Former film tycoon Harvey Weinstein has filed a lawsuit against the U.S. for trying to seduce a third-degree rape and first-degree sex offender.
Arthur Aidala, Weinstein’s lawyer, argued that his client, who had been convicted of rape and sentenced to 23 years in prison, had not received a fair trial. The trial judge disregarded the accepted principles of New York law, argued Aidala and infringed on Weinstein’s constitutional rights.
Weinstein was convicted of felony sexual assault in the first degree and rape in the third degree in February 2020 in the New York High Court in Manhattan, but he was acquitted on the two most serious criminal charges he faced.
Six women testified during the trial, alleging that he sexually assaulted them, but the case was based solely on incidents involving two women, Mimi Haley and Jessica Mann. Haley testified that Weinstein forced oral sex on her in his Manhattan apartment in 2006, and Jessica Mann said he raped her in a hotel room in Manhattan in 2013.
The 166 pages present seven main arguments to reverse the verdict and order that a new trial be held with another judge.
Weinstein’s attorney pointed out that one of the jurors throughout the trial wrote a book about predatory older men that contained similarities to the case; the book was eventually published.
Aidala argued that the jury member had a prejudice that should have led to the removal of the panel. The lawyer also argued that the detrimental value of the testimony of three women setting out acts of sexual misconduct that were not part of the indictment was overwhelming.
In addition, Aidala said Judge James Burke had threatened to allow prosecutors to question Weinstein about 29 previous bad deeds if he took the stand. Weinstein consequently never testified in his own defense.
Weinstein’s lawyers argued that they did not support the testimony of the prosecution witness dr. Barbara Ziv, who testified about ‘rape myths’, may not object. Eventually, the attorneys argued for Weinstein that his sentence was excessively harsh and excessive.
“We will respond to our court order,” a spokesman for the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office said.
Nanny’s legal analyst, Danny Cevallos, said after reviewing the appeal that the argument about the juror who wrote the book was the strongest of the seven. Cevallos says that if there is any doubt about the impartiality of a prospective juror, trial courts should err on the side of the judge’s apology. However, if the jury member gives the assurance, it gives the trial court some discretion that an appellate court may not question later.
“The jury has spoken and I am of the opinion that this conviction should not be overturned and that the court should not act as the 13th judge to reverse the conviction,” said Gloria Allred, who represented Haley in the case. ‘Mimi was very courageous to testify in public as a witness in the criminal case. I hope that the verdict against mr. Weinstein will exist and that his request for a new trial will not be ordered. ‘
Weinstein, who is locked up in the Wende Correctional Facility in New York State, responded with one answer to his questions via email.
He went on to declare his innocence, saying: “This profession is doing an excellent job of casting my innocence and I hope the serious flaws in my prosecution come through.”
Weinstein is also facing charges in Los Angeles, based on the report of two unknown women who accused him of attacking just one day apart in February 2013.