New York:

Thursday’s ruling overturning Harvey Weinstein’s New York rape conviction gives the one-time film mogul a chance at a new trial and calls into question what evidence prosecutors can use in future sex crime cases.

Here is a look at what happened to the case, which helped define the #MeToo movement, and what might happen next.

WHY WAS WEINSTEIN’S CONVICTION OVERTURNED?

Weinstein, 72, was found guilty of raping one woman and sexually assaulting another after both testified in court.

But a 4-3 majority of the New York Court of Appeals, the state’s highest court, found that the trial judge should not have permitted three other women to testify that Weinstein had assaulted them as well because their allegations were not part of the criminal charges against him.

Such testimony about “prior bad acts” is usually barred by New York’s so-called Molineux rule, named for a landmark 1901 court case. The majority of the court found that the testimony by the three women ran afoul of the rule and made the trial unfair.

WHY WERE THE OTHER WOMEN ALLOWED TO TESTIFY IN THE FIRST PLACE?

The Molineux rule is not absolute. It holds that prosecutors cannot use such testimony to prove that the defendant has a “propensity” to commit crime, but they may use it as evidence of motive or intent.

In Weinstein’s case, prosecutors persuaded the trial judge that the producer’s alleged prior sexual assaults showed that he knew his accusers did not consent to his advances, but that he intended to force them into sex anyway.

Prosecutors believed the evidence would help disprove Weinstein’s assertion that the encounters were consensual.

The Court of Appeals, however, found that the testimony was simply evidence that he had a propensity to commit rape and sexual assault, not of his motive or intent.

WHAT DOES THE RULING MEAN FOR WEINSTEIN’S CALIFORNIA CASE?

Weinstein was sentenced to 16 years in prison following a separate 2022 rape conviction in California, which he is expected to appeal, and the New York ruling has no direct effect on that case.

In fact, California law specifically allows testimony about prior bad acts in sex crime cases as evidence that a defendant has a propensity to commit sex crimes. Such evidence was used in Weinstein’s California trial, and the state’s law will make it harder for his lawyers to challenge on appeal than in New York.

WHAT DOES THE RULING MEAN FOR FUTURE CASES IN NEW YORK?

According to the majority of the court, very little. Judge Jenny Rivera wrote in the majority opinion that the decision was based on well-established New York law, and said it was similar to another 1996 Court of Appeals decision, People v. Vargas, vacating a rape conviction because witnesses were allowed to testify about earlier alleged rapes by the defendant.

Dissenting judges in Thursday’s decision said the ruling would make it more difficult to prosecute sex crimes committed by people who know their victims and may have ongoing relationships with them, as in Weinstein’s case.

Judge Anthony Cannataro, who was among the dissenters, called it “an unfortunate step backwards from recent advances in our understanding of how sex crimes are perpetrated.”

Another dissenting judge, Madeline Singas, said the decision would effectively end the use of prior bad acts witnesses in such cases and make it difficult to prove intent.

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)

New York’s highest court on April 25 overturned Harvey Weinstein’s 2020 rape conviction, finding the judge at the landmark #MeToo trial prejudiced the ex-movie mogul with “egregious” improper rulings, including a decision to let women testify about allegations that weren’t part of the case.

“We conclude that the trial court erroneously admitted testimony of uncharged, alleged prior sexual acts against persons other than the complainants of the underlying crimes,” the court’s 4-3 decision said. “The remedy for these egregious errors is a new trial.”

The state Court of Appeals ruling reopens a painful chapter in America’s reckoning with sexual misconduct by powerful figures — an era that began in 2017 with a flood of allegations against Weinstein. His accusers could again be forced to relive their traumas on the witness stand.

The court’s majority said “it is an abuse of judicial discretion to permit untested allegations of nothing more than bad behaviour that destroys a defendant’s character but sheds no light on their credibility as related to the criminal charges lodged against them.”

“The majority’s determination perpetuates outdated notions of sexual violence and allows predators to escape accountability,” Singas wrote.

