Harvey Weinstein faces new trial after r*pe conviction overturned, returns to prison

Weinsteinbros… did we get too cocky?

Weinstein is clearly a fat pervert, but this is just more zeitgeist motivated shit, like the trials against satanic nurseries back in the 80s.

If he really is a fat male feminist, it should be easy enough to cough up enough evidence to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

In the rush to look good, seems like the NY justice system just let anyone with a beef against him talk to the jury.

(I am somewhat curious as to how a fat cripple managed to force so many women to have s*x.)

"We will continue to pursue charges until we get the politically-convenient result we want"

In his dissent, Judge Anthony Cannataro wrote that the court's decision was an "unfortunate step backwards."

>You fricking chuds we'll be on the wrong side of hxxstory

At the hearing, Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg insisted Weinstein be remanded for now and emphasized the office's plans to retry the film producer on the sexual assault charges as quickly as possible.

"We have every belief the defendant will be convicted again at trial," he said.

>Don't you worry, I'll get the verdict I want

A New York appeals court overturned Weinstein's 2020 r*pe conviction on April 25, ordering a new trial in a stunning reversal of a landmark #MeToo case.

In a 4-3 decision, the court found that Weinstein's trial judge allowed prosecutors to call women who said Weinstein had assaulted them to testify, even though their accusations did not specifically relate to the entertainment mogul's charges.

Weinstein was sentenced to 23 years in prison after being convicted in February 2020 of forcing oral s*x on TV and film production assistant Mimi Haley in 2006 and third-degree r*pe of hairstylist Jessica Mann in 2013.

He was acquitted of first-degree r*pe and two counts of predatory sexual assault from actor Annabella Sciorra's allegations of r*pe in the 1990s. He has denied ever engaging in non-consensual s*x.

The 72-year-old former movie bigwig's 23-year sentence on one count of r*pe and one count of a criminal s*x act was reversed on appeal Thursday after a panel of judges ruled he didn't get a fair trial.

Harvey is innocent and never should have been convicted or even tried for these allegations," Weinstein's rep, Juda Engelmayer, told Fox News Digital at the time. "The trial failed at objectivity from the minute former Judge Burke berated Harvey, asking him if he wanted to spend the rest of his life in prison over the use of a cellphone that occurred before the judge ever entered the courtroom or began the day's proceedings."

"Burke was rejected from the bench as a result, and the case should have been too. From the lies a juror told to private lawyers representing non-case-related complainants acting as prosecutorial surrogates, as we were often gagged, the jury was steered in a direction they never would have gone in if it were honest."

Ultimately, the appeals court found the trial judge should have only allowed witnesses to testify about the sexual assault encounters that Weinstein's charges stemmed from. During his trial, multiple women testified about sexual assaults allegedly performed by Weinstein even though it wasn't what he faced charges for.

lol NYC prosecutors' office and the State Courts must be recruiTTTing from Cooley.

SHOW MORE

Found this gem gloating about the "victory" two years ago.

The New York Times

OPINION

GUEST ESSAY

Tali Farhadian Weinstein

Weinstein's Prosecutors Brought His Past Into the Courtroom. Good.

Dec. 19, 2022

From the comments:

Declaring that "s*x crimes differ from other crimes," is willfully ignorant of the due process that the Constitution affords all defendants, regardless of the nature of the alleged crime.

More importantly though, it reinforces the stigma that is associated with crimes deemed to be "sexual" - rather than a type of assault and/or battery that can (or can't) be proven in court. This stigma is a major contributor to the late reporting and incomplete evidence collection that often makes "sexual" cases more difficult to prosecute.

If you went to the police and reported a textbook assault and battery, that 10 years ago, an acquaintance threatened you verbally and then punched you in the face - but there were no witnesses and no physical evidence - you probably wouldn't be surprised to find law enforcement and prosecutors unwilling to press charges.

"It is better that 10 guilty men go free than 1 innocent man be convicted" This has been a principle of Anglo-Saxon jurisprudence for centuries, and is still true today.

If the DA cannot produce sufficient that this defendant committed the specific crime they are accused of, without bringing up past offenses, then that defendant should go free.

That sounds so noble. We should all be proud of a legal system that protects the defendant. Too bad we don't have one. How many people have been exonerated this year? But we also needs one that protects the victims. I have heard that under Sharia law, four witnesses are needed to convict. In the US it takes dozens and dozens for the a rich and powerful man to get indicted. Just ask Bill Cosby. Oh, yeah. Each person attacked by a predator is a witness to the the predator's capacity to commit the behavior on trial. Once a defendant claims he'd never r*pe a victim, that's testimony that can only be refuted by witnesses.

Sure - so let's start parading the teenage transgressions of violence into sentencing arguments while 'folks' are in their 20's.

Funny - it only seems to work in some 'magical' cases

SHOW MORE

Snapshots:

https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/harvey-weinstein-appears-ny-court-wheelchair-after-r*pe-conviction-overturned:

• ghostarchive.org

• archive.org

• archive.ph (click to archive)