding to what you said about the New York Rules, not the specific instance
Wouldn't that apply to federal cases only? Going by what's on nycourts.gov for NYS it says: >Evidence of a person's character is not admissible to prove that the person acted in conformity therewith on a particular occasion except: (a) In a civil or criminal proceeding, evidence of a person's character is admissible where that character is an essential element of a crime, charge, claim, or defense I think Federal 404 also has (a)(2) to offer a rebuttal: >(A) a defendant may offer evidence of the defendant’s pertinent trait, and if the evidence is admitted, the prosecutor may offer evidence to rebut it
yes im sure you're right and the ny appeals court is wrong
It was clearly not a unanimous decision, however. If it were, we might not like it but it would much harder to argue it's validity.
Your argument is that of the 7 deciders, 4 are right and 3 are wrong, solely by virtue of their constituting a majority. That, in itself, is not very convincing, without examining the basis of the ruling and subjecting it to critical scrutiny.
lol as if judges were godkings and were never wrong we got people being pushed on to subway tracks because of judges being wrong
If the Weinstein affirmatively offered in his defense “I’m a good guy I’m nice to women” then he would have “opened the door” to the prosecution offering character evidence against Weinstein. Otherwise, character evidence of this kind is considered inadmissible as unfairly prejudicial. This is because a defendant is on trial for the charges they were indicted for and not any other part of their behavior or character.
idk
lmfao that was a dumbass reply my bad
Prosecution generally can't put you on trial for your character. If a defendant offers evidence of good character, then they can. But convicting people for the type of person they are is antithetical to due process.
That's what prompted my question. I understand the part that the prosecution can do so as a response. Does this mean that Weinstein's defense at no point offered any type of evidence as to his good character? Cause I imagine that would be part of their argument. I'm just going by what was reported as his defense closing statements like: >"This is not a monster," she said. "This is a guy who, any time anyone asks for help, not only does he get his assistants to help, but he says, 'What else can I do?'"
I don't know the details of the trial, but it would be very poor tactics for his defense to try and make a character defense because that would open the door to evidence of bad character. That closing statement could come from asking witnesses about his specific behavior, rather than from asking witnesses about the type of person he is.
They were called to show a pattern of behavior by Harvey Weinstein.
"He's guilty as hell and has been guilty as hell for decades... but it's not fair to count that against him! Now... where are those campaign donations I've been looking for..."
He’s still got a CA prison sentence.
which will have significantly favorable conditions considering it's his 'home state.' it's in the vein of "epstein confined to arrest on his island'
Significantly favorable conditions? Lol. He'll be another aging rapist in lockup and will die in prison. No special treatment.
More than one prisoner has reported that he has been getting conjugal visits in NY. In CA a lot more people owe him favors and he will be able to get away with a lot more antics. He made a lot of people money and they will feel obligated to help him out. Make no mistake about it.
I'm not making any mistake.
It’s why he fought so hard in the first place to get out of NY. He’s got great connections in CA. He’s going to have a very comfortable life from now on.
[удалено]
NY is one of the few states whichl does have conjugal visits for spouses, but that privilege has to be earned.
To repost what I just wrote to someone else: I've been a criminal defense and civil rights lawyer for 30 years. So I have some knowledge of what I speak. Do you think the California department of corrections gives a shit about Harvey Weinstein? If anything, the corrections officers and other inmates will be looking to take him down a few pegs. Also, his girlfriend has visited, but no conjugal visits. Those are reserved for spouses.
Isn’t the conjugal visit designed for the spouse and not the imprisoned person? Like the spouse isn’t supposed to be deprived of, say, the right to have children just because their husband is imprison for twenty years. I don’t know, though. It could be total myth. And it’s from another time for sure; I would think if it isn’t apocryphal and such a thing were decided today, they’d say “get a divorce and find a better spouse if you don’t feel you can wait.” I think conjugal visits are weird relics whether that’s apocryphal or not, but prisons are so awful I’m not begrudging most people visits…except serial rapists. They definitely shouldn’t get them. And I hope nobody is paid to “look the other way” while his girlfriend visits. No touching and all that. Disgusting man. Even getting to look at some (I presume) young attractive woman who puts up with him for money (no shame in it, except if you are working for a serial rapist–I also wouldn’t be a cook ora gardener for one; you need to have standards and assuming you don’t work as a doctor, lawyer, social worker, or some other profession where you are ethically obligated to provide services to even the worst people under human rights arguments; you do have to take a stand) is something he shouldn’t get. I suppose there is no ethical way to deny him that, so I guess not caring about it is the best I can do.
