Fairer sex crimes prosecutions: Harvey Weinstein case shows how N.Y. law must reform

Thanks to having good lawyers and a very unusual situation at New York’s highest state court, convicted sexual predator Harvey Weinstein is getting a new trial that is starting this week with Manhattan jury selection . The do-over of Weinstein’s 2020 trial points to the need of Albany to update its laws on the prosecution of sex crimes. Like all accused, Weinstein enjoys the presumption of innocence, but justice demands that he be held to account for his actions if proven.

Despite the New York twists in the case, Weinstein remains a sex felon under California law, having been convicted in 2022 by an L.A. jury of sexual assault, for which was sentenced to 16 years in prison.



The difference is that California law permits in sex crime cases that the prosecution can introduce allegations of other sexual offenses not charged in the felony indictment. That’s under California Evidence Code section 1108 and the federal criminal code has something similar, as do a good number of states. But not New York.

Yet. The point is to help the prosecutors argue that the defendant has done it before and has a propensity for that kind of behavior, even if those other instances are not included in the formal counts against the defendant. This is allowed in sex crimes and domestic violence crimes because those offenses often have no other witness except the victim and the accused and there are no cameras.

The laws granting the use of testimony of other victims have been challenged in state and federal courts and have been upheld. New York needs such a law and Assemblywoman Amy Paulin has introduced a bill to do so . It should be passed this year and signed into law by Gov.

Hochul. Just don’t call it Harvey’s Law. As for Weinstein, Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg will only rely on the testimony of the three women the former movie mogul has been charged with attacking.

In the first trial, Bragg’s predecessor Cy Vance also introduced sworn testimony from three women who said that Weinstein assaulted them, but for which he was not charged. The trial judge permitted that testimony, as did a unanimous mid-level appellate court. Only when it got to the top level, the Court of Appeals, did Weinstein get a win.

With two Court of Appeals judges sitting out the case and five remaining Court of Appeals judges hearing the case, two agreed with Weinstein and three agreed with DA Vance. However, the chief judge, Rowan Wilson, added in two substitute judges from lower courts. They agreed with Wilson, l etting Weinstein prevail four to three .

To make it all even more convoluted, most of the court papers in the case are secret, due to privacy matters covering sex crimes. In that instance New York State law recognizes the unique nature of sex crimes and hides the documents from public view. So New York State law should also recognize the unique nature of sex crimes and permit testimony from victims outside of the charges indicted.

Pass Paulin’s bill and let future prosecutions of future Weinsteins get justice for victims of sex crimes..