“The court ruled that the judge in the New York County trial prejudiced Weinstein with improper rulings, including allowing women to testify about allegations that were not part of the case.”
i’ve been wondering about that sort of thing for a while ... used to be, allegations that were not part of the crime being charged were NOT allowed in court because they were unfairly prejudicial ... i.e., WELLLL, we don’t ACTUALLY have that much evidence in this case to prove the defendant did anything, but a whole bunch of other people said he did some other stuff, so therefore he must be guilty in this case ...
People of New York v. Harvey Weinstein, NY Ct App #24, (24 Apr 2024), Opinion of the Court (4-3) at pp. 39-40:
Even if we were to regard the evidence against defendant as “overwhelming,” there remains a “ ‘significant probability’ that, absent the trial court’s erroneous Molineux ruling, the jury would have acquitted the defendant” (Arafet, 13 NY3d at 467, quoting Crimmins, 36 NY2d at 241-242). And, though “harmless-error analysis in the context of Sandoval ‘does not involve speculation as to whether a defendant would have testified if the legal error had not occurred’ ” (Grant, 7 NY3d at 425, quoting People v Williams, 56 NY2d 236, 240 [1982]), the erroneous Sandoval determination here “might have affected defendant’s decision whether to testify and provide critical information” (Williams, 56 NY2d at 241). Thus, neither error was harmless.IV.
“How different is our own common law, which is the product of all the wisdom and humanity of all the ages. Under it the accused comes into a court of justice, panoplied in the presumption of innocence, which shields [them] until [their] guilt is established beyond a reasonable doubt. [Their] character can be thrown into the balance by no one but [themselves]. The incidents of [their] life, not connected with the crime charged, are [their] sacred possession. [They] face[ ] [their] accuser in the light of a distinct charge, with the assurance that no other will be, or can be, proved against [them]” (Molineux, 168 NY at 310).These words are no less true and vital today as they were when first written by this Court in 1901. Over a century later, we reaffirm that no person accused of illegality may be judged on proof of uncharged crimes that serve only to establish the accused’s propensity for criminal behavior. At trial, a defendant stands to account for the crimes as charged. Proof of prior crimes and uncharged bad acts are the rare exception to this fundamental rule of criminal law. Similarly, under Sandoval, cross-examination of the defendant with allegations concerning prior convictions or proof of prior “specific criminal, vicious or immoral acts” is impermissible except to the extent it bears on the defendant’s credibility. Thus, it is an abuse of judicial discretion to permit untested allegations of nothing more than bad behavior that destroys a defendant’s character but sheds no light on their credibility as related to the criminal charges lodged against them.
The trial court’s rulings ran afoul of these time-honored rules of evidence. Accordingly, the order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, and a new trial ordered.
The defense attorney was Arthur L. Aidala. Old fight fans may remember his grandfather Artie Aidala [d. 2000], who was a referee and judge at old Madison Square Garden for about four decades. Gramps was a judge at the first fight between Muhammed Ali and Joe Frazier.