The Harvey Weinstein Appeal Ruling: Annotated and Explained

1

The overturning of Harvey Weinstein’s New York sex crimes conviction, and the ordering of a new trial, may feel like a sudden, shocking turn. In the public mind, he is a fully disgraced figure: sentenced to long prison terms in two cities, defined by the public testimonies of nearly 100 alleged victims whose stories formed the cornerstone of the #MeToo movement. But in legal terms, his New York conviction was always controversial, and his appeals always stood a chance.

— Jodi Kantor

2

Central to the decision to overturn the conviction was something called “Molineux witnesses,” which refers to witnesses in a trial who are allowed to testify about criminal acts that the defendant has not been charged with committing.

— Maria Cramer

3

During the Weinstein trial, prosecutors sought to persuade jurors that he had a long history of using his prominence as a Hollywood producer to lure young women to hotel rooms and sexually assault them. They did this by calling other women to the stand who said Mr. Weinstein had assaulted them, including Dawn Dunning, Tarale Wulff and Lauren Young. Mr. Weinstein was not charged with assaulting those women, but Justice James Burke allowed them to appear for the prosecution as Molineux witnesses, also known as “prior bad act” witnesses.

— Maria Cramer

4

On Feb. 24, 2020, the jury, which consisted of five men and seven women, found Mr. Weinstein guilty of rape and criminal sexual act but acquitted him on three other counts, including the two most serious charges against him: being a sexual predator.

— Jan Ransom

5

The appeals court agreed with Mr. Weinstein that the trial judge violated his right to testify in his own defense. The trial judge had ruled that if Mr. Weinstein took the stand, prosecutors would be allowed to question him about a long history of bad behavior, including allegations that he threw food at an employee and punched his brother at a business meeting. The appeals ruling said this “impermissibly” affected Mr. Weinstein’s decision not to testify at trial.

— Nicole Hong

6

The reversal of the conviction was determined by a single vote, by a majority female panel of judges, who in February held a searching public debate about the fairness of the trial.

— Jodi Kantor

7

Judge Madeline Singas wrote in a dissent that the witness testimony of the additional women, who described their disgust and horror at Mr. Weinstein’s advances, had made it clearer to the jury that the former producer had to have known that he did not have the women’s consent.

— Maria Cramer

8

Judge Singas’s fiery dissent accused the court of making it more difficult for victims to seek justice against their assailants in future cases.

— Maria Cramer

9

Judge Anthony Cannataro, who also dissented, wrote that the additional witnesses the prosecution presented were vital to show Mr. Weinstein’s pattern of manipulation and coercion.

— Maria Cramer