‘This is what it’s like to be a woman in America, living with male entitlement to our bodies,’ says Weinstein accuser, Ashley Judd

The women who came forward against Harvey Weinstein reacted with fury after the disgraced media mogul’s rape and sexual assault convictions were overturned by a New York appeals court on Thursday.

Weinstein, 72, was found guilty in 2020 of raping and assaulting two women, and is serving his 23-year sentence at a prison in upstate New York.

In a 4-3 decision on Thursday, New York’s highest court ruled the original judge made “egregious errors” in the trial by allowing prosecutors to call witnesses whose allegations were not related to the charges at hand.

Weinstein was once one of Hollywood’s most well-connected and powerful producers who made a series of Oscar-winning films. But behind the glamourous facade, it was a different story. More than 80 women have accused him of abuse ranging from groping to rape. Even with his conviction overturned in New York, he remains convicted of rape in California.

The Weinstein revelations launched the #MeToo movement in 2017, which saw women from all corners of society come forward to talk about their experiences of sexual harassment and assault.

  • fawanen@startrek.website
    1·
    3 months ago

    I guess my issue is having some “higher authority” determine what evidence is relevant and what evidence is not relevant for jurors.

    That should be for the jurors to decide. If a peer thinks that 80 women coming forth to testify that you raped them is relevant to their decision, then how can someone not on the jury just cancel them out?

    Seems to me like a prosecutor bringing in their cousin to tell the jury he had an orange for breakfast is irrelevant, but that should be for each juror to decide for themselves. If the prosecution wants to waste time with irrelevant information, then that shouldn’t help their case. If the information actually helps their case, then is it really irrelevant?

    If the peers disagree with the judges, the judges win. At that point it’s not a trial by your peers. It’s a trial by judges.

    I suppose it’s also hilarious because “relevancy” is not something that can be measured or quantified. It’s essentially just how much you can convince others that it’s relevant or not.