New York appeals court overturns Harvey Weinstein’s 2020 rape conviction

[THE_DEVIL]

https://apnews.com/article/weinstei...n=TrueAnthem&utm_medium=AP&utm_source=Twitter

 

[HROT]

And they say money doesn’t buy happiness

 

[millah_22]

He will remain imprisoned because he was convicted in Los Angeles in 2022 of another rape and sentenced to 16 years in prison. Weinstein was acquitted in Los Angeles on charges involving one of the women who testified in New York.

 

[ericram]

https://apnews.com/article/weinstei...n=TrueAnthem&utm_medium=AP&utm_source=Twitter

Bizarre turn of events.

 

[Scruddy]

New York really is a stupid place lol

 

[Scruddy]

 

[lucas80]

I guess I get the logic, but, telling the jury a guy is a rapist scumbag helps them form the picture as they sit in judgement of a rapist scumbag. At least he'll still die in prison off of the other conviction.

 

[TJ8869]

At least he'll still die in prison off of the other conviction.

Unless that conviction also gets overturned.

 

[Scruddy]

Lol

 

[NDallasRuss]

I guess I get the logic, but, telling the jury a guy is a rapist scumbag helps them form the picture as they sit in judgement of a rapist scumbag. At least he'll still die in prison off of the other conviction.

But allowing other people unrelated to the case to come in and tell unproven stories about him being a scumbag rapist doesn't seem quite fair either. Otherwise in every case the prosecutor could just round up a bunch of people to come in and say whatever they want in order to make the defendant look bad. The prosecution is supposed to prove the facts of the case they're trying.

New York really is a stupid place lol

At least based on what I read, isn't this the way it's supposed to work? If an appeals judge finds that the original judge screwed up, aren't they supposed to make them go back and do it right?

Of course he's a rapist scumbag, but the prosecution still has to correctly do their job - as does the judge.

 

[HawCory]

But allowing other people unrelated to the case to come in and tell unproven stories about him being a scumbag rapist doesn't seem quite fair either. Otherwise in every case the prosecutor could just round up a bunch of people to come in and say whatever they want in order to make the defendant look bad. The prosecution is supposed to prove the facts of the case they're trying.


At least based on what I read, isn't this the way it's supposed to work? If an appeals judge finds that the original judge screwed up, aren't they supposed to make them go back and do it right?

Of course he's a rapist scumbag, but the prosecution still has to correctly do their job - as does the judge.

Yep. I am on board with the old "I'd rather let 100 guilty men go free than imprison 1 innocent" axiom.

 

[lucas80]

Unless that conviction also gets overturned.

Hopefully he dies before there's a chance of that. He is a predator.