From the “Wtf!!!” files – Harvey Weinstein’s guilty verdict overturned by NY Supreme Court
From here:
New York's highest court overturns Weinstein rape conviction | Just The News
“New York's highest court on Thursday overturned the rape conviction of movie producer Harvey Weinstein.”
Weinstein is currently serving a 23-year sentence in a New York jail where he will remain, despite the decision to overturn the ruling.
Are they waiting for a chauffeur to pick him up from outside the jail?
Interesting – overturning the verdict of a jury – presumably this means that any verdict of a jury ca b overtured by the NY Supreme Court.
“The New York Court of Appeals ruled on that Weinstein, 71, didn’t receive a fair trial in a 4-3 decision. The court said some of the women who testified made accusations against Weinstein that were not related to the charges at the heart of the case.”
Oh. So, any “accusations” heard in any trial not directly related to a “central charge” means the trial unfair?
Wonder how this relates to the Trump trial about property valuations out of NY State that were used to secure out of State loans? We already know that there is a priority given by Y t violent crime involving assault of police officers, murder etc are considered less important than “no victim” Trump crimes!
Here’s a comment from the original trial judge:
“Judge Madeline Singas, who presided over the Weinstein case, called the decision to overturn the ruling a "disturbing trend of overturning juries' guilty verdicts in cases involving sexual violence." She said the decision equates to “whitewashing the facts to conform to a he-said/she-said narrative."
Maybe he is waiting for a flight to California:
“Weinstein was also convicted of sex offenses in Los Angeles and sentenced to 16 years in prison in the California city for those crimes, according to ABC News.
Presumably, these were the other facts not central to the NY conviction that caused the 4 out of 7 judges to overturn the original jury verdict – no rules for “hung” NY Supreme Court decisions – just a simple majority.
Looks to me more examples of “one rule for thee, one for me” amongst the privileged class. I hope they checked the Supreme Court judges for conflicts of interest like attendance and Weinstein bunga bunga parties in the past.
Onwards!!!
Please subscribe ten dollars a month or annually for 100 bucks. You can also donate via Ko-fi – any amount from three dollars upwards. Ko-fi donations here: https://ko-fi.com/peterhalligan
So, “the “Wtf!!!”?
“ In a sharply worded 40-page opinion, the majority ruled Weinstein’s trial had been tainted because Justice James M. Burke, who oversaw it, allowed prejudicial testimony irrelevant to Weinstein’s alleged crimes. The court also found that Burke effectively kept Weinstein from testifying in his own defense by ruling that if he did, prosecutors could question him about irrelevant issues like a fight with his brother.”
“ The majority opinion in the Weinstein case is a ringing endorsement of the principles that courts must uphold. It deserves to be quoted at length:
Under our system of justice, the accused has a right to be held to account only for the crime charged and, thus, allegations of prior bad acts may not be admitted against them for the sole purpose of establishing their propensity for criminality…
It is our solemn duty to diligently guard these rights regardless of the crime charged, the reputation of the accused, or the pressure to convict…
The only evidence against defendant was the complainants’ testimony, and the result of the court’s rulings, on the one hand, was to bolster their credibility and diminish defendant’s character… [while] the threat of a cross-examination highlighting these untested allegations undermined defendant’s right to testify. The remedy for these egregious errors is a new trial.”
“ The trial court abused its discretion when it ruled that defendant, who had no criminal history, could be cross-examined about prior uncharged alleged bad acts and despicable behavior which was immaterial to his in-court credibility, and which served no purpose other than to display for the jury defendant’s loathsome character. The ruling necessarily and impermissibly impacted defendant’s decision whether to take the stand in his defense and thus undermined the fact-finding process in this case, which turned on the credibility of the parties.”
https://alexberenson.substack.com/p/urgent-new-yorks-top-court-vacates
So let me get this straight: Harvey Weinstein goes to trial years ago in N.Y. and is convicted of rape. There are NUMEROUS women, especially many of them well-known actresses who said he raped them. Many of them sued him. Suddenly, now the same court overturns it and says he's not guilty? On what evidence? What made them change their mind? Yet, he still isn't going to be released. Tell me again, what planet are we living on?