Not a fair trial: Why Hollywood producer Harvey Weinstein's 2020 rape conviction was overturned by the New York appeals court

Harvey Weinstein at the 2010 Time 100 Gala. His company produced films like ‘Pulp Fiction (1994)’, ‘The English Patient (1996)’, ‘Scream (1996)’. In 2017, after the allegations became public, he took a leave of absence and was later fired from his own company. (Image via X)

Harvey Weinstein was one of the many powerful men who faced the wrath of the #MeToo movement. On October 5, 2017, allegations of sexual misconduct by him were reported by The New York Times journalists Jodi Kantor and Megan Twohey.

Since 2017, over 80 women have accused Weinstein of sexual assault and he has pleaded not guilty for each of them.

Harvey Weinstein going to jail was a really big thing since he was one of the most powerful men in Hollywood. He produced loads of hit films through his two companies, Miramax and The Weinstein Company. His company produced films like ‘Pulp Fiction (1994)’, ‘The English Patient (1996)’, ‘Scream (1996)’, and many more.

He sold Miramax to the Walt Disney Co. in 1933.

After accusations of sexual misconduct were revealed against Harvey Weinstein in 2017, he took an indefinite leave of absence from the Weinstein Company, after which he was fired from his own company.

On 5 October, 2017, The New York Times published a story detailing decades of sexual abuse committed by the producer. Actresses Rose McGowan and Ashley Judd came forward in the article. After this, many women started coming forward about their bad experiences with Weinstein. Hollywood A-listers Gwyneth Paltrow and Angelina Jolie spoke out against him as well.

After a long trial, Weinstein was finally pronounced guilty in February 2020 and was sentenced to 23 years in prison.

However, the producer has recently achieved a significant legal victory on Thursday. His conviction case has been overturned by the New York court of appeals which has led to the reopening of the monumental case that catapulted the #MeToo movement.

The court found the judge who presided over the Weinstein trial made a mistake of letting prosecutors call witnesses whose accusations were not part of the charges against him, according to the 4-3 decision. According to the appeals court, this mistake became worse when the lower court ruled that Weinstein could be cross-examined about those allegations. The appeals court stated that these decisions left a negative impression about Harvey Weinstein on the jury.

Manhattan prosecutors said they intend to retry Weinstein.

Weinstein’s lawyer, Arthur Aidala, said, "We knew Harvey Weinstein did not get a fair trial. There are some people who are unpopular in society but we still have to apply the law fairly.”

Many accusers of Weinstein have spoken out against the decision taken on Thursday. Actress Ashley Judd called it "an act of institutional betrayal.” Mira Sorvino, who also previously made allegations against Weinstein, said on social media that she was "horrified" by the decision and "disgusted" at the justice system.