Shock has caused to Hollywood the reversal of his conviction Harvey Weinstein for rape, in New York which opens a new painful chapter in the battle against sexual abuses by powerful personalities, which began in 2017, giantizing the MeToo movement.
Reuters lists all the facts and the reasoning with which the conviction was set aside of the once almighty film producer but also what it’s going to happen hereinafter.
Why was the conviction overturned?
Weinstein, 72, was convicted guilty for rape of a woman and the sexual abuse once secondafter both victims testified in court.
However, the majority of the Court of Appeals New Yorkof the state’s highest court, held that the trial judge he was not to allow three other women to testify that Weinstein had assaulted them because their allegations they were not part of the criminal charges against him.
Such testimony about a defendant’s past “bad deeds” usually are prohibited by the so-called Molineux rule of New York. The majority of the court ruled that the testimony of the three women violated the rule and thus the trial was “unfair”.
Why were women allowed to testify in the first place?
The Molineux rule is not absolute. It stipulates that prosecutors cannot use this type of testimony to prove that the accused has a “propensity” to commit a crimebut they can use them as evidence of motive or intent.
In Weinstein’s case, prosecutors convinced the trial judge that the producer’s alleged past sexual assaults showed that he knew that his accusers did not consent to his propositionsbut also how he intended to force them into sex anyway.
Prosecutors believed the evidence would help bring down Mr Weinstein’s claim that the contacts were consensual.
The Court of Appeal, however, ruled that the testimony was merely evidence that he had a propensity to commit rape and sexual assault, but not his motive or intent.
What does this ruling mean for the rape case convicted in California?
In a separate case, Weinstein sentenced to 16 years in prison for rape in 2022 in Californiawhich he is expected to appeal, however the New York decision has no immediate impact on this case.
Yes, California law expressly permits testimony of past misdeeds in sex crime cases as proof that the accused has a tendency to commit sexual crimes.
Such evidence was used in Weinstein’s trial in California, and state law will make it harder for his lawyers to challenge it on appeal than in New York.
It is noted that the producer remains in prison as the conviction for him is valid against him rape this.
Reactions from judges – ‘Unfortunate step backwards’
This decision for Weinstein caused strong reactions, not only in society but also in justice.
The judge Jenny Rivera said the decision was based on established New York law and said it was similar to another 1996 Court of Appeals decision that overturned a rape conviction because witnesses were allowed to testify about prior alleged rapes by the defendant.
The dissenting judges stated that the decision will make it more difficult to prosecute sex crimes perpetrated by people who know their victims and may have ongoing relationships with them, as in Weinstein’s case.
Judge Anthony Cannataro, who was among the dissenters, called the decision “an unfortunate step backwards for sex crimes».
Another judge who reacted was Madeline Singas, who sounded the alarm that the ruling would end the exploiting witnesses of past wrongdoings in corresponding cases and will make it difficult to prove intent.
