Thursday’s ruling overturning Harvey Weinstein’s New York rape conviction offers him a chance at a new trial and raises questions about the admissibility of evidence in future sex crime cases. Here’s what transpired with the case and what potential outcomes lie ahead.
Weinstein, 72, was convicted of raping one woman and sexually assaulting another based on their testimony. However, the New York Court of Appeals voted 4-3 to overturn the conviction. The majority ruled that the trial judge erred in allowing three additional women to testify about Weinstein’s prior bad acts, as these allegations weren’t part of the charges against him. This violated New York’s Molineux rule, which typically bars such testimony.
The Molineux rule allows for exceptions, permitting such testimony to establish motive or intent rather than merely showing a propensity to commit crimes. Prosecutors argued that Weinstein’s prior assaults demonstrated his knowledge of lack of consent, countering his claims of consensual encounters. However, the Court of Appeals deemed this evidence as indicative of propensity, not motive or intent, rendering the trial unfair.
Regarding Weinstein’s California case, where he was sentenced to 16 years for a separate 2022 rape conviction, the New York ruling doesn’t directly impact it. California law allows for testimony of prior bad acts, making it harder for Weinstein’s legal team to contest.
As for future cases in New York, the ruling’s impact is limited according to the majority opinion, which cites established state law. However, dissenting judges voiced concerns that the decision could hinder prosecution of sex crimes, particularly those involving perpetrators who know their victims. They fear it could impede proving intent and effectively end the use of prior bad acts witnesses in such cases.
