Harvey Weinstein's New York Conviction Was Overturned, But His Ass Will Remain In Prison
Harvey Weinstein's New York Conviction Was Overturned, But His Ass Will Remain In Prison
He's still serving a 16-year sentence for crimes committed in California.
Some pretty unappealing news — on Thursday, in a 4-3 decision, the New York Court of Appeals overturned Harvey Weinstein’s 2020 New York conviction for rape and sexual assault.
The reason has nothing to do with any particular question of his guilt, but rather with the fact that women whose accusations he was not charged with or convicted of testified at his trial. The women had been allowed to testify in order to establish a pattern of prior bad acts, but Weinstein’s attorneys argued that he was convicted based on these prior bad acts and not the evidence in the specific cases for which he was tried.
Under our system of justice, 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 (see People v Molineux). Nor may the prosecution use “prior convictions or proof of the prior commission of specific, criminal, vicious or immoral acts” other than to impeach the accused's credibility (People v Sandoval). It is our solemn duty to diligently guard these rights regardless of the crime charged, the reputation of the accused, or the pressure to convict (see Boyd v United States).
It’s not easy to prosecute cases like this, where we are talking about things that happen behind closed doors and very purposely not in public, and where there is often not much evidence beyond personal testimonies — and when shame keeps people from coming forward before the statute of limitations is up. That is why prosecutors in this case relied on the other victims to demonstrate a pattern of behavior.
One of the more disappointing aspects of this whole situation is that the 2015 case against Weinstein for the sexual assault of model Ambra Battilana Gutierrez was far more solid and included a recorded confession from Weinstein but his lawyers had been able to get the DA to dismiss it. Gutierrez was able to testify at Weinstein’s trial that he had groped her breasts and put his hand up his skirt, but he was not charged with any crimes against her.
“If the D.A. had taken my case seriously in 2015, we wouldn’t be here,” Gutierrez said in a statement. “This is an ongoing failure of the justice system — and the courts — to take survivors seriously and to protect our interests.”
It is very difficult, I think, to process this without “It’s Harvey Weinstein and he’s obviously a monster! We all know what he did!” in one’s head. It’s still important that even the obviously guilty get very, very fair trials and to get appeals when a trial was not fair, because we need that to be the case when the person is actually innocent.
On the bright side, this is largely moot. Harvey Weinstein is in terrible health and currently serving a 16-year prison sentence for crimes he was convicted of in California in 2022. There is very little chance that he will not die in prison. He is not ever going to be a threat to anyone (outside of prison) ever again.
Prosecutors say they have every intention of retrying the case against him.
It is understandable that a lot of people are deeply disappointed and hurt by this — his victims in particular, but also victims of other, similar crimes. A lot of people are taking this as “a blow to the #MeToo movement” and to survivors in general.
But absolutely no one is required to see this as “a blow to the #MeToo movement,” which was a great deal larger than Harvey Weinstein and which I certainly hope had a greater effect on society as a whole than on just one man being convicted of specific crimes and going to prison. It’s not a house of cards and removing this one thing doesn’t mean it is going to tumble to the ground.
We now live in a society where women are less afraid to speak up and less likely to be judged for doing so, in which men like Harvey Weinstein have absolutely no reason to believe that their victims will keep their mouths shut and will therefore be less likely to even try it. That is a big, big deal. Especially because the biggest deterrent to crime is not harsh punishment but the certainty that one will be caught.
#MeToo was a cosmic shift, a long-overdue one, and HW was proof that time was up. #MeToo cast a wide net, and while many, many bad actors were exposed, faced career and other consequences or even prosecution, a few people were lumped-in and vilified for lesser offenses and distasteful behavior. Al Franken comes to mind. But the moment was enormous, and many victims found they had a voice when that seemed impossible before. This 4-3 ruling only overturns one of his disturbing, horrifying convictions based on judicial error, not because Harvey is innocent. If the victims are intent on having him retried, and it’s what they want, I hope the prosecution retries him. Because the trolls and rape apologists will no doubt celebrate this as a win for (terrible) “men,” when it’s nothing of the sort. Incidentally, I turned on the tv tonight and a rerun of Conan O’Brien was on from 5 or so years ago with some “comedian” who was fed up with #MeToo. He “joked” that we shouldn’t believe all women, that’s crazy. He offered “how about 87%? I’ll give you that.” He said there are some who key your car or stalk you and lie about everything. He longed for the days of “due process” when you needed more than accusations. I’m no fan of false accusations (who is?), which unfortunately do happen occasionally. But it was weird timing that this rerun was on after the Weinstein ruling.
This case got tried. Sometimes, due process upsets those of us who are on the sidelines, and in this case the victims have every right to be very aggrieved by that process.
Still, it is, indeed, good news that Weinstein is not getting out of prison.