Judge Nixes Harvey Weinstein's Bid to Dismiss New Indictment Ahead of January Trial
An original 2018 indictment and the new one were consolidated to include five counts of felony sex crimes.
November 27, 2019 at 01:52 PM
5 minute read
The original version of this story was published on New York Law Journal
A Manhattan state court judge has blocked Harvey Weinstein's bid to dismiss a new indictment charging the disgraced movie mogul with revised charges of predatory sexual assault ahead of a planned Jan. 6 trial.
New York Supreme Court Justice James M. Burke on Tuesday denied Weinstein's motions to dismiss two counts of predatory sexual sexual assault on constitutional grounds and said that an attempt by Weinstein's lawyers to toss the new indictment was "factually and legally flawed."
Weinstein had argued that the Manhattan District Attorney's Office did not obtain permission from the court before presenting evidence to a grand jury, which led to the new indictment in late August.
According to the Associated Press, prosecutors said the at the time that the new indictment was needed to include evidence from actress Annabella Sciorra, who claims that Weinstein had raped her inside her Manhattan apartment after she starred in a movie for his film studio in 1993.
Sciorra was not added to the the case as a victim because the alleged assault fell outside the state statute of limitations, but prosecutors wanted to use her testimony to establish that Weinstein had engaged in a pattern of assaulting women—a necessary component of the predatory sexual assault charges.
An original 2018 indictment and the new one were consolidated to include five counts of felony sex crimes, including the two counts of predatory sexual assault, criminal sexual act in the third degree, first-degree rape and third-degree rape.
Weinstein has pleaded not guilty and denies all accusations of forced sex.
Weinstein's defense team argued that the court had "effectively" dismissed the predatory sexual assault charges in the 2018 indictment, thus requiring prosecutors to get authorization from the court before presenting evidence in front of another grand jury.
But Burke said his Aug. 8 ruling did nothing of the sort: "There is no reading of that decision which held that those counts were dismissed," he said.
"Therefore, there was no legal bar to the representation of the predatory sexual assault charges to the grand jury that returned the [new indictment] and such presentation was entirely proper," Burke wrote in a 12-page opinion dated Nov. 26.
The ruling was announced Wednesday by a spokesman for Manhattan DA Cyrus Vance Jr.
A spokesman for Weinstein said Weinstein's lawyers "are reviewing options before saying or doing anything."
Weinstein was represented in the matter by Donna Rotunno of the Law Offices of Rotunno & Giralamo, based in Chicago.
Enacted in 2006, the crime of predatory sexual assault carries a possible life sentence. The defense argued that including an allegations from 13 years before the law went into effect violated the U.S. Constitution's "ex post facto clause."
Burke, however, found not constitutional violations because Weinstein was on notice as of 2006 that if he committed any further alleged crimes, he would be subject to enhanced penalties under the New York's predatory sexual assault law.
The judge also knocked out a number of other pretrial defense motions, including Weinstein's request to allow Deborah Davis, a University of Nevada at Reno psychologist, to testify about certain issues related to sexual assault.
The defense wanted to elicit testimony from Davis about how sexual trauma can lead to the creation of false memories, as well as the notion of "voluntary unwanted sex," a phenomenon they described as "sex that is undesired, but that the person chooses to engage in."
Burke allowed Davis to testify about the "general operation of human memory, including how memory works," but said the "voluntary unwanted sex" theory and other issues would be off limits.
"Of course, the defense will need to lay a proper foundation establishing the qualifications of the expert before any particular witness on the permitted subjects will be allowed to testify," he said. "Further the court notes that should any of these expert witnesses be duplicative or beyond the areas which have been permitted, such witness's testimony will be restricted by the court."
The ruling also blocked the release of the identities of two witnesses who are expected to testify against Weinstein, as well as a motion to suppress evidence obtained from a search warrant for three email accounts.
Burke did allow the defense to access the minutes of grand jury proceedings.
The Associated Press contributed reporting to this story.
Read More:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllLitigators of the Week: After a 74-Day Trial, Shook Fends Off Claims From Artist’s Heirs Against UMB Bank
An ‘Indiana Jones Moment’: Mayer Brown’s John Nadolenco and Kelly Kramer on the 10-Year Legal Saga of the Bahia Emerald
‘It's Your Funeral’: Avoiding Doing Damage to Your Client’s Case With Uncivil Behavior
Trending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250