Manhattan Judge in Weinstein Criminal Case Weighs Closing Evidence Hearing
Supreme Court Justice James Burke gave the press until April 22 to make their arguments for why the evidence hearing on potential evidence in the Weinstein sexual assault trial should not be closed to the public.
April 22, 2019 at 08:00 AM
3 minute read
The judge overseeing the criminal trial against Harvey Weinstein has been asked by the parties to close the courtroom during an upcoming evidence hearing over concerns the material discussed could prejudice the disgraced movie producer's right to a fair trial.
On April 17, Manhattan Supreme Court Justice James Burke alerted news media that both sides had requested the courtroom be closed to the public during the court's review of Molineux and Sandoval evidence scheduled for April 26.
The Molineux application was brought by the office of Manhattan DA Cyrus Vance Jr., which seeks to introduce evidence of uncharged crimes and “bad acts” allegedly committed by Weinstein in the case. The office's Sandoval application specifically aims to bring similar evidence into trial in the event Weinstein takes the stand.
Both motions are opposed by Weinstein. According to Burke, specific objections were raised about the introduction or use of uncharged crimes and bad acts for any purpose. Weinstein previously secured the dismissal of one of the six sexual assault-related charges after additional information cast doubt on the credibility of one of the accusers' claims.
In separate letters released by the court, both sides argued the circumstances warrant barring the public.
Writing for the DA's office, ADA Joan Illuzzi-Orbon argued that closing the court for the evidence hearings would “strike the proper balance” between the public's “qualified right” to be present and “the defendant's right to a fair trial by an impartial jury.” Any material the court agreed to allow at trial would obviously become public then, “or earlier if disclosure will not compromise the defendants' right to a fair trial,” Illuzzi-Orbon wrote.
Illuzzi-Orbon noted, as another pertinent consideration, that the identity of potential witnesses who claim to be victims of sexual assault would remain protected from public disclosure, in the event Burke precluded them from testifying at trial.
Weintein's attorney Ronald Sullivan Jr. told the court prior precedent gave it the inherent power to close proceedings to protect a defendant's right to a fair trial.
“These motions concern alleged, uncharged, and unproven misconduct that may ultimately never be allowed in evidence,” he wrote. “To expose prospective jurors to such material will prejudice both Mr. Weinstein's and the People's right to a fair trial and an impartial jury.”
Burke gave members of the press until April 22 to file letters with the court arguing why both the hearing should be open and why the submissions regarding the motion papers detailing the information to be discussed should be unsealed. The court plans on holding a preliminary hearing on Friday on all issues before making a determination ahead of the evidence hearing.
Related:
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 AllTrade Fixtures In New York Eminent Domain Cases - What Qualifies and How Are They Valued?
10 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Commission Confirms Three of Newsom's Appellate Court Picks
- 2Judge Grants Special Counsel's Motion, Dismisses Criminal Case Against Trump Without Prejudice
- 3GEICO, Travelers to Pay NY $11.3M for Cybersecurity Breaches
- 4'Professional Misconduct': Maryland Supreme Court Disbars 86-Year-Old Attorney
- 5Capital Markets Partners Expect IPO Resurgence During Trump Administration
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