The alleged rape of Hollywood producer Harvey Weinstein, who was once seen as one of the hallmarks of the #MeToo movement, was convicted of a huge victory for the global anti-sexual assault movement, which has left countless victims of sexual violence crying out for justice, albeit belatedly. Four years later, in the spring, however, the trial was overturned. The New York State Court of Appeals found that the Manhattan judge in the first instance James Burke "erroneously" allowed three women unrelated to the case to testify and ordered a new trial. The Associated Press noted that the ruling shocked and disappointed women celebrating the historic achievements of the #MeToo movement, and also meant that victims would once again testify in court and reminisce about their painful pasts.
The Weinstein rape case faces a new trial
Weinstein founded Milames Films in 1979 and has a fairly high status in Hollywood. The company has produced several popular independent films, including Pulp Fiction, The Clerk Mad, The Crying Game and Sex, Lies, Videotape, and Weinstein's Shakespeare in Love won the 71st Academy Award for Best Picture. In October 2017, the New York Times and The New Yorker published lengthy reports alleging that several women had been sexually assaulted or raped by Weinstein. After the report was published, more women came forward to make similar accusations against Weinstein, and the victims' statements eventually spurred the "#MeToo" (and me) movement against sexual assault around the world. After a six-week trial and six women testifying, a court in Manhattan, New York, found Weinstein guilty of a first-degree sex offense and third-degree rape and sentenced him to 23 years in prison in a state prison. On April 25, the New York State Court of Appeals voted 4-3 to rule that Judge James Burke in Manhattan "erroneously" allowed three women unrelated to the case to testify in a tendentious manner that "portrayed the defendants in an extremely negative light." Judge Blake wrongly abused the judge's judicial discretion by allowing many people unrelated to the case to testify, and even women who were not plaintiffs could cross-examine Weinstein. The Court of Appeal ruled that a new trial was necessary because these serious errors could not be remedied.
In addition, Weinstein was convicted of raping an Italian model in California and sentenced to 16 years in prison. Weinstein's lawyer, Jennifer Bonjean, noted that California prosecutors relied on evidence from the New York State Court of Appeals at trial. "A jury in California learned that he had been convicted of rape in another state. "In fact, he shouldn't have been unfairly convicted [in New York State]." This interfered with the trial of a jury in California. Another lawyer for Weinstein, Arthur Aidala, called the appellate court's decision "a huge victory for every criminal defendant in New York State."
The victim's cry
Attorney Douglas J. Murray, who represented the two plaintiffs and six other victims in the New York State criminal trial, is Douglas H. Wigdor called the appeals court's ruling a "significant step backwards." He noted that the victim will appear in court again to explain the specific details of what happened at that time, including the intentions of the accused, the modus operandi and the conspiracy. A jury retrial will leave the victim victimized again. Debra Katz agrees. She is a civil rights activist and #MeToo movement lawyer who has represented several victims in the New York State criminal trial. "This decision is disappointing, but I am confident that women will continue to stand up and continue to support victims of sexual assault and violence," she said. I predict that Weinstein will be convicted again in a retrial. Dawn Dunning, an actress who has been sexually harassed by Weinstein, noted that in 2004, at a hotel in New York, Weinstein put his hand on her thigh and coerced her into agreeing to a "threesome." Weinstein told her, "You need to trade sex for a job, or you're never going to make it!" He also cited the example of two actresses as proof. Downing was so disgusted and angry by these words that she ran out of the hotel to escape, refusing to speak to Weinstein from then on. When Downing learned that the Court of Appeals had quashed Weinstein's rape conviction, she was shocked and said, "It's all in vain, isn't it? I am so disgusted by the past, and now I have to reminisce about the past in court?"
Michelle Simpson Tuegel, a victims' rights lawyer in Texas and New York, told People magazine that statistically, the chances of a defendant who has already been convicted winning an appeal case and overturning a previous court decision are very low. "In any case, this case involving many powerful figures and also many public interests is not a trivial matter. Tugel also noted that regardless of the outcome of the retrial of Weinstein, even if the original verdict was upheld, the appellate court's overturn of his rape conviction had deeply hurt the victim's psyche. "A lot of victims think that coming forward doesn't end well. Perhaps in the future, when faced with their own violations or seeing others being violated, many women will choose to remain silent. In addition to harming the victims of this case, this is also the unfortunate aspect of this ruling. Daniel Medwed, a distinguished professor of law and criminal justice at Northeastern University, has a different view. He said that while Weinstein will be convicted again at retrial, it is possible that his sentence will be commuted given the pendulum in his sentence at the time of his conviction in California and his poor health.
News and picture sources: People, Associated Press, BBC, some pictures from the exclusive article of iWeekly Weekend Pictorial, please do not reprint without permission