The reversal of Harvey Weinstein’s New York rape conviction, may be “disheartening,” but didn’t come as a surprise to legal experts.
Meanwhile, Los Angeles prosecutors say their case against the fallen movie mogul — which ended in a conviction and a 16-year prison sentence — is secure.
The New York Court of Appeals on Thursday found trial Judge James Burke made a series of bad calls that kept Weinstein from getting a fair trial.
They included “erroneously” allowing three women not included in the charges to testify as well as ruling that prosecutors could grill Weinstein about 28 other “prior bad acts” not in the case.
Weinstein’s conviction and 23-year sentence was overturned and the case will be sent back to the lower court, potentially for a retrial, with which the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office says it hopes to move forward.
While New York’s high court ruled Burke shouldn’t have allowed witnesses not included in the indictment to testify, Los Angeles prosecutors say the same law doesn’t apply in California and their case will not be overturned by a similar ruling.
Three legal experts told The Post they agreed with the New York appeals court decision.
“Although overturning the conviction is very disheartening to many, it stands on firm legal grounds,” Los Angeles-based lawyer Tre Lovell told The Post.
“As much as it hurts, it is incumbent on the justice system to ensure a person is tried in a manner that exhaustively protects him from evidence that detracts from the specific crime and can unfairly sway a jury,” Lovell explained.
Michael Bachner, a former prosecutor in the Manhattan DA’s Office and a longtime defense attorney, said, “I’m actually not shocked” by the reversal. “I thought [allowing the extra witnesses] were wrong.”
And Burke’s decision letting prosecutors question Weinstein about a slew of bad acts not in the case “was so extraneous … and so out of bounds. It prevented him from being able to testify,” Bachner added.
Seth Zuckerman, another Big Apple lawyer who notably defended director Paul Haggis in a #MeToo case, said yesterday’s ruling was “a long time coming.”
“I think the issue here is that prosecutors have tried to win these cases by character assassination and I think that the courts have put their foot down — finally and thankfully,” Zuckerman said.
The LA District Attorney’s Office said it’s “confident that our convictions will withstand appellate scrutiny.”
The office said while it was “saddened” by the decision in the Empire State, California law permits uncharged witnesses to testify “in sexual assault cases subject to the judge’s discretion.”
“Our Office had representatives in New York during the trial and we are aware of the extreme difficulties the victims faced while testifying about the traumas that Mr. Weinstein caused them,” the statement said.
“The legal issues identified by the New York Court of Appeal are not present in the Los Angeles County case. Unlike New York law, California law permits the admissibility of propensity evidence in sexual assault cases, subject to the judge’s discretion.
“The defense has filed a notice of appeal on the Los Angeles case, but they have not filed their opening brief. Although we do not know what arguments the defense will raise on appeal, we are confident that our convictions will withstand scrutiny,” they added.
Weinstein’s lawyer, Jennifer Bonjean, told The Post Thursday she thought the New York ruling would boost Weinstein’s chances of overturning his conviction in LA because the jury that found him guilty there “was under the assumption that Mr. Weinstein had been fairly convicted in New York, and that didn’t turn out to be true.”
If the New York case goes to retrial, a new judge must be assigned as Burke is no longer on the bench.
Weinstein has until May 20 to file his opening in an opening brief in his California appeal.
