NEW YORK (AP) – A New York appeals court on Thursday upheld Harvey Weinstein’s conviction for rape and a 23-year prison sentence, rejecting the former film mogul’s statement that the judge her historic #MeToo trial unfairly allowed women to testify about allegations that were not part of the case.
The verdict of a panel of five judges of the state interim appellate court upheld one of the most prominent verdicts to date in the U.S. account of sexual misconduct by powerful figures, an era that it began with a large number of allegations against Weinstein.
Weinstein’s publicist, Judah Engelmayer, said she is reviewing her options and will try to appeal the decision to the state’s highest court, the Court of Appeals.
“We’re disappointed, but not surprised,” Engelmayer said.
Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, who took office in January while Weinstein’s appeal was pending, said in a statement that prosecutors were “gratified by today’s decision, which upholds a conviction. monumental change in the way prosecutors and courts deal with the complex processes of sexual predators. “
Weinstein, 70, was convicted in New York in February 2020 of forcibly having oral sex with a television and film production assistant, Mimi Haley, in 2006 and of raping an aspiring actress in 2013. acquitted of first-degree rape and two counts of predatory sexual assault arising from allegations by actor Annabella Sciorra of a rape in the mid-1990s.
The Associated Press generally does not identify people who allege sexual assault unless they agree to be named; Sciorra has spoken publicly about her allegations and Haley has agreed to be named.
Weinstein is incarcerated in California, where he was extradited last year, and is awaiting trial on charges of assaulting five women in Los Angeles and Beverly Hills from 2004 to 2013.
Lawyer Gloria Allred, who represents Haley, Sciorra and another witness, said she was “excited” that Weinstein’s conviction would be upheld and that “many sacrifices for the cause of justice” of her clients were not in va.
“Justice has been done,” Allred said. “But now I’m also waiting for Mr. Weinstein’s criminal prosecution in Los Angeles, where I also represent alleged victims for whom charges have been filed.”
Former District Attorney Cyrus Vance Jr., who oversaw Weinstein’s prosecution, told The Associated Press he has always had confidence in the strength of the case. He said he was confident that Judge James Burke’s decisions were fair and would be upheld on appeal.
“I am also grateful that this decision of the Court of Appeal fully accredits the powerful testimony of the brave and strong survivors of Mr. Weinstein’s abuse,” Vance said. “Today, they are one step closer to the full closure of the judicial process, which they deserve.”
The sentence follows several setbacks for women seeking to hold famous men accountable for alleged crimes.
On Wednesday, a Virginia jury found Amber Heard’s allegations of abuse against Johnny Depp defamatory. In March, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal after a Pennsylvania court overturned Bill Cosby’s sexual assault conviction.
In Weinstein’s case, the appellate court took an unusually long time to rule, nearly six months after controversial oral arguments last December that raised doubts about whether his conviction would be upheld. The court was expected to rule in January.
At the hearing, some judges criticized Burke and prosecutors, suggesting they were open to reversing Weinstein’s conviction and ordering a new trial. Judge Sallie Manzanet-Daniels said Burke let prosecutors pile up with “incredibly damaging testimony” of additional witnesses.
But in Thursday’s 45-page ruling, the five judges were unanimous in finding that Burke had properly exercised his discretion in allowing the testimony of three women who accused Weinstein of raping them, but the allegations of which they did not give rise to charges in the case of New York.
The judges also agreed with Burke’s decision to allow prosecutors to face Weinstein with evidence of other unrelated misconduct if he had testified, including whether he had left a colleague in a foreign country, if he had told people lying to his wife or yelling at the restaurant. staff while ordering a meal in the evening.
The judges, in their verdict, said that although the volume of material, relating to 28 alleged acts of insane behavior for 30 years, was “unquestionably large and, at first glance, it may seem worryingly so. “Burke correctly assessed its relevance to the case. Weinstein did not take the witness stand.
The panel also rejected Weinstein’s arguments that Burke was wrong in other ways: keeping a jury that wrote a novel about large predatory men and letting a prosecution expert test on the behavior of victims and victims. rape myths. Burke did not allow witnesses on similar topics from defense experts.
Rules for calling additional witnesses to testify about “past wrongdoing” vary by state and were a problem in Cosby’s successful appeal of his conviction for sexual assault in Pennsylvania. New York rules, shaped by a decision in a 1901 poisoning case, are among the most restrictive.
At the December hearing, Weinstein’s attorneys argued that the additional testimony went beyond what was normally allowed (detailing the reason, the opportunity, the intent, or a common plan or plan) and essentially judged the excap. of the study for crimes of which he was not charged and which he had not done. He did not have the opportunity to defend himself.
“The jury was overwhelmed by such damaging and bad evidence,” Weinstein’s lawyer Barry Kamins told the appellate court. “That was a trial of Harvey Weinstein’s character. People called him a bad person.”
___
Follow Michael Sisak on Twitter at twitter.com/mikesisak