Harvey Weinstein’s conviction for rape in New York overturned on appeal

Get free access to the Editor's Digest

Every week, Roula Khalaf, who is the Editor at FT, chooses her preferred articles and presents them in a newsletter.

The highest court in New York has invalidated Harvey Weinstein's conviction for sexual misconduct and rape, and has mandated a fresh trial for the movie executive, who had once wielded considerable power. Weinstein's alleged mistreatment of women was a crucial factor in giving rise to the #MeToo campaign.

In February 2020, Weinstein was convicted in New York and given a 23-year prison sentence. He contested the decision, arguing that the jury may have been wrongly influenced by the accounts of women who were not involved in the case.

On Thursday, the court passed a 4-3 decision that aligned with Weinstein's opinion. The prosecution was considered at fault for using past convictions or evidence of prior immoral or criminal actions to prove Weinstein's inclination towards criminal activity.

The findings indicated that the judge overseeing the trial had made a mistake by allowing testimony about alleged sexual acts that were not part of the charges, and that involved individuals other than the complainants in the original crimes.

A fresh trial has been ordered by the New York Court of Appeals for Weinstein. However, his previous verdict in 2022 on violation and other sexual offences in California, resulting in a 16-year prison sentence, remains unaffected by this ruling.

A representative of the Manhattan district attorney's office, who initiated the initial trial, stated that they will exert all efforts to hold another trial and continue to support sexual assault victims.

Weinstein's recent conviction in New York marks a significant achievement for the #MeToo campaign, which strives to hold influential men responsible for the sexual abuse and harassment of women. The trial spanned six weeks and concerned five charges relating to two different incidents. Specifically, Weinstein was accused of raping Jessica Mann, an aspiring actress, in 2013, and coercing Miriam Haley, a production assistant, into engaging in oral sex in 2006.

The conclusion from a group of people selected to decide a case, known as the jury, was that Weinstein had committed two out of five serious crimes. These two crimes included engaging in a criminal sexual act that was classified as first-degree and charges of rape in the third-degree. However, the jury did not find him guilty of the two most severe charges which were predatory sexual assault and a first-degree rape offense.

Three women, who did not file complaints against Weinstein, gave testimony against him in court. The evidence presented explained unwanted sexual advances made towards them by the influential Hollywood figure.

The panel of judges was told that this proof "cannot be used to demonstrate that the accused had an inclination or tendency to do the alleged offenses."

The majority of the appeals court stated that the testimony served to strengthen the believability of the witnesses and tarnish the reputation of the defendant in the eyes of the jury.

Judge Madeline Singas disagreed with the decision of her fellow judges in Court of Appeals and expressed her opinion. She felt that this decision will lead to jurors not knowing about the defendant’s previous criminal activities, which would make it challenging to hold them accountable for sexual assault. In simpler terms, she believed that the decision will make it easier for offenders to go unnoticed.