Weinstein lawyer Arthur Aidala called the Court of Appeals ruling “a tremendous victory for every criminal defendant in the state of New York”.
Lawyer Douglas Wigdor, who has represented eight Weinstein accusers including two witnesses at the New York criminal trial, called the ruling “a major step back”.
“Courts routinely admit evidence of other uncharged acts where they assist juries in understanding issues concerning the intent, modus operandi or scheme of the defendant. The jury was instructed on the relevance of this testimony and overturning the verdict is tragic in that it will require the victims to endure yet another trial,” Wigdor said in a statement.
Debra Katz, the prominent civil rights and #MeToo attorney who represented several Weinstein accusers, said her clients were “feeling gutted” by the ruling, but that she believed – and was telling them – that their testimony had changed the world.
“People continue to come forward, people continue to support other victims who’ve reported sexual assault and violence, and I truly believe there’s no going back from that,” Katz said. She predicted Weinstein would be convicted again at a retrial, and said accusers felt great comfort knowing Weinstein would remain behind bars.
His conviction in 2020 was heralded by activists and advocates as a milestone achievement, but dissected just as quickly by his lawyers and, later, the Court of Appeals when it heard arguments on the matter in February.
Allegations against Weinstein, the once powerful and feared studio boss behind such Oscar winners as Pulp Fiction and Shakespeare in Love, ushered in the #MeToo movement.
Ashley Judd was the first actress to come forward with allegations against Weinstein.Credit: AP
Dozens of women came forward to accuse him, including famous actresses such as Ashley Judd and Uma Thurman. His New York trial drew intense publicity, with protesters chanting “rapist” outside the courthouse.
Weinstein, who is incarcerated at the Mohawk Correctional Facility, about 160 kilometres north-west of Albany in New York state, maintains his innocence. He contends any sexual activity was consensual.
Aidala argued before the appeals court in February that Burke swayed the trial by allowing three women to testify about allegations that weren’t part of the case and by giving prosecutors permission to confront Weinstein, if he had testified, about his long history of brutish behaviour.
Aidala argued the extra testimony went beyond the normally allowable details about motive, opportunity, intent or a common scheme or plan, and essentially put Weinstein on trial for crimes he wasn’t charged with.
Loading
Weinstein wanted to testify but opted not to because Burke’s ruling would’ve meant answering questions about more than two-dozen alleged acts of misbehavior dating back four decades, Aidala said. They included fighting with his movie producer brother, flipping over a table in anger and snapping at waiters, and yelling at his assistants.
A lawyer for the Manhattan district attorney’s office, which prosecuted the case, argued that the judge’s rulings were proper and the extra evidence and testimony he allowed was important to provide jurors context about Weinstein’s behaviour and the way he interacted with women.
Appellate Chief Steven Wu said Weinstein’s acquittal on the most serious charges – two counts of predatory sexual assault and a first-degree rape charge involving actor Annabella Sciorra’s allegations of a mid-1990s rape – showed jurors were paying attention and they were not confused or overwhelmed by the additional testimony.
The Court of Appeals agreed last year to take Weinstein’s case after an intermediate appeals court upheld his conviction. Before their ruling, judges on the lower appellate court had raised doubts about Burke’s conduct during oral arguments. One observed that Burke had let prosecutors pile on with “incredibly prejudicial testimony” from additional witnesses.
Burke’s term expired at the end of 2022. He was not reappointed and is no longer a judge.
In appealing, Weinstein’s lawyers sought a new trial, but only for the criminal sexual act charge. They argued the rape charge could not be retried because it involves alleged conduct outside the statute of limitations.