Harvey Weinstein is a narcissistic, sexual abuser. It was a poorly kept secret that powerful movie producers would wield their influence concerning choice roles and career advancement over attractive young women by coercing them into undesired and degrading sexual intimacy. It was also widely rumored that Weinstein was chief among them.
But in the throws of the #MeToo movement, Weinstein was indicted by a New York County grand jury, put on trial in Manhattan, and ultimately convicted of rape, among other crimes.
Last week, however, the New York Court of Appeals reversed that conviction in a highly controversial 4-3 decision. The majority ruled that the trial judge, James Burke, made certain critical errors which resulted in Weinstein being denied a fair trial. The most egregious of these was admitting testimony from women who were not the actual victims in the case. Burke permitted them to testify concerning all the horrible things Weinstein did to them as well.
This ruling caused a significant stir in the New York legal scene. It is a foundational principle in the practice of criminal law that prosecutors may not introduce evidence for the purpose of showing the jury that the defendant is a bad person.
A person is tried for the specific crimes he is charged with, and introducing evidence of other bad acts can lead to the denial of a fair trial. There is an inherent risk that the jury will either simply see the defendant as immoral and convict regardless of the charged crimes, or that the jury will get confused about which bad acts are the subject of the actual charges. Either way, this “propensity” evidence is inadmissible under the rules of evidence.
There are limited circumstances where prior immoral or criminal acts may be properly admitted, but they must fit into narrow categories of permissible uses, and they cannot ever be used to assassinate a defendant’s character. In this particular case, the Court of Appeals determined that the Weinstein prosecutors could not plausibly claim that introducing the testimony of other women who claimed Weinstein had abused them fit into any acceptable group and it was therefore reversible error to permit them to testify.
The subtext of the decision is that Burke was a little too keen to thumb the scales towards his preferred outcome. This is a constant danger in the court system, and one of the reasons that selection of judges is such an important function.
Criminal defendants run a wide gamut. A battered woman who snaps and kills an abusive partner may come across as sympathetic, while a powerful man who uses his influence to strong-arm non-consensual sexual contact from those under his shadow is unlikely to trigger much pity.
It is easy for a casual observer to condemn a Weinstein, to cheer a mild flexion of legal norms to put a monster away. The general public does not have the same responsibility as the court system as it relates to the protection of rights, even a monster’s rights.
The lead prosecutor at the Weinstein trial, Joan Illuzzi, knew better. The job of a prosecutor is to seek justice, and that never means breaking the rules to get a conviction. She was clearly in the wrong. But more culpability lies with the arbiter of what evidence is admissible. Burke’s role was to ensure a fair trial. He was not to rule with bias or favor, nor let any personal feelings impact his decisions on matters of the law.
When judges abandon impartiality because of the high profile immorality of a defendant in their courtroom, it threatens the entire system. Rights are only truly protected when they are protected evenly among all of us. There is no situation under a rule of law where bending the rules to get the bad guy does not cause, at a minimum, tiny fractures in the structure.
That is why the Court of Appeals decision is not only correct, but incredibly important. The bastion of New York legal authority looked at Weinstein’s trial and was able to separate how truly despicable a person he is from the abrogation of his rights.
While rank and file New Yorkers may be displeased that Weinstein’s New York conviction was reversed, this was a necessary result for the rule of law and a reassuring statement that the Court of Appeals is still able to apply the bedrock principles of our system without regard for who is sitting at the defense table.
Townsend is a partner at the criminal defense firm Robert C. Gottlieb & Associates and the creator/host of the legal podcast “In Summation – The Final Word.”
