The Harvey Weinstein case shook Hollywood at the end of 2017 and sparked the global #MeToo movement. The former film producer was sentenced to 23 years in prison for sexual offenses in New York.
Former film producer Harvey Weinstein was sentenced to several years in prison by two courts.
Spencer Platt / Getty
Anyone who thinks #MeToo – the international movement against sexual assault and abuse of power – usually thinks of his name: Harvey Weinstein. He was sentenced to a total of 39 years in prison for sexual offenses in a trial in Manhattan in 2020 and in a trial in Los Angeles in 2023. These rulings are among the most important successes in the fight against sexual harassment worldwide.
Now the New York Court of Appeals has overturned Weinstein’s 2020 sex crimes conviction. In a narrow 4-3 decision, the judges of New York’s highest court decided to uphold Weinstein’s appeal. The reason for this is a procedural error: the judge at the time allowed witness statements that should not have been presented.
The “Molineux Witnesses”
The so-called “Molineux witnesses” or “witnesses to previous bad deeds” became a stumbling block in the Weinstein trial; named after the chemist Roland B. Molineux, who was accused of murder by poison in 1900, but whose conviction was overturned a year after the trial. The reason for the annulment of the verdict was that the jury could only decide on the guilt of the defendant based on the crime charged. They are not allowed to influence further acts that have not been confirmed by a court. At the time, however, the public prosecutor had presented the jury with evidence of another poisoning murder – which was not charged.
The ruling from 1900 still applies today – with exceptions: A judge can admit “Molineux witnesses” if he wants to show that the crimes follow a certain pattern and are not isolated cases. This is exactly what the prosecutor wanted to convince the jury in the Weinstein case: that the Hollywood producer systematically used his fame and influence to sexually abuse young women and later cover up the crime.
Four women were called to the witness stand and said they had been raped by Weinstein. However, these acts were not charged, but were “only” part of the respective witness statement. The legal maneuver seemed necessary because the cases of the two main plaintiffs in court were on shaky ground from the start.
“Lots of love” – “a lot of love”
Then-Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus R. Vance Jr. indicted Weinstein on two counts in 2018. Miriam Haley said in court that Weinstein forced her to perform oral sex in 2006. Jessica Mann said he raped her in 2013. Both women were forced into sexual acts by Weinstein, but also did so voluntarily on other occasions.
Haley had consensual sex with Weinstein two weeks after the attack on her in 2006 and later signed an email to him with “Lots of love”. Mann admitted to having had a three-year quasi-relationship with Weinstein in which consensual and non-consensual sex alternated.
It is well known that sexual assaults rarely occur by a complete stranger, but are more often embedded in a family or professional environment or a relationship. In these cases it is also more difficult for those affected to evade the perpetrator and report him. In court at the time, prosecutor Meghan Hast told the jury that victims of sexual assault would often try to “almost normalize the situation” in order to feel “not so disgusting.” Anthony Cannatro, one of three judges who opposed overturning the verdict, said Thursday that the testimonies that have now become problematic show that “complex psychological and sociological dynamics were at play.” In his opinion, allowing them was the right thing to do.
In the event of a power difference as drastic as that between the two plaintiffs and Weinstein, withdrawing or even defending oneself was more or less tantamount to ending the career of those affected. This was shown by other stories from Weinstein victims who had their say in an article in the New York Times.
The 2017 reveal
In 2017, two journalists from the newspaper revealed what no one in the film business had dared to talk about for many years: one of Hollywood’s leading producers had repeatedly used his power to sexually harass and even rape women. Thanks to his position as founder and long-time managing director of the production companies Miramax and Weinstein Company, he was able to silence his victims for a long time and avoid the consequences for his actions.
The New York Times article and a piece published shortly afterwards in the New Yorker led to nearly 100 women speaking out with similar reports about Weinstein.
Attempted to make amends
Although in many cases it can be explained psychologically why victims do not immediately turn against their perpetrators after an act or at least withdraw, from a legal perspective, continuing a relationship of any kind with the perpetrator is often the main reason for the failure of a prosecution.
The fact that the district attorney at the time still prosecuted Mann and Haley has to do with an earlier failure by the same prosecutor. Back in 2015, model Ambra Battilana Gutierrez accused Weinstein of groping her breast and shoving his hand up her skirt. Although Battilana was able to produce a secretly recorded audio document in which Weinstein can be heard apologizing to her for his actions and offering her financial compensation for them, the public prosecutor’s office decided not to pursue the case any further.
Three years later they wanted to do better. In view of the overturned conviction, Gutierrez now told the American press: “If the prosecution had taken my case seriously in 2015, we wouldn’t be here now. This is a continued failure of the justice system and courts to take victims of sexual assault seriously.”
Why the overturning of the judgment is serious
When jury deliberations began in February 2020, it was clear that the twelve-member jury would make a decision that would be groundbreaking for the future prosecution of sex crimes. The ruling at the time was seen as a step towards closing the gap between the everyday lives of those affected and the criminal justice system, which is unable to take many psychological factors into account.
The fact that the verdict has now been overturned seems like a step backwards. Actress Katherine Kendall, also one of Weinstein’s accusers, said: “I feel completely let down by the justice system at the moment. I am shocked.” Madeline Sigas, one of three judges who opposed overturning the verdict, said she was seeing “a disturbing trend toward overturning convictions in sexual violence cases.”
However, the 72-year-old Weinstein is not a free man. One of Weinstein’s spokespeople told the New York Times that the prisoner would now be taken to a prison in California. In Los Angeles, Weinstein was also sentenced to 16 years in prison for sexual offenses in 2023. He will continue serving his sentence for the convictions there. However, he will also appeal the verdict in California on May 20, one of his lawyers said on Thursday. Because the New York trial also influenced the one in Los Angeles.
District Attorney Alvin L. Bragg will decide whether the trial will be held again in Manhattan. He is currently in the middle of the trial against former President Donald Trump.