The Courier & Advertiser (Perth and Perthshire Edition)
Weinstein’s conviction for rape upheld
Acourt in New York has upheld Harvey Weinstein’s rape conviction and 23-year prison sentence, rejecting the disgraced movie mogul’s claims that the judge at the landmark #Metoo trial prejudiced him by allowing women to testify about allegations that were not part of the criminal case.
The ruling by a five-judge panel in the state’s intermediate appeals court affirmed the milestone verdict in America’s reckoning with sexual misconduct by powerful figures – an era that began with a flood of allegations against Weinstein.
Weinstein’s publicist, Juda Engelmayer, said he is reviewing his options and will seek to appeal against the decision to the Court of Appeals.
Weinstein, 70, was convicted in New York in February 2020 of a criminal sex act on a TV and film production assistant in 2006 and raping an aspiring actress in 2013.
He was acquitted of rape and predatory sexual assault stemming from actress Annabella Sciorra’s allegations about an encounter in the mid1990s. Sciorra has spoken publicly about her allegations.
Weinstein is jailed in California, where he was extradited last year and is awaiting trial on charges he assaulted five women in Los Angeles and Beverly Hills from 2004 to 2013.
In a 45-page ruling, the
appellate court said trial Judge James Burke properly exercised his discretion in allowing prosecutors to bolster their case with testimony from three women who accused Weinstein of violating them but whose claims did not lead to charges in the New York case.
The judges said that although the volume of
material, pertaining to 28 alleged acts over 30 years, was “unquestionably large, and, at first blush, perhaps appears to be troublingly so”, Judge Burke properly exercised his discretion in weighing its relevance to the case.
The judges had been far more critical during oral arguments in December, questioning a number of
Judge Burke’s rulings, including one that cleared the way for prosecutors to confront Weinstein with evidence about other, unrelated misbehaviour if he had testified.
The judges, echoing concerns from Weinstein’s lawyers, said at the time that the ruling had effectively muted his defence.