The Lasting Impact of Harvey Weinstein’s Overturned Conviction In New York

The overturning of Harvey Weinstein’s 2020 conviction for sex crimes by the NYS Court of Appeals has prompted the New York State Senate to propose significant changes to criminal procedural law. These changes may have a major impact on how criminal defense attorneys in New York defend criminal cases, particularly those involving sexual assault, sexual misconduct and other sex crimes.

The Appeals Court’s decision in the Sexual Assault case in New York was largely based on the original judge’s decision to allow evidence of alleged crimes that were not directly related to the case being tried. In the original trial, witnesses were allowed to testify to allegations of sexual assault that were separate from the charges Weinstein was facing. He had been accused of over a hundred instances of sexual harassment and assault. The main question at hand is whether juries should be allowed to consider evidence of other alleged wrongdoings. In New York, this concept is known as the Molineux rule, named after a 1901 case where the appeals court overturned a guilty verdict based on the trial court’s admission of allegations related to an earlier, unrelated killing. The appeals court argued that this invited jurors to consider the defendant’s overall propensity for crime rather than focusing on the facts of the case. The principle of fairness behind this rule is straightforward.

The NYS Court of Appeals’ decision to reverse Weinstein’s conviction due to the jury hearing evidence of “bad acts” not related to the rape charges against him has sparked a debate in the legislature about potentially giving prosecutors more power and limiting the discretion of the courts. Although it is unlikely that Weinstein will be released as a result of this ruling, this ruling could have a lasting impact on many cases that come before the appeals court. 

So What Exactly Is The Legislature Changing And What Does It All Mean?

The New York State Legislature has proposed a bill that could do just that. New York State Senate Bill 2023-S9276, suggests significant changes to the criminal procedure law, particularly affecting defendants accused of sexual assault, sexual misconduct and other sex crimes.

• Expanded Discovery Rights: The bill aims to broaden the scope of discovery, giving defendants more access to evidence and information related to the prosecution’s case. This may include increased access to the accuser’s records, which could be used to challenge the credibility of their testimony. This means that a criminal defense lawyer could present information that could be used to impeach the credibility of their accuser.    
• Enhanced Victim Protection: On the other hand, the bill may also introduce measures to protect the privacy and safety of victims. This could involve stricter controls on how victim information is accessed and used by the defense, potentially making it more difficult for defendants to obtain certain types of evidence. The restrictions proposed could inhibit a defendant and their defense attorney’s ability to present information they believe to be credible that could cast doubt on their accuser’s story.
• Increased Transparency: The bill may promote greater transparency in the legal process, ensuring that both parties have a clearer understanding of the evidence and arguments being presented. This could impact the strategy and preparation of defendants in sexual misconduct cases. It is still unclear how this might affect how sex crimes are prosecuted.   We will have to see what the final language will be before we can assess what if any impact this will have long term on individuals facing sex crime charges.
• Revised Procedures for Evidence Admission: Changes to how evidence is handled and admitted in court could affect how both the prosecution and defense present their cases. For defendants, this could mean adjustments in how they prepare for trial and the types of evidence they can use in their defense. To add some context to this provision let us use as an example a person that is facing a charge for possessing a firearm. At the time of the arrest the person was wearing an oversized puffer jacket. The arresting officer claims the firearm was visible under the jacket. Under this scenario the person charged with possessing a firearm might not be allowed to present the puffy jacket they were wearing at the time of the incident if the jacket was left behind at the scene and either the defense attorney or family did not preserve the evidence with a proper chain of custody, e.g. – kept someplace secure to prevent alteration or replacement.

Overall, while the bill aims to balance the rights of defendants with protections for victims, its impact on sexual misconduct cases will depend on how these changes are implemented and interpreted in practice. In essence, these proposed legislative changes seek to modify the traditional Molineux rules, allowing prosecutors to attack a defendant’s “bad character” rather than simply presenting evidence on the merits. This is particularly concerning because in NYS, a defense attorney can not present evidence of a defendant’s good character, except in a very limited form. In their decision on the Weinstein case, the Court stated:

“In Molineux, the Court reaffirmed that the “general rule of evidence applicable to criminal trials is that the state cannot prove against a defendant any crime not alleged in the indictment, either as a foundation for a separate punishment, or as aiding the proofs that [they are] guilty of the crime charged” (168 NY at 291). The purpose of the rule is simple: “Evidence of a defendant’s uncharged crimes or prior misconduct is not admissible if it cannot logically be connected to some specific material issue in the case, and tends only to demonstrate the defendant’s propensity to commit the crime charged” (People v Denson, 26 NY3d 179, 185 [2015] [internal quotation marks omitted]). The rule “is the product of that same humane and enlightened public spirit which, speaking through our common law, has decreed that every person charged with the commission of a crime shall be protected by the presumption of innocence until [they have] been proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt” (Molineux, 168 NY at 291).”

My Take

As a criminal defense attorney in New York, I would argue that there is no legal justification for changing this fair rule.  For over a hundred years the current rule has provided a working formula with an underlying presumption that evidence of predisposition or unrelated incidents should not be admissible unless they fall into specific exceptions.  As it is, the Legislature passed “Rape Shield Laws” (CPL section 60.42)  in the 1970’s and expanded in the 1990’s that limit what information the jury is allowed to hear about the complaining witness, her reputation, dress, or prior sexual practices,

What Can You Do?

Please contact your state representative if you wish to express your opinion on this matter. Otherwise, it appears that politicians may once again interfere with the balance of justice.

Need Help?

Need help understanding the complexities of a sexual assault charge in New York? Contact my office for a confidential consultation. As a criminal defense attorney in New York I have represented many individuals that have been falsely accused of sexual assault, rape and other sex crimes. The weight of a sex crime accusation can shatter relationships, destroy careers and leave an indelible mark on your reputation. Remember an accusation is not a conviction. With the right legal team on your side you can fight to protect your future. Visit my website for more information.