Harvey Weinstein misplaced a bid to have his 2020 rape and sexual assault conviction thrown out, in keeping with a ruling by a New York appellate court docket Thursday.
In an unanimous choice, the court docket shot down Weinstein’s argument that he was the sufferer of misguided rulings by the trial choose – together with one which allowed jurors to listen to about allegations of misconduct for which he wasn’t charged.
“We reject defendant’s arguments, and affirm the conviction in all respects,” learn the choice from the Appellate Division, First Division.
“We understand no foundation for lowering the sentence, and we've got thought of defendant’s remaining arguments and discover them unavailing,” the choice continued.
Weinstein’s spokesman Juda Engelmayer stated: “We're reviewing all of our choices and can search to petition the court docket appeals and past. We're dissatisfied, however not shocked.”
Manhattan District Lawyer Alvin Bragg lauded the ruling, saying it upheld the “simply verdict.”
“We're gratified by in the present day’s choice, which upholds a monumental conviction that modified the best way prosecutors and courts strategy complicated prosecutions of sexual predators,” Bragg stated in a press release.
Weinstein, 70, is jailed in California whereas awaiting trial on separate fees that he sexually assaulted 5 ladies in Los Angeles between 2004 and 2013. He has pleaded not responsible.
The film mogul was sentenced to 23 years in jail in March 2020 after a Manhattan jury convicted him of forcibly performing oral intercourse on former “Venture Runway” manufacturing assistant Miriam “Mimi” Haleyi in 2006 and raping hairstylist Jessica Mann in 2013.
He was discovered not responsible of two counts of predatory sexual assault in connection to the alleged mid-Nineties rape of actress Annabella Sciorra.
His attorneys filed an enchantment with the First Division, in April 2021, arguing that Manhattan Supreme Courtroom Justice James Burke improperly allowed testimony of Weinstein’s “prior unhealthy acts” to return into trial.
Three ladies testified about uncharged sexual misconduct to bolster the prosecution’s case. Burke additionally admitted proof and testimony about Weinstein’s previous boorish habits.
Moreover, Weinstein’s authorized staff argued Burke ought to have eliminated a juror who wrote a novel that includes predatory older males and their relationships with ladies.
The appeals court docket rejected this argument, discovering that that Weinstein “failed to ascertain that [the juror] harbored bias towards him.”
Throughout a December listening to, one of many judges on the five-member panel blasted prosecutors over the “extremely prejudicial testimony” from among the witnesses.
“Let’s inflame the jury’s coronary heart by telling them that he beat up his brother throughout a gathering. I simply don’t see how there's a steadiness there on that,” Choose Sallie Manzanet-Daniels had stated.
The problem of “prior unhealthy acts” was one of many arguments that Invoice Cosby’s legal professionals used to overturn his sexual assault conviction in Pennsylvania. New York has its personal set of extra restrictive legal guidelines referring to this sort of proof.
Weinstein’s lawyer Barry Kamins instructed the appellate judges that the additional testimony went past what is generally accepted — and that Burke’s rulings allowed a mountain of prejudicial proof towards his shopper, contributing to his choice to not testify in his personal protection.
“The jury was overwhelmed by such prejudicial, unhealthy proof,” Kamins stated. “This was a trial of Harvey Weinstein’s character. The individuals had been making him out to be a nasty particular person.”
The First Division acknowledged that with “prior unhealthy acts” proof “there will likely be some extent of prejudice to the defendant.”
Nonetheless, the court docket stated Burke “fastidiously thought of” his selections regarding this proof – limiting the quantity of witnesses who might testify about Weinstein’s alleged misconduct that wasn’t charged within the case and instructing the jury about how they need to contemplate this proof.
In his assertion, Bragg stated, “I'm grateful to the courageous survivors on this case for his or her outstanding braveness and candor, in addition to the jurors who devoted their effort and time to securing a good and simply verdict.”
“Lastly, I thank the quite a few members of my Workplace, from the trial staff to the appellate attorneys, who've devoted years to securing justice on this case,” Bragg concluded.
Extra reporting by Tamar Lapin
Post a Comment