Weinstein, 72, has been serving a 23-year sentence in a New York prison following his conviction on charges of criminal sex act for forcibly performing oral sex on a TV and film production assistant in 2006 and rape in the third degree for an attack on an aspiring actress in 2013.

He will remain imprisoned because he was convicted in Los Angeles in 2022 of another rape and sentenced to 16 years in prison. Weinstein was acquitted in Los Angeles on charges involving one of the women who testified in New York.

Weinstein’s lawyers argued Judge James Burke’s rulings in favour of the prosecution turned the trial into “1-800-GET-HARVEY.”

The reversal of Weinstein’s conviction is the second major #MeToo setback in the last two years, after the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal of a Pennsylvania court decision to throw out Bill Cosby’s sexual assault conviction.

Weinstein’s conviction stood for more than four years, heralded by activists and advocates as a milestone achievement, but dissected just as quickly by his lawyers and, later, the Court of Appeals when it heard arguments on the matter in February.

Allegations against Weinstein, the once powerful and feared studio boss behind such Oscar winners as “Pulp Fiction” and “Shakespeare in Love,” ushered in the #MeToo movement. Dozens of women came forward to accuse Weinstein, including famous actresses such as Ashley Judd and Uma Thurman. His New York trial drew intense publicity, with protesters chanting “rapist” outside the courthouse.

Weinstein is incarcerated in New York at the Mohawk Correctional Facility, about 160km northwest of Albany.

He maintains his innocence. He contends any sexual activity was consensual.

Weinstein lawyer Arthur Aidala argued before the appeals court in February that Judge Burke swayed the trial by allowing three women to testify about allegations that weren’t part of the case and by giving prosecutors permission to confront Weinstein, if he had testified, about his long history of brutish behaviour.

Mr. Aidala argued the extra testimony went beyond the normally allowable details about motive, opportunity, intent or a common scheme or plan, and essentially put Weinstein on trial for crimes he wasn’t charged with.

Weinstein wanted to testify, but opted not to because Burke’s ruling would’ve meant answering questions about more than two-dozen alleged acts of misbehaviour dating back four decades, Mr. Aidala said. They included fighting with his movie producer brother, flipping over a table in anger and snapping at waiters and yelling at his assistants.

“We had a defendant who was begging to tell his side of the story. It’s a he said, she said case, and he’s saying ‘that’s not how it happened. Let me tell you how I did it,’” Mr. Aidala argued. Instead, the jurors heard evidence of Weinstein’s prior bad behaviour that “had nothing to do with truth and veracity. It was all ‘he’s a bad guy.’”

Mr. Aidala also took issue with Burke’s refusal to remove a juror who had written a novel involving predatory older men, a topic the defence lawyer argued too closely resembled the issues in Weinstein’s case.

A lawyer for the Manhattan district attorney’s office, which prosecuted the case, argued that the judge‘s rulings were proper and that the extra evidence and testimony he allowed was important to provide jurors context about Weinstein’s behaviour and the way he interacted with women.

“Defendant’s argument was that they had a consensual and loving relationship both before and after the charged incidents,” Appellate Chief Steven Wu argued, referring to one of the women Weinstein was charged with assaulting. The additional testimony “just rebutted that characterization completely.”

Wu said Weinstein’s acquittal on the most serious charges — two counts of predatory sexual assault and a first-degree rape charge involving actor Annabella Sciorra’s allegations of a mid-1990s rape — showed jurors were paying attention and they were not confused or overwhelmed by the additional testimony.

The Associated Press does not generally identify people alleging sexual assault unless they consent to be named; Sciorra has spoken publicly about her allegations.

The Court of Appeals agreed last year to take Weinstein’s case after an intermediate appeals court upheld his conviction. Prior to their ruling, judges on the lower appellate court had raised doubts about Burke’s conduct during oral arguments. One observed that Burke had let prosecutors pile on with “incredibly prejudicial testimony” from additional witnesses.

Burke’s term expired at the end of 2022. He was not reappointed and is no longer a judge.

In appealing, Weinstein’s lawyers sought a new trial, but only for the criminal sexual act charge. They argued the rape charge could not be retried because it involves alleged conduct outside the statute of limitations.