About a year after his prosecution of sex offences in New York, the collapse of Billionaire Harvey Weinstein’s attorneys on Monday appealed his trial as “unconstitutional” because he failed to provide him with a “just and objective jury trial.”
Weinstein’s lawyers, headed by New York’s Arthur Aidala, submitted the 166-page brief for the state Appellate Division, who in February 2020 in Manhattan challenged Weinstein’s belief in first-level sexual harassment and third-degree rape.
The brief claims that perhaps the convictions of Weinstein should be overturned, rape charges of third-degree declared time-barred and a further process ordered with a first-degree count.
“The transcript of the case indicates what we have always suspected, after a year behind us and tensions subsided, that Mr. Weinstein did not get equal trials,” Aidala told the media in a letter to the USA. “We will contend that perhaps the trial judge refused to follow well known and central New York law standards and infringed Mr. Weinstein’s civil rights.”
In March 2020, Weinstein was sentenced to 23 years’ jail, and he started completing his term in Erie County near Buffalo in Wende Correctional Facility. In Los Angeles County, similar allegations of a sex crime are pending against him; next week, he will be appearing almost at such an extradition listening in this instance.
More than two years after Weinstein’s exposure throughout the New York Times and The New Yorker to two news organizations, the trial was indeed a documentary about many women’s claims of sexual abuse, from sexual assault to tame-blowing and raping, including actors appearing in Weinstein’s films, from decades ago.
During the autumn of 2017, the #MeToos were, in fact, turbocharged, bringing down scores of mighty men suspected of wrongdoing in film and television.
“The supposed actions of Harvey Weinstein throughout the movie industry against women
In 2017, it was a celebrity cause,” opens the brief. “
Journalists throughout the defence of the rights of Mr Weinstein reported several unequalled allegations; a new campaign was launched within months, known underneath the meme, #MeToo. The overwhelming majority of the alleged inadequate, albeit non-criminal behaviour.”
In such a statement received from the media, Weinstein’s brief in appeal is a “damning accusation of his indictment.” “The persecution of political men, special interest interests hoping to profit from mass indignation and sensational (often misleading or prejudicial) media attention is highly affected by the intensive and sometimes increased moral panic.”
It claims that perhaps the court has a “special duty” to ensure Weinstein’s substantive guarantee of equal and unbiased jury proceedings in the light of the atmosphere in which he has been prosecuted.
The brief claims that the Court of Justice did not do so to make its convictions as well as the sentence of 23 years “unconstitutional,” according to the argument.
The appeal addresses questions that Weinstein’s attorneys have complained of since they were charged by the Cyrus Vance District Attorney’s Office before the trial and after the trial.
“We’re going to answer the Court in our brief,” stated Vance Speaker Danny Frost in a media note.
One of the most significant concerns is that the trial magistrate of Weinstein permitted the jurors to hear the testimonies of accused persons of uncharged offences by Weinstein, which the prosecution found to be “excessive, inconsistent, unsatisfactory and thus harmful.”
The brief argues that all this contradicts the New York precedent, which forbids unaccused offences to be carried out solely in order to demonstrate that an accused is “proposed” to commit a crime.
“Since the prosecutors does not show that any of the supposed misdeeds of previous years fulfilled any legal reason of non-propensity, the presentation of such testimony was a constitutionally fallacy and requests the vacatur of the convictions of Mr. Weinstein,” the lawyers contend.
The appeal of Weinstein also objected to the judge’s rejection of rejecting a juror that the lawyers consider to be partial to the indictment. She wrote an autobiographical novel focusing on the elderly men who prey on younger women and who ‘centred on the accusations against Weinstein. It was released.
“The juror, in order to avoid being dismissed as a juror, critically lied regularly to the parties and also to the trial court about her book as well as the judge ignored the substantive nature of her lies,” alleged the Weinstein Team.
“Particular testimony is incuestionable, and it takes away Mr. Weinstein’s civil right to also be trialed by an unbiased tribunal that the Juror No.11 has consistently lied to just the court in matters material to her ability to participate on a jury.”
The trial judge barred him from presenting expert witnesses to refute the expert witness requested by the defence. Weinstein insists he could not defend himself properly. He says his specialists “had addressed the effect of facts after the incident on the recollection, an important topic to test the reality of Mr. Weinstein’s ever-changing accounts.”
Weinstein further objects to the judgment of the trial court excluding testimonies by police officers that would demonstrate that the lead detective ordered at least one of its accusers, in this case, to exclude from the cell text messages, which would have detrimental repercussions for its reputation.
Criticism throughout the brief also comes from the public. Although the jury was not sequestered, the “one-sided” media “misinformation” may have skewed the jury, claims the statements.
“The framework of American criminal law was structured to punish convicted persons based on their actions – not their overall existence,” the statement added. “The court ran out of the window this valuable value of our legal framework, allowing the prosecutors to bring Mr. Weinstein’s life to trial on doubtful charges which were not relevant to the crimes alleged. Now an appeal court has the chance to remedy this error of justice.”