Court overturns Harvey Weinstein's conviction

[kenny]

Wow! Just f-ing Wow!

Partial Snip:
When Hollywood producer Harvey Weinstein was found guilty of two sex crimes in February 2020, the conviction was hailed as a landmark moment in the #MeToo movement.

Now, over four years later, the ruling from the New York Court of Appeals overturning that conviction has sent shockwaves through communities of sexual assault survivors, particularly the more than 100 women who have accused Weinstein of assault and harassment.

“This today is an act of institutional betrayal,” actor and activist Ashley Judd, who was among the first women to publicly accuse Weinstein of sexual harassment, said at an event at the UN for workplace safety. “Our institutions betray survivors of male sexual violence.”

https://www.cnn.com/2024/04/25/us/accusers-harvey-weinstein-conviction-overturned/index.html

 

[Matata]

It's deeply disappointing and frustrating to see a conviction overturned due to an error on the part of the trial judge. I hurt for the women who are affected by this and hope they have the fortitude to participate in a new trial should one occur.

 

[ItsMainelyYou]

Right, because using proof that he's done it before over decades somehow isn't fair?!
I'm about done with the regression in this country.

 

[kenny]

Right, because using proof that he's done it before over decades somehow isn't fair?!
I'm about done with the regression in this country.

Past behavior may be supporting evidence, not proof.

Well, yes, he is a major scumbag, and I'm happy he's not getting out of jail, in spite of this decision by a NY court.

But Weinslime is staying in jail because of this other conviction in Los Angeles.

This is a good example of why the prosecution, defense, and judge all follow the letter of the law, regardless of how heinous the crime.
Doing so reduces the odds a conviction will be overturned because of a technicality/mistake like this.

I expect and hope a new trial ends with a guilty verdict.

 

[Matata]

But Weinslime is staying in jail because of this other conviction in Los Angeles.

David Muir on the nightly news said the LA case is being looked at because the same evidence was or may have been used (can't quite remember) in that trial.

 

[missy]

Seems about right in this upside down turned around dark mirror world we live in today. Not a surprise at all to me. Why would anyone be surprised? Look at current events. You cannot expect things to make sense when nothing else does. IMO

 

[ItsMainelyYou]

Past behavior may be supporting evidence, not proof.

Well, yes, he is a major scumbag, and I'm happy he's not getting out of jail, in spite of this decision by a NY court.

But Weinslime is staying in jail because of this other conviction in Los Angeles.

This is a good example of why the prosecution, defense, and judge all follow the letter of the law, regardless of how heinous the crime.
Doing so reduces the odds a conviction will be overturned because of a technicality/mistake like this.

I expect and hope a new trial ends with a guilty verdict.

This is assault. This is the only evidence in many assault cases where proof is the act itself.

https://www.lawshelf.com/blogentryview/evidence-of-prior-bad-acts-in-the-harvey-weinstein-trial

Snip:
The Federal Rules make exceptions for sexual assault cases. Rule 413 states that in a “criminal case in which a defendant is accused of a sexual assault, the court may admit evidence that the defendant committed any other sexual assault.”[4] While some states have enacted similar rules, many others leave it to the discretion of the trial courts to balance the competing interests at hand.

This rule allowing the prior acts in sexual abuse cases have generally been upheld against challenges on the idea that sexual assault cases are based heavily on the credibility of the victim and that corroborating evidence of prior attacks casts light on that credibility. In other words, evidence of the prior acts is not being brought to show the defendant’s character, but to show that the allegations are more likely to be true if other victims can corroborate that the defendant behaved in this manner.[5]

Interestingly, some states, including New York, have declined to expressly add the rule to their rules of evidence.[6]

And as women know, there is a good chance he could be found not guilty.
Will we need two witnesses who are men to be present for the act and to vouch for us, since we are slowly becoming chattel, once again?

This is repulsive and wrong.

 

[kenny]

FWIW, states vary on this.
What is not admissible in NY is admissible in CA.

Partial Snip:

Haley and Allred said they believe “prior bad acts” witnesses are relevant to sex crimes cases, and should be permissible in court, although it is at a judge’s discretion.

“I personally think it’s important information to know about someone’s character and their pattern,” Haley said.

Allred called for new legislation in the state of New York to clarify when and how “prior bad acts” victims are allowed to be utilized. In Weinstein’s cases, prosecutors asked to use these witnesses in order to help establish a pattern of Weinstein’s behavior. But the state’s highest court disagreed, ruling in his successful appeal by a 4-3 vote this week that “prior bad acts” witnesses should not have been allowed because it “was unnecessary to establish defendant’s intent and served only to establish defendant’s propensity to commit the crimes charged.”

In the state of California – where Weinstein was convicted in 2022 of rape and sexual assault – “prior bad acts” witnesses are allowed to be used to show things such as motive, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, absence of mistake or accident, or whether a defendant for an unlawful sexual act did not reasonably and in good faith believe that the victim consented. Allred said she would like to see the state of New York adopt similar laws.

“I think it’s important for the New York legislature to pass a specific statute in New York, which more clearly defines the admission of prior bad acts witnesses and their testimony in New York, and is more protective of victims’ rights in sex crimes criminal cases,” Allred said.

Source:

https://www.cnn.com/2024/04/26/entertainment/witness-harvey-weinstein-trial-consider-testifying/?dicbo=v2-jzHXbVz&hpt=ob_blogfooterold

But I will say, a person doing something in the past is not (as you stated) proof that they did it again in the case being tried.

Proof, as you state? No!
Completely legitimate to mention? IMO, absolutely YES!!!

But the law in different states vary.
The law doesn't care what our personal opinions are.
Laws are absolute.

If you object to laws in your state, tell your politicians.

 

[ItsMainelyYou]

It's nice to see you edited the weirdly personal tone to your statement.

Still oddly pedantic of you.

Proof:
*evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement.

The 'proof' is in the credibility and accounting of the prior witnesses being raped by the same individual.

The best predictor of future behavior is past behavior or past performance in a similar situation. Especially if they don't have negative consequence.

The Cognitive Impact of Past Behavior: Influences on Beliefs, Attitudes, and Future Behavioral Decisions

To study the processes by which past behavior influences future behavior, participants were led to believe that without being aware of it, they had expressed either support for or opposition to the institution of comprehensive exams. Judgment and response ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Which is why it was allowed in admittance in the first place.

In other words, evidence of the prior acts is not being brought to show the defendant’s character, but to show that the allegations are more likely to be true if other victims can corroborate that the defendant behaved in this manner.[5]

It is sometimes the only 'proof' presented when the crime has no witnesses or other physical evidence, especially of a sexual nature.
Such as rape.
I'm still a bit confused by your tone, or what you're trying to accomplish with your response.
This is a huge blow to women with far reaching effects.
It's now harder for a woman to get justice.
Women already only have a 1% chance of getting a conviction from their rape through trial.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2018/10/06/less-than-percent-rapes-lead-felony-convictions-least-percent-victims-face-emotional-physical-consequences/

Women have lost control over her own bodily autonomy in many states. We have lost freedom of movement.

But yes, let's tell our legislators- it's worked so well for us so far with a Supreme Court that doesn't see us as equals.
I guess we better be very careful how we word it, ladies.

 

[Calliecake]

I read yesterday that there is a chance these cases against Weinstein will not be retried. All of this is sickening.