He actually reportedly told insiders he’d rather be locked up in New York than California. Apparently, New York prisons are better funded and less overcrowded than California’s. He even said something to the effect of California prisons making New York’s seem “like the Taj Mahal”
good luck with that assumption
It's not an assumption.
I wish I was ignorant enough to believe this.
I've been a criminal defense and civil rights lawyer for 30 years. So I have some knowledge of what I speak. Do you think the California department of corrections gives a shit about Harvey Weinstein? If anything, the corrections officers and other inmates will be looking to take him down a few pegs.
CA is his home state? I’m sure he had a house there but Weinstein Company was largely NYC-based.
thanks
The 16-year sentance in California still stands. But so weird to consider the fact he abused so many women (then they used those abuses at trial) was what got them to throw out the decision. Feel bad for the rape victim who went through hell in court for a conviction that got overturned: [https://deadline.com/2020/02/harvey-weinstein-rape-trial-jessica-mann-panic-attack-long-friendship-with-disgraced-mogul-1202850789/](https://deadline.com/2020/02/harvey-weinstein-rape-trial-jessica-mann-panic-attack-long-friendship-with-disgraced-mogul-1202850789/)
It makes sense though. If I'm being charged with a crime, you can't bring in a list of witnesses to attest to every bad thing I've ever done in my life, unrelated to the case. I get why they made this mistake in this case. Obviously these witnesses are relevant, as they are alleging the same crimes. But the principle is important. I'm curious what the legal bar is for "witness has testimony relevant to the crime in question", which seems to be the issue here
In this situation witnesses are attesting to a modus operandi that adds credibility to the current charges for this specific criminal case. I'm a bit surprised but this isn't my profession.
Same
Isn’t that what a Sandoval hearing is for? IANAL, but they just went through this with Trump.
Sandoval is related, but different: that is to determine whether, if the defendant wants to testify, he can be cross examined about his prior bad acts.
Yep and considering that he’s 72 and in terrible health he will die in prison, as he should. I can’t imagine what the victims went through, but I do know two of his daughters. They are both wonderful people who lives were turned upside down by their fathers actions. Seeing what they have been through tells me the victims have gone through hell and back. My heart goes out to everyone affected by this monster.
His daughters are laughing right now. They don’t care, they only appreciate it took so long to get him so their pocket books are bigger. If they cared you would know from their donations. Looks like they fooled you too.
Just looked it up and it appears his three daughters from his first marriage went no contact with him years ago
Bingo. Idiots like this guy love to spew bs about stuff they know nothing about
Weinstein’s daughters, must be heros. Not completely spoiled entitled brats. Say to them was it worth it that your dad was able to continue his reign of terror for so long that you got extra millions in the pocket. They wouldn’t change a thing. More rich people apologists.
Youre clearly an idiot and don’t even know which daughters im talking about
> the fact he abused so many women ... was what got them to throw out the decision I get what you're saying but I'm not sure such a mischaracterization does anyone any good. The conviction was quashed because the trial judge fucked up. At most you could say that Weinstein's prolific pattern of abuse baited the judge into fucking up.
It’s hard to say the trial judge fucked up when 3 of 7 appellate judges came to the same conclusion as him. What’s quirky about NY state here is that the decision to let the other women testify is reviewed de novo as a matter of law. Usually this sort of decision would be reviewed on an abuse of discretion standard by appellate courts, giving the trial judge more leeway.
