The challenges of holding powerful men accountable
Harvey Weinstein’s 2020 conviction for sexual assault and rape was overturned by New York’s highest court, reopening the landmark case that fueled the #MeToo movement and highlighting the challenges of holding powerful men accountable.
Many accusers of the former Hollywood movie mogul condemned Thursday’s decision, with the actress Ashley Judd telling reporters it was “an act of institutional betrayal.”
But maybe it wasn’t, maybe it was purely a matter of law and due process and all that.
In a bitterly divided 4-3 ruling, the state Court of Appeals said the trial judge made a critical mistake by letting women testify that Weinstein assaulted them, even though their accusations were not part of the charges he faced.
The appeals court said the trial judge compounded the error by ruling that if Weinstein took the witness stand, prosecutors could question him on a wide range of “loathsome” conduct, including bullying and fits of anger toward associates.
…
Weinstein is not expected to be freed immediately, as he faces a separate 16-year prison term imposed last year in California after he was convicted for the 2013 rape of an actress at a Los Angeles hotel. That conviction still stands.
If he has another term to serve why would he be freed at all?
Judge Madeline Singas dissented from Thursday’s decision, saying the majority opinion “perpetuates outdated notions of sexual violence” and makes holding defendants accountable for sexual assault “significantly more difficult.”
She also accused the majority of whitewashing the facts and continuing what she called a “disturbing trend” of overturning jury verdicts in sexual violence cases.
Let me guess. Men protecting men’s right to rape women. Am I close?
So Weinstein can start making movies with Bill Cosby; letting men avoid responsibility for their actions has long been par for the course.
He still has that other sentence, so I don’t think he can start making movies…yet.
Screechy should probably comment about Molineux hearings and such, since that’s more his(?) bag l, but we probably don’t want past acts prejudicing juries, particularly in criminal trials without due care. That said probably only comes up if you’re a defendant that has the dosh to appeal a verdict.