Harvey Weinstein: 5 minutes to understand why the victim producer’s rape conviction was overturned

He is the face of the MeToo movement in the United States. One of the rape and sexual assault convictions against former Hollywood producer Harvey Weinstein was overturned Thursday by a New York appeals court. A decision that outraged many feminist activists.

Why did the court overturn this verdict?

Implicated in several press articles in 2017, Harvey Weinstein was sentenced in 2020 by a New York court to 23 years in prison for rape and sexual assault. The decision was upheld on appeal in 2022, but was just overturned by New York State’s highest court. In their decision, the judges noted “serious procedural errors” and felt that the fairness of Harvey Weinstein’s trial was compromised for two reasons.

While the producer was being held accountable for his actions against two women, Jessica Mann and Mimi Haley, the judge allowed prosecutors to present testimony from three other victims. These women, called “Molineux” witnesses in reference to the landmark 1901 decision, gave evidence about alleged crimes that were not the subject of the trial.

However, the rule governing the giving of evidence of this kind, which is intended to shed light on the identity of the accused, is subject to interpretation in New York State. Thus, Harvey Weinstein’s lawyers believed that this testimony encouraged the jury to judge their client on facts different from those for which he was prosecuted. The argument was accepted by the appeals court on Thursday. “No defendant should be convicted on the basis of crimes that are not the subject of criminal prosecution,” she argued in her decision.

Another “mistake” made by the court: Prosecutors were authorized to question Harvey Weinstein about unrelated allegations if the latter decided to testify at the hearing. His lawyers say this would persuade the accused to remain silent. “The threat of cross-examination highlighting these untested allegations violated the defendant’s right to testify,” the appeals court also assessed, for which “the remedy for these egregious errors is a new trial.”

Will Harvey Weinstein be able to get out of prison?

No. The producer, who is in prison in New York, still has to serve a 16-year prison sentence to which he was sentenced by a Los Angeles court in 2022 for another rape. Harvey Weinstein is due to appeal the decision on May 20, said his lawyer Jennifer Bonjean, who said she hopes the overturning of his conviction in New York will benefit her client. The jury was “overloaded with evidence that was not legal and that tainted the entire trial in California,” she condemned in a statement given to the New York Times.

What are the reactions?

The New York appeals court’s decision has sparked outrage from the MeToo movement in the US. “The legal system has never been good for survivors in this country,” criticized African-American activist Tarana Burke, who launched the MeToo campaign popularized in 2017 by actress Alyssa Milano. “The court continues to undo the regular victories that sexual assault survivors have fought for,” also lamented Madeline Singas, one of three appeals court judges who ruled against the annulment.

A group of Harvey Weinstein victims also condemned the court’s decision, saying it was “not only demoralizing” but also “grossly unfair.” “But this decision in no way affects the reality of what we have experienced,” and “we continue to fight,” the group Silence Breakers said in a statement. Several actresses also expressed their disappointment and blamed the producer. One of the first to speak out against it, actress Ashley Judd expressed regret over the decision, which was “unfair to the survivors.” “We live our truth. We know what happened,” she added.

What consequences might this decision have?

From the point of view of American law, overturning the conviction of Harvey Weinstein risks complicating the use of Molineux witnesses, Judge Madeline Singas emphasized. “Men who serially sexually exploit their power over women – especially those in society’s most vulnerable groups – will benefit from today’s decision,” she condemned.

American lawyer Carly Pearson also warns in USA Today about the potential “chilling effect” of the decision, which could discourage victims of sexual assault from filing complaints against an attacker who has the potential to be whitewashed. The risk is also highlighted by sexual assault lawyer Karin Diebolt, who explains that “the legal path for victims is already an obstacle course.” “We absolutely must improve our procedures to better take into account the rights of victims and overuse injury what these procedures can cause,” she adds to Le Parisien.