Harvey Weinstein’s Rape Conviction Overturned, What Comes Next?

Thursday’s ruling overturned Harvey Weinstein’s New York rape conviction. The New York Court of Appeals, the state’s highest court, voted 4-3 to overturn the conviction.

The majority found that allowing three other women to testify against Weinstein for assaults not directly related to the criminal charges was unfair. This testimony violated New York’s Molineux rule, which typically prohibits evidence of “prior bad acts.”

The court ruled that while such testimony may be used to demonstrate motive or intent, it cannot be used to prove a defendant’s propensity to commit a crime. Prosecutors had argued that Weinstein’s prior sexual assaults showed his knowledge that his accusers did not consent to his advances, and that he intended to force them into sex anyway.

However, the Court of Appeals determined that this testimony only demonstrated his propensity to commit rape and sexual assault. By contrast, California law does allow such testimony in sex crime cases as evidence of a defendant’s propensity to commit such crimes, making it harder for Weinstein’s lawyers to challenge the evidence in his California trial.

The majority opinion, written by Judge Jenny Rivera, emphasized that the ruling was based on well-established New York law and cited a 1996 Court of Appeals decision, People v. Vargas, as precedent. Dissenting judges raised concerns that the ruling could hinder the prosecution of sex crimes, particularly those involving ongoing relationships between the perpetrator and the victim.

Although the situation highlights a difference between New York and California law, it also raises broader questions about the use of prior bad acts witnesses in sex crime cases and their impact on proving intent.