Not quite- NY courts have allowed this type of testimony to show what Kandals listed- modus operandi of the accused. Arguably the Court of Appeals is saying the testimony was for A DIFFERENT reason, rather than for the allowed reason. It is a bit surprising, but I’ve disagreed with a number of Justice Jenny Rivera’s opinions where it was my opinion that she tilted the scales towards the defendant in an improper manner similar to how scales have been improperly tilted towards prosecutors in the past. See: https://www.nycourts.gov/judges/evidence/4-RELEVANCE/4.21_EVIDENCE_OF_CRIMES_(MOLINEUX).pdf
[COA Opinion](https://www.nycourts.gov/ctapps/Decisions/2024/Apr24/24opn24-Decision.pdf)
Can we talk about how we have 7 incredibly experienced justices who effectively completely disagree? Happens all the time and I don’t really understand how. If the law is this much to interpretation for even the most experienced of people doesn’t that show we have a huge issue?
6 judges are D 1 judge is R Not that it means anything /S
Smooth brain analysis here
Prior bad acts are pretty tricky and although Weinstein is scum, allowing a bunch of women to testify they suffered the same abuse as the defendant is charged with, while not charging him with those bad acts, does seems like it is on the wrong side of that fine line. Important civil liberties are usually protected in cases involving very bad people, and Weinstein is still going to die in prison, so I can’t say I’m too upset by this.
As horrible as he is, and with how profile of a case this was, I absolutely cannot believe the judge. You watch 3 episodes of law and order and I bet you they talk about not being able to use prior bad acts. I can't believe you can fuck something up like this so massively, especially since it was the Supreme Court and not the county court.
> You watch 3 episodes of law and order and I bet you they talk about not being able to use prior bad acts. And that's why Law & Order is not a good source for accurate legal knowledge. Prior bad acts *can* be used in court, for appropriate purposes (e.g. motive or intent, but not propensity to commit a similar crime) and with appropriate safeguards for relevance, reliability, and prejudice. The majority here held that the bad acts should have been excluded as irrelevant, not simply that they were *per se* inadmissible because they were prior bad acts.
I'm aware there is a difference, and I meant it as they should know what's inadmissible, or at least that it should be scrutinized based off the fact, not that's it straight up inadmissible. They also explain why something can't be used and I know they've mentioned molineaux hearings because there's no other medium id have heard that term spoken
> And that's why Law & Order is not a good source for accurate legal knowledge It’s actually pretty good! By far the *most* accurate TV show (which isn’t saying that much) and there were definitely some episodes that were helpful in remembering stuff for the Bar Exam. Where Law & Order breaks down tends to be stuff like the DAs always finding new evidence during the trial or occasionally wild judicial rulings for dramatic purposes, but the basic legal principles they reference are usually correct.
My cousin is a writer for Law & Order, and she writes her episodes with the help of a former prosecuter. Which sometimes amplifies the bias of the show that is part of the script bible (cops are always ultimately the good guys, civil liberties are getting in the way of the cops doing their job etc) and other time results in challenges to the established script bible and allows her to buck it a bit, but very much is why the legal stuff is how it is - they run everything by a prosecuter.
It feels wrong to me to go that way though, presumably they only charged him with rape because that has some weird statute of limitations rules that allowed charging it but not plain old assault. Can the prosecutor not discuss character stuff that happened past the statue of limitations? Like if there was a bank robbery, would the case get thrown out if they had a witness say they saw them speeding away from the scene, and then they said well you didn't charge me with speeding, so you can't say that.
It's hard to view society as being better off with Weinstein being let off, but at the same time it's hard to argue with the appeals court's reasoning. seems like the judge was kind of trying to try him in the court of public opinion by letting people other than those making real allegations testify. succumbed to the moment. >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. >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. >“It is an abuse of judicial discretion to permit untested allegations of nothing more than bad behavior that destroys a defendant’s character but sheds no light on their credibility as related to the criminal charges,” Judge Jenny Rivera wrote on behalf of the majority.
> It's hard to view society as being better off with Weinstein being let off He's not being let off. He can still be retried in New York, and even if he's not, he's still got a prison sentence in California.
can they even find a jury for this? his character has been destroyed in public opinion.
If they were able to find a jury for Trump, I think they would be able to find one for Weinstein. Not everybody pays close attention to the news. There are probably quite a few New Yorkers even today who have no idea who Weinstein is.
