California law allows admission of such evidence during sex crime trials, New York does not
Different approaches towards admissible evidence raising questions for Weinstein's California case
Harvey Weinstein facing 16 years in prison in California for rape charges
New York conviction overturned due to admission of uncharged allegations and irrelevant evidence
Harvey Weinstein, the disgraced Hollywood producer, is currently facing 16 years in prison in California for rape charges. However, his recent conviction in New York was overturned by the New York Court of Appeals due to egregious errors related to the admission of uncharged allegations and irrelevant evidence. The key issue at hand was the use of witnesses who testified about Weinstein's prior bad acts, which were not tied to criminal charges in New York but could potentially be used as evidence in his California case.
California law allows the admission of such evidence during sex crime trials, according to California Evidence Code section 1108. In contrast, New York state does not allow this due to the Molineux rule. The tactic was used by prosecutors in both cases to establish a pattern of behavior against Weinstein.
The overturned conviction in New York has raised many legal questions regarding the outcome of his California case. Los Angeles prosecutors and legal experts believe that Weinstein's case in California is less likely to face the same outcome due to California's different approach towards admissible evidence.
Mimi Haley, a former production assistant on The Weinstein Company's
The New York Court of Appeals ruled that testimony from prior bad acts witnesses should not have been allowed because it was unnecessary to establish defendant’s intent and served only to establish defendant’s propensity to commit the crimes charged.
Harvey Weinstein faces 16 years in prison in California for rape.
Weinstein maintains his innocence and denies any nonconsensual sexual activity.
Accuracy
Harvey Weinstein's rape conviction was overturned.
Weinstein was convicted in February 2020 of one count of rape in the third degree and one count of a criminal sex act in the first degree.
Deception
(100%)
None Found At Time Of
Publication
Fallacies
(95%)
The article contains some inflammatory rhetoric and an appeal to authority, but no formal or dichotomous fallacies are present. The authors use the term 'sex pest' to describe Harvey Weinstein, which is a derogatory and inflammatory term that does not add any logical reasoning to the article. Additionally, they quote Manhattan District Attorney's Office spokesperson Emily Tuttle stating 'Our mission is to center survivors’ experiences and wellbeing in every decision we make,' which is an appeal to authority as it implies that the Manhattan District Attorney's Office always puts survivors first and makes decisions based on their wellbeing.
][The authors] use the term 'sex pest' to describe Harvey Weinstein,[][Manhattan District Attorney’s Office spokesperson Emily Tuttle states] 'Our mission is to center survivors’ experiences and wellbeing in every decision we make,'
Harvey Weinstein's conviction in New York was overturned by the New York Court of Appeals.
Mimi Haley testified that Weinstein had forced her into a sex act in 2006 which was not mentioned in any other article.
Allred is calling for new legislation in New York to clarify when and how 'prior bad acts' victims are allowed to be utilized in court.
Accuracy
Harvey Weinstein's conviction in New York was overturned.
Weinstein was sentenced to 23 years in prison after being found guilty of criminal sexual act against Haley and rape in the third degree of another key witness, Jessica Mann.
The New York Court of Appeals ruled that the use of 'prior bad acts' witnesses should not have been allowed in Weinstein’s trial.
Harvey Weinstein faces 16 years in prison in California for rape.
New York’s Court of Appeals overturned Harvey Weinstein’s conviction on sex crime charges using witnesses who were not tied to criminal charges to establish a pattern of behavior against Harvey Weinstein in both New York and California cases.
Harvey Weinstein was found guilty of several counts of sexual assault in Los Angeles in December 2022 and sentenced to 16 years in prison.
California law allows the admission of evidence of a defendant's past sexual misconduct during sex crime trials, according to California Evidence Code section 1108.
New York state does not allow the admission of such evidence due to the 'Molineux rule'.
The New York Court of Appeals overturned Weinstein's 2020 felony sex crime conviction in New York, citing 'egregious errors' related to the admission of uncharged allegations and irrelevant evidence.
Los Angeles prosecutors and legal experts believe Weinstein's case in California is less likely to face the same outcome as his New York case due to California's different approach towards admissible evidence.
Accuracy
California law allows the admission of evidence of a defendant’s past sexual misconduct during sex crime trials, according to California Evidence Code section 1108.
New York state does not allow the admission of such evidence due to the ‘Molineux rule’.
The New York Court of Appeals overturned Weinstein’s 2020 felony sex crime conviction in New York, citing ‘egregious errors’ related to the admission of uncharged allegations and irrelevant evidence.
Los Angeles prosecutors and legal experts believe Weinstein’s case in California is less likely to face the same outcome as his New York case due to California’s different approach towards admissible evidence.
New York's Court of Appeals overturned Harvey Weinstein's conviction on felony sex crime charges based on the trial judge allowing testimony from women who testified about assaults that did not lead to charges against Weinstein.
Judge Jenny Rivera wrote in the majority decision that this testimony wrongly diminished Weinstein's character before the jury.
Accuracy
Harvey Weinstein's conviction was overturned.
The ruling was based on the trial judge allowing testimony from women who testified about assaults that did not lead to charges against Weinstein.
These women were referred to as Molineux witnesses.
Judge Jenny Rivera wrote in the majority decision that this testimony wrongly diminished Weinstein’s character before the jury.
