Lawyers for Harvey Weinstein Call for NY Judge's Recusal in Criminal Trial
Comments by the judge upbraiding Weinstein for cellphone use in the courtroom, which Aidala describes as "so inflammatory, biased and prejudicial that they have virtually gone viral," were the first of five arguments for Burke's recusal in the motion.
January 08, 2020 at 02:15 PM
3 minute read
Harvey Weinstein and his legal team leaving Manhattan criminal court on Tuesday, Jan. 7. Photo: Jane Wester/NYLJ
Lawyers for former Hollywood producer Harvey Weinstein filed a motion Wednesday seeking recusal of Judge James Burke from Weinstein's trial, which began Monday in Manhattan Criminal Court.
Weinstein, who is charged with rape and predatory sexual assault in New York, has said he is not guilty of all charges. The recusal motion was filed after jury selection ended for the day Wednesday, and Burke is not expected to respond before court resumes Thursday.
The motion, which is signed by defense lawyer Arthur Aidala of Aidala Bertuna & Kamins, describes comments Burke made in court early Tuesday, when he focused on Weinstein for using a cellphone in the courtroom.
"Is this really the way you want to end up in jail for the rest of your life?" Burke asked Weinstein after advising him to exercise his right to silence.
Aidala described Burke's comments as "so inflammatory, biased and prejudicial that they have virtually gone viral" and said it could be interpreted in two ways.
"Either the Court was suggesting that an appropriate sanction for use of a cell phone was life in prison, or the Court was suggesting that Mr. Weinstein is guilty, would surely be convicted, and that the Court already knew that it intended to sentence him to life in prison," Aidala wrote.
Aidala described the intense media attention focused on the trial as another reason for recusal, noting that Weinstein and his lawyers attempted to change the venue of the trial because of the "overwhelmingly negative pre-trial publicity and interest his case had received." That request was denied by the New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department in the fall.
The other three points in the motion echo arguments made in court this week.
Weinstein's lawyers objected to Burke limiting the number of people allowed to sit near the defense table, along with his refusal to expand the time available for voir dire or delay the trial altogether after the Los Angeles District Attorney's Office announced new sex crimes charges for Weinstein on the first day of his New York trial.
A spokesman for the Manhattan District Attorney's Office declined to comment Wednesday afternoon.
Read more:
New LA Charges Don't Change NY Trial Plans or Bail Terms for Harvey Weinstein
Will Lawyer David Boies Be a Witness in Harvey Weinstein's Sex Crimes Trial?
Harvey Weinstein Charged in Los Angeles as New York Trial Begins
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
Walt Disney, IBM Denied High Court Review of Old NY Franchise Tax Law
3 minute read
The Met Hires GC of Elite University as Next Legal Chief
Just Ahead of Oral Argument, Fubo Settles Antitrust Case with Disney, Fox, Warner Bros.
Trending Stories
- 1NJ Supreme Court Clarifies Affidavit of Merit Requirement for Doctor With Dual Specialties
- 2Whether to Choose State or Federal Court in a Case Involving a Franchise?
- 3Am Law 200 Firms Announce Wave of D.C. Hires in White-Collar, Antitrust, Litigation Practices
- 4K&L Gates Files String of Suits Against Electronics Manufacturer's Competitors, Brightness Misrepresentations
- 5'Better of the Split': District Judge Weighs Circuit Divide in Considering Who Pays Decades-Old Medical Bill
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
