Weinstein Evidence Will Remain Sealed, Manhattan Appeals Court Rules
The First Department panel found the judge overseeing the Weinstein criminal trial had sufficient reason to close the evidence hearing to the public in April.
May 16, 2019 at 06:23 PM
3 minute read
Harvey Weinstein arrives at the First Precinct in lower Manhattan on May 25, 2018. Photo: David Handschuh/NYLJ
Matters that were discussed in chambers during a recent evidence hearing in the Harvey Weinstein criminal trial in Manhattan will remain sealed, an Appellate Division, First Department panel ordered Thursday.
Associate Justices David Friedman, Judith Gische, Troy Webber, Ellen Gesmer, and Peter Moulton issued an order denying an Article 78 petition on behalf of a number of media organizations seeking to have the proceedings closed by Manhattan Supreme Court Justice James Burke unsealed and made public.
The order addressed two separate filings—one from Court TV; the other from a coalition of news organizations, including the New Yorker, New York Post, CNN, and the AP—that argued the evidence being discussed during the Molineux/Sandoval hearing on April 26 deserved to be made public. On top of First Amendment arguments, the panel noted the petitioners argued that the global interest in and media coverage of the Weinstein case meant the public was already familiar with whatever salacious material was discussed after Burke closed the courtroom.
Not so, the panel said: "Contrary to petitioners' suggestion, the People have represented that some of the information has not yet been made public."
The Molineux/Sandoval hearing was necessitated by the office of Manhattan DA Cyrus Vance Jr.'s desire to introduce and use evidence at trial related to alleged bad acts committed by Weinstein but which aren't related to the criminal charges against him. Echoing Burke's comments from the bench ahead of closing the courtroom, the panel pointed out the evidence reviewed may never be used at trial, and that the publicity detailing that potential evidence would serve to potentially undermine Weinstein's right to a fair trial.
Burke, the panel said, "reasonably concluded that the sealing of documents relating to this single pretrial hearing was the only way to prevent tainting the jury pool with such inadmissible, prejudicial information."
What, if any, evidence ultimately is determined by Burke to be admissible will "become public if and when it is introduced at trial," the panel stated.
Aidala, Bertuna & Kamins name attorney Barry Kamins, who is part of the legal team representing Weinstein, applauded the appellate panel's decision "upholding the defendant's right to a fair trial."
Court TV was represented by Ballard Spahr associate Jacquelyn Schell. The media coalition was represented by Davis Wright Tremaine partner Katherine Bolger. Neither attorney responded to a request for comment on the appellate panel's decision.
Weinstein faces multiple counts of predatory sexual assault, criminal sexual acts and rape. He is now expected to go to trial Sept. 9.
Related:
Harvey Weinstein Assembles High-Profile, Non-NY Lawyers for New Defense Team
Judge Signs Off on Brafman's Motion to Bow Out as Harvey Weinstein's Defense Counsel
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
© 2025 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 All
Judge Denies Retrial Bid by Ex-U.S. Sen. Menendez Over Evidentiary Error
What Businesses Need to Know About Anticipated FTC Leadership Changes
7 minute read
Trending Stories
- 1Pogo Stick Maker Wants Financing Company to Pay $20M After Bailing Out Client
- 2Goldman Sachs Secures Dismissal of Celebrity Manager's Lawsuit Over Failed Deal
- 3Trump Moves to Withdraw Applications to Halt Now-Completed Sentencing
- 4Trump's RTO Mandate May Have Some Gov't Lawyers Polishing Their Resumes
- 5A Judge Is Raising Questions About Docket Rotation
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
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
