What you need to know about the decision that #MeToo victims are calling “unjust” in regards to Harvey Weinstein’s rape conviction being reversed

In a stunning reversal in one of the key cases that defined the #MeToo movement, New York’s highest court on Thursday reversed disgraced Hollywood mogul Harvey Weinstein’s 2020 conviction on sex crime charges.

The Court of Appeals, in a 4-3 ruling, declared that the trial judge had erred in permitting the evidence of other women who Weinstein was believed to have assaulted but who were not included in the accusations made against him. The court therefore ordered a fresh trial.

Judge Jenny Rivera issued the majority judgment, saying that the accused “has a right to be held to account only for the crime charged and, thus, allegations of prior bad acts may not be admitted against them for the sole purpose of establishing their propensity for criminality.”

The Oscar-winning producer was the target of shocking claims in 2017, which gave rise to the #MeToo movement and enabled women to take action against sexual assault in the workplace.

Harvey Weinstein will get a second shot at trial after Thursday’s decision to overturn his New York rape conviction. It also raises concerns about the evidence that prosecutors may use in other sex crime cases.
This is a look at the case’s outcome, which contributed to the definition of the #MeToo movement, and potential future developments

REASON FOR THE OVERTURN OF WEINSTEIN’S CONVICTION?Following their testimonies in court, Weinstein, 72, was found guilty of raping one woman and sexually abusing another.

However, the trial judge should not have allowed three other women to testify that Weinstein had abused them as well, according to a 4-3 majority of the state’s highest court, the New York Court of Appeals, as their claims were unrelated to the criminal accusations against him.

The so-called Molineux rule, named after a significant 1901 court decision, often forbids evidence about “prior bad acts” in New York. The three women’s testimony, according to the majority of the court, violated the rule and tainted the trial.

Firstly, why were the other women not denied the opportunity to testify?
There are exceptions to the Molineux rule. It states that although prosecutors may use such testimony to show purpose or intent, they are not allowed to use it to demonstrate a defendant’s “propensity” to commit crimes.

Prosecutors convinced the trial judge in Weinstein’s case that the producer knew his victims did not agree to his overtures for sex but nevertheless planned to coerce them into having sex. This was shown by the producer’s claimed past sexual assaults.
The prosecution thought the evidence would support their case against Weinstein’s claim that the encounters were consensual

However, the Court of Appeals determined that the testimony did not reveal his motivation or purpose, but rather just demonstrated his tendency to commit rape and sexual assault

IMPLICATIONS FOR WEINSTEIN’S CALIFORNIA CASE ARISING FROM THE RULING?
Following a different 2022 rape trial in California, Weinstein was found guilty and sentenced to 16 years in jail. He is anticipated to file an appeal of that conviction, and the New York judgment has no bearing on it.
In fact, testimony on past transgressions is particularly admissible under California law as proof of a defendant’s tendency to commit sex crimes in instances involving sex crimes. Weinstein’s California trial included such evidence, and the state’s statute will make it more difficult for his attorneys to refute it on appeal than it would in New York.

WHAT DOES THIS JUDGMENT IMPLY FOR NEXT NEW YORK CASES?Very little, the majority of the court said. The majority opinion, authored by Judge Jenny Rivera, stated that the decision was grounded in well-established New York law and compared to a 1996 Court of Appeals ruling called People v. Vargas, which overturned a rape conviction due to the testimony of witnesses regarding prior alleged rapes by the accused.

Judges who dissented from the finding on Thursday said that it would be more difficult to pursue cases of sexual assaults by perpetrators who know their victims and may have continued ties with them, as was the case with Weinstein.
Among the dissenters was Judge Anthony Cannataro, who referred to it as “an unfortunate step backwards from recent advances in our understanding of how sex crimes are perpetrated.”

Madeline Singas, a further dissenting judge, said that the ruling will essentially put a stop to the use of witnesses with past bad behavior in these types of cases and make it more difficult to establish intent.
WHAT WAS THE RULING’S IMPACT ON THE #METOO VICTIMS?

Ashley Judd, who had accused Harvey Weinstein of sexual harassment in the past, voiced her dismay at the latest events. “This is what it’s like to be a woman in America, living with male entitlement to our bodies,” the lady said in a statement.
She said to EW, “When survivors tell their stories, they’re exercising a powerful form of leadership that sparks others to join in shared action that catalyzes change.”

She told the New York Times, “This is an act of institutional betrayal today, and our institutions betray survivors of male sexual violence.” It’s unjust to the survivors. We continue to exist in our truth. And we are aware of what transpired.”

In a statement to AP, Tarana Burke, the creator of the #MeToo movement overall, stated, “Millions and millions and millions of others found the strength to come forward and do the same because the brave women in this case broke their silence.” It is and always will be the triumph. That remains unchanged by this. The villains will always be those who take advantage of their status and authority to wrong and injure other people. That remains unchanged by this.

One of Weinstein’s accusers, actress Katherine Kendall, said in a statement to THR that “victims of sexual assault who go up against powerful individuals seldom achieve justice via our legal system,” a fact that is well known. This has to change; victims must continue speaking up, and our society must continue to accept and stand by them.

The Hollywood Commission’s president and chair, Anita Hill, told AP in a statement: “Today’s decision confirms the findings of our poll of more than 13,000 industry professionals. We’ve seen little progress in resolving the power disparities that facilitate abuse, and sexual assault is still a major issue.
HARVEY: WILL SHE STAY IN JAIL?

The 72-year-old’s legal issues in New York will not stop as a result of this decision; he will still need to complete his sentence in California.
The District Attorney’s office in New York issued the following statement to NBC News: “We will do everything in our power to retry this case, and remain steadfast in our commitment to survivors of sexual assault.”