Harvey Weinstein is a former American film producer and founder of Miramax, which produced films such as Pulp Fiction. He also founded The Weinstein Company with his brother, which he had to leave in 2017 when more women accused him of rape.
Information that Weinstein had been committing sexual attacks against women for a long time began to appear in the fall of 2017. The affair was investigated and uncovered by American lawyer and journalist Ronan Farrow, who received the Pulitzer Prize for his investigative reporting.
In late 2019, Weinstein reached a $25 million settlement with more than thirty women who had accused him to drop their charges. In 2020, he was sentenced to 23 years in prison. However, in late April 2024, the Court of Appeal overturned the verdict, saying the judge had made “gross errors” and ordered a new trial on the rape charges.
survey
Are you happy that the aid package for Ukraine passed in the US?
voted: 15488 people
An appeals court found that the judge in the landmark MeToo trial harmed Weinstein with wrong decisions, including the decision to let the women testify about allegations that were not part of the case. “We conclude that the trial court erred in admitting testimony about alleged prior sexual acts that were not the subject of the indictment involving persons other than the appellants because the testimony served no substantial purpose,” the court said in a 4-3 decision.
“The court compounded this error when it ruled that a defendant with no criminal record could be questioned about these allegations, as well as numerous allegations of misconduct that paint the defendant in a very unfavorable light,” the court said.
American journalist Michael Michael Tracey shared excerpts from the court decision on his X social network account. “Harvey Weinstein’s trial in New York was a sham, a judge confirmed by overturning his conviction. It is still unbelievable that the marked ‘victim’ admitted to having ‘consensual sexual relations’ with him before and after the alleged rape and sending him e-mails telling him that she loved him,” the journalist marveled at the trial.
The appeals court also pointed out in the ruling that if the evidentiary standard under which Weinstein was convicted was upheld, it would negate the most basic protection for defendants, who must be convicted on the basis of evidence, not mere presumption. “If adopted, this analysis would violate the well-established rule against evidence of guilt, which in criminal cases serves as a judicial safeguard against a verdict of guilt based on presumptions rather than evidence,” the decision said.
The judge ruled that prosecutors had violated “established rules of evidence designed to ensure that convictions in criminal proceedings are based solely on allegations of wrongdoing” in order to pursue a flawed and mistaken notion of justice for alleged rape victims.
The appeals court also pointed out that all three “victims” had long-term relationships with the accused Weinstein, one of whom even maintained a consensual sexual relationship with him even after the alleged criminal act.
In addition, the trial court, according to the appeals court, “abused” Weinstein by allowing him to be cross-examined about his conduct, against which charges were not brought. This cross-examination, according to the appeals court, “served no other purpose” than to show the jury Weinstein’s “repugnant character.”
Caitlin Dulany, the actress who said Weinstein sexually assaulted her in a hotel room during the 1996 Cannes Film Festival, said she was “deeply shocked” and “saddened”.
Former actress Dawn Dunning condemned the decision: “While I am stunned that the court threw out Weinstein’s conviction due to legal formalities, I am still proud to have testified and stood up to this convicted rapist.”
Attorney Lindsay Goldbrum, who represented six of Weinstein’s alleged victims, called the court’s decision a “step back for the rule of law” that could deter future victims of sexual assault from coming forward, the station said NBC NEWS.
Add PL to your favorite feeds on Google News. Thank you
Did you like this article?
You can support the independence of our editorial office with a monetary donation of any amount by bank transfer to the following account:
131-981500247/0100
The QR code contains payment information, determine the amount yourself.
Are you a politician? Post whatever you want without editing. Register HERE.
Are you a reader and want to communicate with your representatives? Register HERE.
author: Alena Kratochvílova
FactChecking BETA
A factual error in reporting? Help us fix it.
Examine
