NEW YORK (AP) – The New York Court of Appeals on Thursday upheld Harvey Weinstein’s rape sentence and 23-year sentence, dismissing the former film mogul’s claim that a judge at his #MeToo landmark unfairly allowed women to testify. which were t part of the case.
The decision by a panel of five judges at the state’s Interim Court of Appeals confirmed one of the most notorious convictions ever in America’s reliance on the sexual abuse of influential figures, an era that began with a stream of charges against Weinstein.
Weinstein’s publicist, Juda Engelmeier, said he was reconsidering his options and would try to appeal the decision to the state’s highest court, the Court of Appeal.
“We are disappointed, but not surprised,” Engelmeier said.
Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, who took office in January while Weinstein’s appeal was pending, said in a statement that prosecutors were “pleased with today’s decision, which upholds a monumental sentence that changed the way prosecutors and courts approach complex pursuits of sexual predators. “
Weinstein, 70, was convicted in New York in February 2020 of forcing oral sex with television and film production assistant Mimi Haley in 2006 and raping an ambitious actress in 2013. He was acquitted of rape for the first time. degree and two charges of predatory sexual assault stemming from actor Anabella Schiora’s allegations of rape in the mid-1990s.
The Associated Press generally does not identify people who allege sexual violence unless they agree to be named; Sciorra spoke publicly about her allegations and Hailey agreed to be named.
Weinstein is in jail in California, where he was extradited last year, awaiting trial on charges of assaulting five women in Los Angeles and Beverly Hills from 2004 to 2013.
Lawyer Gloria Allred, representing Hailey, Shiora and another witness, said she was “excited” that Weinstein’s sentence had been upheld and that “many sacrifices for the cause of justice” of her clients had not been in vain.
“Justice has been restored,” Allred said. “However, I now look forward to prosecuting Mr Weinstein in Los Angeles, where I also represent alleged victims who have been charged.”
Former District Attorney Cyrus Vance Jr., who oversaw Weinstein’s prosecution, told the Associated Press that he had always been confident in the strength of the case. He said he was confident that Judge James Burke’s decisions were fair and would be upheld on appeal.
“I am also grateful that this decision of the Court of Appeal fully credits the powerful testimonies of the brave and strong survivors of Mr. Weinstein’s violence,” Vance said. “Today, they are one step closer to the full conclusion of the trial, which they deserve.
The decision follows several setbacks for women who seek to hold famous men accountable for alleged violations.
On Wednesday, a jury in Virginia found Amber Heard’s allegations of abuse of Johnny Depp to be defamatory. In March, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal after a Pennsylvania court overturned Bill Cosby’s sentence for sexual assault.
In the case of Weinstein, the appellate court took an unusually long time to rule – nearly six months after controversial oral arguments last December that cast doubt on whether his sentence would be valid. The court was expected to rule in January.
During the hearing, some judges were critical of Burke and prosecutors, suggesting they were ready to overturn Weinstein’s sentence and order a new trial. Judge Sally Manzanet-Daniels said Burke had left prosecutors with “incredibly biased testimony” from additional witnesses.
But in a 45-page ruling Thursday, the five judges were unanimous in finding Burke had exercised his discretion by allowing the testimony of three women who accused Weinstein of violating them but whose allegations did not lead to charges in the New York case. York.
Judges also agreed with Burke’s decision to allow prosecutors to confront Weinstein with evidence of other unrelated misconduct if he testified, including whether he blocked a colleague in a foreign country, told people to lie to his wife or screaming restaurant staff while demanding a late night meal.
In their ruling, the judges said that although the volume of material – relating to 28 alleged acts of ill-treatment over 30 years – was “undeniably large and, at first glance, may seem disturbing”, Burke rightly weighed his attitude towards case. Weinstein did not take the testimony.
The commission also rejected Weinstein’s argument that Burke was wrong in other ways: by detaining a juror who wrote a novel involving predatory older men, and by allowing a prosecution expert to testify about the victim’s behavior and myths. for rape. Burke did not allow defense experts to testify on such topics.
The rules for calling additional witnesses to testify about “previous misconduct” vary by state and are a problem in Cosby’s successful appeal of his sentence for sexual violence in Pennsylvania. The rules of New York, formed by a decision in the event of poisoning in 1901, are among the most restrictive.
At the December hearing, Weinstein’s lawyers argued that the additional testimony went beyond what was normally allowed – detailing the motive, possibility, intent or overall scheme or plan – and essentially brought the former studio boss to justice for crimes he was not charged with. he did not have, he did not have the opportunity to defend himself.
“The jury was overwhelmed by such prejudiced, bad evidence,” Weinstein’s lawyer Barry Cummins told the appeals chamber. “It was a test against Harvey Weinstein’s character. People portrayed him as a bad person. “
___
Follow Michael Sisak on Twitter at twitter.com/mikesisak
Add Comment