There is a celebration occurring today with the conviction of Harvey Weinstein. Victims who courageously came forward are being rightfully congratulated on their courage in testifying about difficult, personal, and horrific experiences they suffered when attacked.
But two wrongs do not make a right. The increasing use of what Florida calls Williams Rule Evidence, what the feds call 404(b) evidence and what NY calls Molineux Evidence (see People v. Molineux, 168 NY 264 ( NY 1901) ) is creating prosecution by innuendo. And that portends dangerous times ahead for criminal defense practitioners as prosecutors become more emboldened by prosecution through uncharged bad acts.
If the victims' evidence and testimony did not stand on its own, then Weinstein should have been acquitted. This statement of course will induce purple- faced #metoo outrage. We will be accused of not understanding the special nature of sexual assault; that victims do not act in the ways other victims of other less personal crimes act. We understand. We will be lectured that it is very common for victims of sexual assault to not report a crime, or even maintain contact with their assailant. We understand that and we think such expert testimony on these issues is relevant so that the special nature of sexual assault victimization is understood.
What we do not agree with is the general proposition that someone should be convicted because he is being charged with a bad crime, and he may have done this before. This leads to wrongful convictions. Maybe not in Weinstein's case, or Bill Cosby's case, but it will occur, and what we are concerned about is not the individual case here, but the precedent this has set. What local judge faced with a non-celebrity, non-newsworthy sexual assault case in which the prosecution seeks to admit evidence of uncharged acts will not think about the Weinstein and Cosby cases?
These two cases are the thin edge of a large wedge. Soon there will be arguments that due to the sensitive and difficult nature of sexual assault cases, the standards for admitting evidence of other crimes should be lowered, otherwise "the victims will be victimized again." This is coming. Just wait.
Like it or not, the fundamental belief of the American criminal justice system is that it is better for 100 guilty men to go free then to have one innocent man convicted.
In 2020 we can add this caveat- so long as one of the guilty men going free is not Harvey Weinstein.
Over/under on the sentence? 22 years.
When you see something that is not right, not fair, find a way to get in the way and cause trouble. Congressman John Lewis
JUSTICE BUILDING BLOG
WELCOME TO THE OFFICIAL RICHARD E GERSTEIN JUSTICE BUILDING BLOG. THIS BLOG IS DEDICATED TO JUSTICE BUILDING RUMOR, HUMOR, AND A DISCUSSION ABOUT AND BETWEEN THE JUDGES, LAWYERS AND THE DEDICATED SUPPORT STAFF, CLERKS, COURT REPORTERS, AND CORRECTIONAL OFFICERS WHO LABOR IN THE WORLD OF MIAMI'S CRIMINAL JUSTICE. POST YOUR COMMENTS, OR SEND RUMPOLE A PRIVATE EMAIL AT HOWARDROARK21@GMAIL.COM. Winner of the prestigious Cushing Left Anterior Descending Artery Award.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
18 comments:
"Like it or not, the fundamental belief of the American criminal justice system is that it is better for 100 guilty men to go free then to have one innocent man convicted."
You actually think the American criminal justice system adheres to that belief?
Anyone who has worked in criminal appeals (or who has been the subject of criminal appeals) knows how funny and stupid that is.
Agree. Dumbest comment ever.
Mom, Dad, how many times have I asked you not to comment on my blog???
I'm okay with him going down with the 404b. Stuff related to the charges. Bothers me when they bring in proof of prior crimes that really bear no relation to the charges offense just to dirty the d up.
Son,
When you say stupid things, we're going to tell you. It's called love.
Mom
I can't wait to read Rumple's outrage post when Weinstein is sentenced to something higher than probation. "But he has no priors!!" "He's a productive member of society!!"
Generally it seems today the motto of American Justice is it's better for 100 not guilty are convicted then one guilty person is let go, especially if charged with ugly crimes .
There were Two alleged victims, but Four Williams rule wits. Sounds like the 404 evidence outweighed the evidence on the main charge.
How did a jury convict on one of these charges when the supposed victim admitted to a continuing intimate relationship after the supposed attack?
Lock his ass up. He took advantage of his power to control people and abuse them. He used sex as a weapon of control and finally someone stood up to it. Launch him as far as possible.
and what about the expansion of the SL? Outrageous.
The number of things we pretend jurors disregard is ludicrous.
"How did a jury convict on one of these charges when the supposed victim admitted to a continuing intimate relationship after the supposed attack?"
Domestic violence victims often return to their abusers in "a continuing intimate relationship after the supposed attack." That does not necessarily mean the domestic violence never happened.
Likewise, a rape victim can hypothetically return and continue associating with her attacker. Maybe that makes her seem less credible or reasonable to you and others, but that doesn't necessarily mean her allegation of rape/assault/abuse is impossible and false.
This guy was special. It appears that about 90 women said the same thing and he used his money and power as a weapon against women.
Generally, I think prior bad acts should never be used but, in this case, yes.
Bye Harvey!!!
We all need to be reminded every now and then that criminals usually have done a lot more crimes than the ones arrested for. The casting couch has been around a long time, I'm sure Weinstein received a few dozen sex acts a year that usually require kneeling during the apex of his power.
But for the publicity, and the LA charges being filed on the exact day the trial in NY was to begin was outrageous. The NY prosecutors definitely were behind the timing. This, together with the pretrial pub in NY doomed Harvey. Although I have no sympathy for this pig, it seems very unfair he gets convicted of rape, when after the so-called rape the "victims" ( I always call them the "complaining witness")had consensual sex with him. Can anyone recall a similar case where there was a rape conviction where the complaining witness admitted to consenting sex with the defendant after the fact?
The post is typical white elite mail commentary.
yO yo YO everyone knows rumpole ain't no white boy
Everyone knows who he is
John Lipiniski for the appeal!!!
Post a Comment