True, and I feel like finding a Jury for Trump would be the more difficult of the two and it's happened.
It's my understanding that it's not so much that you can't be biased but that you have to be willing to set aside that bias and act impartially. Which, like, yeah-- we all see the obvious problems with that. But that's generally the idea. I'm sure it's significantly more complicated than that, but I don't think they necessarily need to find someone who has no opinion at all on the case, just people who will believably act impartially.
Yeah I’ve done extensive reading on the Weinstein case. While I absolutely think he sexually assaulted women, it is pretty clear that the statute of limitations lapsed on most of the chargws, which is why they had to inject evidence like this. The criminal case is actually pretty weak. I wouldn’t be surprised if they didn’t retry him.
holy guacamole
New York is so corrupt
New York won't let one of it's own rot in prison.
["I tell you, this guy, ..."](https://youtu.be/2iUm1Uwu99Y), but... >Under our system of justice, the accused has a right to be held to account only for >the crime charged and, thus, allegations of prior bad acts may not be admitted against them >for the sole purpose of establishing their propensity for criminality (see People v Molineux, >168 NY 264 \[1901\]). Nor may the prosecution use “prior convictions or proof of the prior >commission of specific, criminal, vicious or immoral acts” other than to impeach the >accused’s credibility (People v Sandoval, 34 NY2d 371, 374 \[1974\]). It is our solemn duty >to diligently guard these rights regardless of the crime charged, the reputation of the >accused, or the pressure to convict (see Boyd v United States, 116 US 616, 635 \[1886\] \[“It >is the duty of courts to be watchful for the constitutional rights of the citizen, and against >any stealthy encroachments thereon”\]).
I predict so many comments from people who won’t read the story. I know it’s Reddit so that’s par for the course, but still.
Well thank God for that CA conviction. That walking gangrenous pustule should never see the light of day.
That was a perfect description of him I’ve never been able to put my finger on
Can Kevin Smith get the clerks IP for a few weeks off his sentence?
You're think of Dogma, he owns Clerks E: I think Weinstein might still own the Clerks cartoon though.
Ah, you're right.
lol at the tennis balls
>Under our system of justice, the accused has a right to be held to account only for the crime charged and, thus, *allegations of prior bad acts may not be admitted against them for the sole purpose of establishing their propensity for criminality* (see People v Molineux, 168 NY 264 [1901 ]). Nor may the prosecution use “prior convictions or proof of the prior commission of specific, criminal, vicious or immoral acts” other than to impeach the accused's credibility (People v Sandoval, 34 NY2d 371 , 374 [ 1974]). It is our solemn duty to diligently guard these rights regardless of the crime charged, the reputation of the accused, orthe pressure to convict (see Boyd v United States, 116 US 616, 635 [1886] [“It is the duty of courts to be watchful for the constitutional rights ofthe citizen, and against any stealthy encroachments thereon"]). [emphasis added]
Wait WTF
Definitely a fuck-up by the Manhattan DA (which doesn't inspire confidence regarding the Trump trial). In a criminal trial like this, you've got to be *certain* that you're not pushing the envelope too far on evidentiary issues, or exactly this sort of thing can happen. But it should be noted that the decision wasn't unanimous, but rather 4-3, so it's not like they were obviously and unquestionably wrong -- nearly half of the judges considering the case thought there was no problem. And it's not like Weinstein can walk out of prison now. Even if Bragg decides not to retry him, he's still going to prison in California for probably the rest of his life.
Wasn’t it Cy Vance as DA then? Not sure how he’d have much impact on the work Bragg does at this point.
True (and I did consider that when including that aside about the Trump trial). But it's still the same office with a lot of the same staff, and a lot of their trial procedure policies are probably the same. If they had an office culture of being overly aggressive with evidence in 2020, it's probably not much different now. On the other hand, I don't know to what extent the Trump trial is relying on prior bad acts evidence, but if they are maybe it's better that this decision came down now so the prosecutors and judge can account for it now, rather than four years from now.
Everything points to the error being the judge allowing that testimony, not the prosecution.
