Burke Closes Court for Harvey Weinstein Hearings, Citing Potential for 'Inflammatory' Evidence to Prejudice Defense
The state Supreme Court judge said allowing the press to report on the claims of sexual assault the DA's office hopes to use would potentially deprive Harvey Weinstein of a fair trial.
April 26, 2019 at 11:33 AM
4 minute read
Manhattan Supreme Court Justice James Burke ordered the courtroom closed over concerns that “highly inflammatory” evidence to be discussed during the Molineux/Sandoval hearings in the Harvey Weinstein criminal trial had the potential to undermine the former Hollywood producer's Sixth Amendment right to a fair trial.
“The dissemination of highly prejudicial evidence at this stage, which may never be admitted or heard at trial, would not serve to ensure the defendant received a fair trial,” Burke said moments before clearing the courtroom of dozens of members of the public and media.
According to Burke, the submissions by the DA's office “consisted entirely of information which is prejudicial to the defendant and are highly inflammatory,” and included testimony by witnesses—some of whom have not been publicly named—of sexual assault and rape allegations against Weinstein.
The government seeks to be allowed to introduce alleged bad acts and uncharged criminal behavior at Weinstein's trial, necessitating so-called Molineux and Sandoval pretrial hearings. Both hearings deal with whether the evidence will be allowed, with the Sandoval hearing specifically focused on cross-examination material to be used in the event Weinstein were to take the stand.
Both Weinstein's legal team, led by criminal defense attorney Jose Baez, Harvard Law School professor Ronald Sullivan Jr. and Aidala Bertuna & Kamins name attorney Arthur Aidala, as well as the office of Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance Jr., opposed allowing the hearings to remain open to the public before Friday's hearing.
During the hearing, Weinstein's legal team took the lead in arguing for the courtroom to be cleared.
Aidala Bertuna name attorney Marianne Bertuna claimed that, were the court to allow members of the media to be present, “Mr. Weintein's Sixth Amendment right to a fair trial will be irrevocably damaged by the unprecedented media attention.”
According to Bertuna, the state of media today, with real-time updates of events available across numerous platforms creating “an insatiable media frenzy,” will only serve to taint the juror pool of more than 1 million residents in Manhattan.
“The accused should not be required to face trial in open court after he has largely been convicted by a newspaper,” she told the court.
Assistant DA Joan Orbon-Illuzi said the burden was on the defense to show the need to close the courtroom, even as the DA's office supported such a move. She specifically stated that not all the potential witnesses the government may seek to produce have been made public.
Speaking on behalf of about a dozen news organizations, Davis Wright Tremaine partner Robert Balin said Weinstein's team did not meet the substantial burden needed to defeat the presumption of open proceedings.
“I listened closely, and what I heard is that somehow it is improper for the press and the public to be sitting here and reporting news in real time. That is what our Constitution envisions,” he said.
While acknowledging not knowing the specifics of the information the government sought to introduce, “the vast majority” of the material contained the same kinds of actions Weinstein has been publicly accused of by dozens of women over the past 18 months.
From the bench, Burke agreed that the information was of a similar sort to what had been previously in the public record. Still, the disclosure of the information would play “a negative role in the functioning of the criminal process by exposing the public generally, as well as potential jurors, to evidence that is inflammatory in nature, personal, and possibly embarrassing to witnesses.”
“In a case that has received as much media attention as this one has, the only result of the dissemination of such inflammatory information, or nonadmitted information, would be to create an acute risk that the media coverage of highly prejudicial information contained in these motions could overrun the covering of the court proceedings of record,” Burke said.
Weinstein, who appeared at the hearing, faces multiple counts of predatory sexual assault, criminal sexual acts, and rape. He is now expected to go to trial on Sept. 9.
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 AllTrending Stories
- 1Top 10 Predicted Business and Human Rights Issues for 2025
- 2$7.5M in Punitive Damages Awarded in Product Liability Case
- 3Does My Company Really Need a Generative AI Policy?
- 4'This Is a Watershed Moment': Daniel's Law Overcomes Major Hurdle
- 5Navigating the Storm: Effective Crisis Management (Part 1)
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