“ 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.”
I was about to post the exact same thing. What ever we think of HW, he was railroaded. Perhaps he did do the crime as charged, but if so, the prosecution and the judge failed in their duties and convicted him for who is is alleged to be and on what he was alleged to have done and kept him from testifying on his behalf, both of which are major no-nos in our system.
This is another of the ironies floating around out there; it is claimed that he is getting a retrial because of who he is while the fact is he was convicted for who he is.
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?
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
I was about to post the exact same thing. What ever we think of HW, he was railroaded. Perhaps he did do the crime as charged, but if so, the prosecution and the judge failed in their duties and convicted him for who is is alleged to be and on what he was alleged to have done and kept him from testifying on his behalf, both of which are major no-nos in our system.
This is another of the ironies floating around out there; it is claimed that he is getting a retrial because of who he is while the fact is he was convicted for who he is.
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?
That’s NOT what SC is saying. Before running your mouth/fingers, do get your facts straight.
P.S. I am NOT defending Weinstein in any shape or form.
I read the article Mr. Halligan posted and that's basically what it said. What don't you agree with?
All I claimed is that MR. Halligan’s opinion, on which you based your critique, are neither FACTS nor the SC decision.
I posted SC decision and disclosed based for the decision in a separate comment.
OK - but you didn't need to be rude about it. I read the article that was posted, which didn't make it very clear.