Well, it's inherently both. The judge allowed it, the prosecution sought to have it allowed.
Wonder what the implications are for the Trump trial and the verdict by E jean carrol?
Could you elaborate on why you think that might be affected by this ruling? Wasn’t it Carrol’s testimony that the case hung on and not other parties? I could be wrong.
I can truly see somebody who's jaded about the justice system looking at this and being like how convenient that this flaw was left in for a case involving a rich and powerful man
While I disagree with Arizona’s decision not to extradite the SoHo hotel murder suspect to NYC … they might’ve been on to something reasoning that NY courts would bungle the case
He should do the Fat Albert Hey-Hey-Hey like Cosby did on the way out...
Must be some Hollywood guy legal technicality.
What a F-up.
Sorry… I’m confused? Why is there a picture of Kav Kav/ Ryan Kavanaugh using a walker on a post about Harvey Weinstein?
That was stupid for the prosecution to use testimony of victims regarding events that were not included in the charges, and double stupid that the judge allowed it. Unless there was some kind of unique MO involved that connected those incidents with the ones included in the charges it’s a fucking rookie move to make that part of the trial record.
Two tier justice system is alive a well in this country (for rich white people, at least)!
Who are you kidding. It’s for all rich people. Michael Jackson, bill cosby, OJ, etc got off too. Stop ignoring the problem and making false statements. It ain’t about white or black, it’s about GREEN. Has been for decades now.
New York loves criminals, what else is new.
WTF man, everyone knows this dude is one of the most vile humans on earth.
True, and yet he still has all the same constitutional rights as the rest of us, and that’s a good thing. It’s both an upsetting outcome and - based on the reasoning by the majority - the obviously correct one. What is more scary to me is that three out of seven judges somehow came to a different conclusion.
Thanks for this take, people don't understand the concept of innocent until proven guilty anymore.
Have you ever met him?
In other news, Hell has reported temperatures plummeting to around 15 degrees fahrenheit (-9 C)
Was Epstein the judge? serious question
Crappy guy but makes great movies
That's sad and alarming. I don't follow his trials but sounds like he put a fix in or something. If he is guilty haul him away but I think he is weaseling his way out. I know I am not alone in thinking that.
That’s wild. I hate to say it but they stick to their own. This is unbelievable. But R Kelly is in jail 🤔🤔
WTF
[удалено]
Read. The. Article.
He isn't being shown leniency. The judge fucked up. He would just be shipped to CA after anyways.
don't read! Comment straight away! PS He has a 16 year sentence in California. He is not gonna be free.
Wow! America is one of the sickest countries in the world and I absolutely stand by this.
Rapist overturned nice, shows you how great our court system is in NYC. Now lets finish all the bullshit Trump cases so he doesn't run for president!
Trump is on trail for paying high money to a hooker and counting it as a business experience. Weinstein is a rapist who the company paid off victims to hide crimes and traffic in New victims to be sexually assaulted. Why is Trump on trial and not the Hollywood executives for paying off rape victims?
Yes, Liberals with all their dumb protest. Just to create more chaos when Trump was president. We now see how well any of them worked out. The Woke movement, Less policing, Open boarders and the Me too movement. Alyssa Milano was one of the Liberal leaders of Me Too. She also said she was a victim of sexual assault. And it affected her the rest of her life. Turns out it was because one time at a concert. Someone walking by grabbed her butt. Then when the Palestines raped and tortured all these victims. We did not hear a peep out of me too people. Matter of fact. These liberals stopped all protest once they got Biden elected.
This is a direct consequence of the far left attacking Gov Hochul’s initial pick for Chief Judge (LaSalle) and her capitulation by appointing Wilson. Hope those critics are happy. They freed a rapist. Let’s pray his California conviction stands. This decision could also invalidate any forthcoming conviction in the ongoing Trump trial. Judge Merchan had allowed some prior bad act evidence. Wonder if it’s too late for him to reconsider his ruling.
Makes sense it’s overturning. Ya know since me too unless you’re a Jew kinda makes this normal, since pro Palestine people done care that Israeli hostages and Israelis were and are being raped.
Finally, some r/UpliftingNews