Background
It is October 15, 2017, and American actress Alyssa Milano has just tweeted: “If you’ve been sexually harassed or assaulted write ‘me too’ as a reply to this tweet.” What Milano didn’t expect was the explosive social justice movement that would result. Her tweet received thousands of replies, with the response “me too” becoming a hashtag and spurring a broader movement against sexual assault across the country.
Not only did women communicate with each other, compiling documents of abusers, they also succeeded in holding many perpetrators accountable. Arguably the most prominent of these cases was the case of Harvey Weinstein, a former American film producer with a long history of sexual assault going back to 2006. In 2018, accusations against Weinstein were published in The New York Times and The New Yorker, and in 2020, he was convicted for rape and sentenced to 23 years. Independently, Weinstein was also convicted in Los Angeles for a separate case of rape in 2022. Weinstein’s conviction was a powerful shift in attitudes about sexual assault, through both holding perpetrators accountable for their actions regardless of status, as well as giving visibility and listening to the experiences of victims. It was also seen as a major victory for #MeToo.
However, it seems that this progress may be short-lived. Just a few weeks ago, on April 25th, New York’s highest court overturned Weinstein’s 2020 conviction on a 4-3 decision. In the wake of this decision, what does this mean for Weinstein’s case? And what does this mean for #MeToo as a whole?
The 2024 Overturning, Explained
Harvey Weinstein was convicted in 2020 of raping one woman and sexually assaulting another, with testimony from both individuals. However, in the 2024 case, the trial judge permitted three other women to testify against him for sexual assault, despite these allegations not being a part of the original criminal charges. As a result, a majority of the court ruled it to be unfair and overturned the previous decision. But what is the reasoning behind this?
In New York, testimony on “prior bad acts” is barred by the Molineux rule, the result of a landmark 1901 court case. The rule stipulates that prosecutors can’t use testimony to prove the defendant has a “propensity” to commit crime— put simply, their tendency, or how prone they are, to do something. However, it allows them to use testimony to prove the defendant’s motive or intent to do so. Although the prosecutors in Weinstein’s case argued that the three women’s testimonies would prove Weinstein’s intent to sexually assault them, regardless of consent, the court disagreed and ruled that the testimonies proved Weinstein’s propensity to do so, making the trial unfair. In fact, this is not a completely new situation. In 1996, New York’s Court of Appeals also overturned a rape conviction on the same grounds in People v. Vargas.
A Survivor’s Perspective
In her dissenting opinion, Judge Madeline Singas wrote that the Court of Appeals was continuing a “disturbing trend of overturning juries’ guilty verdicts in cases involving sexual violence … [at] the expense and safety of women.” However, the actual implications of this case are still being debated— some #MeToo advocates noted that the overturn was based solely on legal technicalities and therefore did not actually defend or justify Weinstein’s behavior. They furthered that even with this new ruling, the original 2020 trial led to a permanent change in attitudes about sexual assault. As for Weinstein himself, he hasn’t gotten off scot free. He is still sentenced to 16 years in prison after being convicted of a separate case of rape in Los Angeles two years ago, and the New York ruling will not affect that decision. Moreover, it would be more difficult for his legal team to win an appeal in California, which specifically allows testimony of prior bad acts in sex crime cases. The fight may also not be over in New York, with the Manhattan district attorney’s office stating that they intended to try Weinstein again.
But regardless of the actual consequences Weinstein may face, there is a broader precedent being set. This overturning is the second major setback for the #MeToo movement, with the first being the Supreme Court’s refusal to hear an appeal against the overturn of Bill Cosby’s sexual assault conviction by a Pennsylvania court in 2022. According to Nicole Page, representative for former Weinstein Co. whistleblower Lauren O’Connor, “[the ruling is] probably going to be the new precedent for men like Weinstein and Cosby who have a large amount of money and a huge legal team. This just feels like another barrier. It’s like, ‘Oh, my God, how hard do we have to fight? How much do people have to give up?’”
Many of Weinstein’s other accusers have also spoken up about their disappointment. Kaja Sokola, for one, remarked, “I’m angry and heartbroken that Weinstein continues to be protected by a broken justice system that retraumatizes victims and blames them for their abuse.” The decision may also deal a significant blow to the morale of the movement, with prosecution lawyer Gloria Allred expressing her concern on what kind of message this would send to sexual assault survivors, leading them to believe it was impossible to win cases, “especially in high-profile cases against the rich, the famous, the powerful, the well-connected defendants.”
And although the Manhattan district attorney’s office stated they intended to retry Weinstein, it is unclear if many of the women involved would testify again. For example, Weinstein’s former assistant Miriam “Mimi” Haley stated that she was considering testifying a second time, but added, “I don’t actually want to go through that again.” She furthers that the process was “traumatizing, exhausting, and terrifying,” as well as extremely lengthy. In fact, the first trial took two years of preparation on Haley’s part.
1
0
Average Rating