First Department Rejects Venue Change in Harvey Weinstein Rape Trial
Attorneys with the Manhattan District Attorney's Office argued the move was a "transparent attempt" to delay the case by the movie mogul.
October 03, 2019 at 03:03 PM
3 minute read
A New York state appeals court on Thursday blocked Harvey Weinstein's bid to move his sex crimes trial out of Manhattan.
The New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department denied "in its entirety" Weinstein's motion to change venue ahead the trial, which is scheduled to begin Jan. 6.
Attorneys with the Manhattan District Attorney's Office argued the move was a "transparent attempt" to delay the case by the movie mogul.
Weinstein attorney Arthur Aidala had argued in an Aug. 16 filing that "New York City is the least likely place on earth where Mr. Weinstein could receive a fair trial" on revised charges of rape and sexual assault. The juror pool in Manhattan, they said, had been tainted by close media coverage and public pressure from politicians and activists.
Vance's office responded that such requests are only granted in the "rarest of cases" and that residents of Suffolk and Albany Counties had the same access to media sources as potential jurors in the city.
The filing also faulted Weinstein's attorneys for contributing to much of the media coverage in the case. While Weinstein's legal team was within its rights to give interviews, the attorneys are also "hard pressed to complain about a media frenzy or circus-like atmosphere" that they helped create," Assistant DA Harriett Galvin of the New York County DA's Office wrote in an Aug. 23 submission to the appeals court.
"This motion, lacking in any solid factual or legal basis, should be viewed as a transparent attempt to delay the proceedings, particularly because, from the beginning, the defendant's lawyers have contributed to the media coverage they now complain about by making extrajudicial statements about the case, portraying the defendant as a scapegoat who has been targeted by the 'Me Too' movement, thus employing the well-worn strategy of trying his case outside of the courtroom," she said.
A spokesman for Weinstein said his legal team would not be commenting on the ruling, and a spokesman for Vance's office declined to comment Thursday.
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This content has been archived.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 AllManhattan Prosecutors Say They Will Oppose Efforts by Trump Legal Team to Dismiss Case
Trump's SEC Likely to Halt 'Off-Channel' Texting Probe That's Led to Billions in Fines
White & Case Settles Wrongful Conviction Lawsuit With City Agreeing to Pay $9.45 Million
Trending Stories
- 1When It Comes to Local Law 97 Compliance, You’ve Gotta Have (Good) Faith
- 2Legal Speak at General Counsel Conference East 2024: Virginia Griffith, Director of Business Development at OutsideGC
- 3Legal Speak at General Counsel Conference East 2024: Bill Tanenbaum, Partner & Chair, AI & Data Law Practice Group at Moses Singer
- 4Morgan & Morgan Looks to Grow Into Complex Litigation While Still Keeping its Billboards Up
- 5Thursday Newspaper
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