Harvey Weinstein's conviction has been overturned

[Imzadi]

Harvey Weinstein's conviction has been overturned in the NY Court of Appeals. They say the prosecutor brought in extra witnesses that he shouldn't and the judge allowed this. It was a mistake on both their parts. The appeals court said that, "portrayed the defendant in a highly prejudicial light." So, the conviction has been overturned. Weinstein had been sentenced to 23 years in prison in NY. The DA will attempt to retry the case.

Weinstein will NOT be set free as he is also serving 16 years for a rape in Los Angeles. He will be transferred to the custody of prison authorities in California.


https://abcnews.go.com/US/harvey-weinstein-conviction-overturned-new-york/story?id=109621776

 

[sam_gordon]

What I heard is it doesn't exonerate him and prosecutors could bring him to trial again.

 

[cabanafrau]

It will be interesting if they decide to devote the (considerable) resources to try the case again. Such a shame that things weren't handled cleanly in the first case. Such an ordeal for the victims.

 

[TheIncredibles!]

He's disgusting. I am all for them spending more time and resources to try and extend his prison time. I feel he's worth the money.

 

[cabanafrau]

He's disgusting. I am all for them spending more time and resources to try and extend his prison time. I feel he's worth the money.

Definitely understand where you're coming from. Unfortunately I realize that this is a case that will expend extreme resources on a retry and the choice impacts many, many other cases. I would not want to have to choose between those horrible options.

 

[Moliphino]

He's disgusting. I am all for them spending more time and resources to try and extend his prison time. I feel he's worth the money.

He's 72 now. Maybe he'll die before the 16 years in CA is up.

 

[princesscinderella]

I think he is in ill health so 16 years may be enough to keep him behind bars for life even with this setback. With how cumbersome and complex our legal system is, if he is retried it could take years before its ever heard.

 

[TheIncredibles!]

Definitely understand where you're coming from. Unfortunately I realize that this is a case that will expend extreme resources on a retry and the choice impacts many, many other cases. I would not want to have to choose between those horrible options.

Make everybody testify again -vs - Don't let them testify again. Either way you can spin, it's awful for the victims.

 

[cabanafrau]

Make everybody testify again -vs - Don't let them testify again. Either way you can spin, it's awful for the victims.

I was actually referring to the financial costs in regard to the decision to retry. Trying cases is expensive. Trying a case like this is astronomical. It's a certainty that the state will also be picking up all of his costs on a new trial as well, along with the costs of bringing him to NY and all the incidentals that entails.

While I am absolutely of the belief that he should be held accountable for his crimes and would be found guilty again, I also realize that choosing to devote that much $$ to retry this case means X number of other cases get their resources squeezed, which could lead to inadequate prosecutions/defenses for many, many others. That's a balancing of the scales of justice that has to be considered.

Even if he's incarcerated in CA, if he doesn't stand trial again for the NY cases those victims don't get that closure. If he is retried, those victims have to face all that trauma in a courtroom and the media circus again. It's just horrible and traumatic whichever way you slice it.

 

[TheIncredibles!]

Oh I understood I was just trying to say (badly...lol) if you break it down to emotions it's still a no win situation. It's unfortunate in every way this hits because there really is no right way to handle this now.

 

[Praying Colonel]

He's 72 now. Maybe he'll die before the 16 years in CA is up.

Not sure what the parole/good time rules are in CA for that type of conviction, but it's possible he doesn't serve the entire 16.

My WAG is NY retries him.

 

[LuvOrlando]

Disgusted when I saw this. I'd like more transparency here newspeople, like openly say the names of the judges & everyone involved in getting justice for a monster and putting that ahead of victims.

 

[sam_gordon]

Disgusted when I saw this. I'd like more transparency here newspeople, like openly say the names of the judges & everyone involved in getting justice for a monster and putting that ahead of victims.

https://www.nycourts.gov/ctapps/

Hover over "Judges of the Court".

 

[disneychrista]

Not sure what the parole/good time rules are in CA for that type of conviction, but it's possible he doesn't serve the entire 16.

He’ll like have to serve 85% of the sentence, about 13 and a half years.

 

[Imzadi]

I watched an interview with one of Weinstein's lawyers. She said that they are planning to appeal the California case now. (They hadn't filed those papers before. They were taken quite by surprised, happily so, by the NY appeals judgement. )

She said two reasons: First, the CA case did the same thing as the NY case. They brought in extra witnesses that shouldn't have been allowed which unfairly prejudiced the jury.

Second, and perhaps most importantly (according to Weinstein's lawyer): Because of Weinstein's conviction in NY, during the CA trial, most of the potential jury pool had already heard about Weinstein's conviction. The lawyers had to excuse a lot of potential jurors who said that they believed since he was already convicted once for the charges, it is likely that he also did it in CA. And while the jurors they did pick had said they'd set that info aside, there is likely no way they really could. (There is a certain legal term for this, I forget what she said. Something like, "believing prior bad acts being repeated.")

NOW that the NY conviction has been overturned as though it never existed, and is not part of his criminal record, she claims, Weinstein deserves a new trial in CA, one where the jury isn't tainted by a previous conviction.

What a mess.

 

[cabanafrau]

I watched an interview with one of Weinstein's lawyers. She said that they are planning to appeal the California case now. (They hadn't filed those papers before. They were taken quite by surprised, happily so, by the NY appeals judgement. )

She said two reasons: First, the CA case did the same thing as the NY case. They brought in extra witnesses that shouldn't have been allowed which unfairly prejudiced the jury.

Second, and perhaps most importantly (according to Weinstein's lawyer): Because of Weinstein's conviction in NY, during the CA trial, most of the potential jury pool had already heard about Weinstein's conviction. The lawyers had to excuse a lot of potential jurors who said that they believed since he was already convicted once for the charges, it is likely that he also did it in CA. And while the jurors they did pick had said they'd set that info aside, there is likely no way they really could. (There is a certain legal term for this, I forget what she said. Something like, "believing prior bad acts being repeated.")

NOW that the NY conviction has been overturned as though it never existed, and is not part of his criminal record, she claims, Weinstein deserves a new trial in CA, one where the jury isn't tainted by a previous conviction.

What a mess.

Generally there's a time limit on filing an appeal, and this would be well out of bounds of ordinary limits. The only thing I could guess is there is already an appeal on file and they will now amend to include this issue.