‘He Says, She Says’ In Harvey Weinstein’s America

Source: law360.com 9/6/24

The controversial decision by New York’s highest court to overturn Harvey Weinstein’s sexual assault conviction has some lawmakers focusing intense new scrutiny on centuries-old legal jurisprudence barring evidence of a defendant’s criminal propensity.

In the months since the New York Court of Appeals held in a split decision that the former movie producer had been denied a fair trial after a trial court erroneously admitted evidence of Weinstein’s past acts, lawmakers and legal experts also have been split over what legislative reforms may help hold sexual predators accountable without constricting defendants’ right to due process.

The decision has reignited a decades-old legal debate around whether sexual assault prosecutions should be excluded from the rule against allowing propensity evidence in criminal cases, so as to aid juries assessing the plausibility of a defendant’s consent defense, or whether doing so could result in wrongful convictions or have an unanticipated effect on cases that lack a chorus of survivors.

Read the full article

 

Related posts

Subscribe
Notify of

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...

 

  1. Submissions must be in English
  2. Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  3. Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  4. Swear words should be starred out such as f*k and s*t and a**
  5. Please avoid the use of derogatory labels.  Always use person-first language.
  6. Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  7. Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  8. Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  9. We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  10. We cannot connect participants privately - feel free to leave your contact info here. You may want to create a new / free, readily available email address that are not personally identifiable.
  11. Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  12. Please do not post in all Caps.
  13. If you wish to link to a serious and relevant media article, legitimate advocacy group or other pertinent web site / document, please provide the full link. No abbreviated / obfuscated links. Posts that include a URL may take considerably longer to be approved.
  14. We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  15. We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  16. Please choose a short user name that does not contain links to other web sites or identify real people.  Do not use your real name.
  17. Please do not solicit funds
  18. No discussions about weapons
  19. If you use any abbreviation such as Failure To Register (FTR), Person Forced to Register (PFR) or any others, the first time you use it in a thread, please expand it for new people to better understand.
  20. All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  21. Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues via email to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
  22. We no longer post articles about arrests or accusations, only selected convictions. If your comment contains a link to an arrest or accusation article we will not approve your comment.
  23. If addressing another commenter, please address them by exactly their full display name, do not modify their name. 
ACSOL, including but not limited to its board members and agents, does not provide legal advice on this website.  In addition, ACSOL warns that those who provide comments on this website may or may not be legal professionals on whose advice one can reasonably rely.  
 

8 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Excellent commentary on the topic of propensity of other unsubstantiated alleged prior crimes and its desired allowance into court cases for the prosecution…

If the prosecution is going to be allowed to present unsubstantiated alleged prior event evidence such as discussed here, then one needs to allow other unsubstantiated alleged prior acts evidence against the accuser as well (which is commonly not allowed in defense evidence) to balance the “hearsay” evidence thinking in play. If the rules are changed for one group, then by rational thinking, they need to be changed for all, not just the group being charged with a sex offense crime.

Round here it’s called the victims rights act and it prevents the accused from defending themselves in court by restricting all evidence that might make the victim look bad no it’s the reason i couldn’t defend myself in court and had to take a plea deal very convenient for prosecutors

I’ve long been a proponent of the idea that there should be corroboration of any accusation. And fully agree that if propensity evidence is admissable against a defendant, it should also apply to the accuser.