It Seems Possible Harvey Weinstein Might Get Off After All, as His Conviction Gets Overturned

Steven Ferdman. Getty Images.

If there's one element you need to make any story truly resonate with a broad audience, it's a compelling villain. And if there's one lesson Hollywood keeps forgetting, it's that if you want to keep telling that story through very profitable sequels, you can't kill that villain off in the first film. Hans Gruber gets turned into street pizza on the Nakatomi Plaza sidewalk, and by Die Hard 3 they were bringing in his own brother to be a pale imitation of the original. Scar gets eaten by his own henchmen, and all The Lion King sequels end up going direct to video, and no one can remember who the baddies were. Hell, Star Wars gave Darth Vader a hero's death, then had to go back to Baby Darth for the prequels. And by the time Jar Jar Abrams was done fucking the sequel trilogy beyond all recognition, they were so desperate for a Big Bad, they brought back the Emperor without any explanation. There's a reason why you rarely actually see villains get bumped off in superhero movies. Because implying they could still be alive - sent off to Arkham Asylum or whatever, leaves the door open for a return. 

And no one understood how the movie industry worked as well as all-powerful uber pervert Harvey Weinstein. When he wasn't using his asymmetrical power dynamic to sexually assault women who just wanted to make an honest living in the film industry or forcing them to jack off his grotesque fish-penis into potted plants:

… the man was greenlighting some of the best movie projects of our lifetimes. 

Emphasis on the "was." Ever since his victims started coming forward, and set off the biggest real life drama in show business history. He was tried and convicted for his crimes, and was never expected to draw another breath of sweet freedom ever again. But sometimes even reality follows the same rule of villains and sequels. Because it would appear Ol' Fish Dick could be back on the streets:

Source - Harvey Weinstein's New York rape and sexual assault convictions have been dramatically overturned after an appeals court ruled the judge made a 'crucial' error in his handling of the case. 

The New York Court of Appeals ruled on Thursday that the disgraced movie producer did not receive a fair trial when he was convicted in 2020.

It is unclear if the bombshell ruling made by New York's highest court will free him from prison, as he still has another conviction in Los Angeles for a separate rape. 

Weinstein, 72, has been serving 23 years in a New York jail for the two sex attacks against aspiring actress Jessica Mann:

BRYAN R. SMITH. Getty Images.

… and production assistant Mimi Haley.:

snapshot. Shutterstock Images.

… In a 4-3 decision, the court determined that the Judge [James M.] Burke had made an error in allowing women to testify who were not part of the case. 

'We conclude that the trial court erroneously admitted testimony of uncharged, alleged prior sexual acts against persons other than the complainants of the underlying crimes,' the decision read.

'It is an abuse of judicial discretion to permit untested allegations of nothing more than bad behavior that destroys a defendant's character but sheds no light on their credibility as related to the criminal charges lodged against them.' …

He was convicted of third degree rape against Mann and criminal sexual act against Haley, but acquitted of first degree rape and two counts of predatory sexual assault.

The court heard Mann was attacked by Weinstein in a Manhattan hotel room in 2013.

Haley testified that he forcibly performed oral sex on her in his apartment while she had her period in 2006.

We're all in agreement that the second that cell door slammed behind this predator and he was left alone with nothing but his wang that one witness testified "looked like it 'had been chopped off and sewn back on'" and whatever is left of his soul, the world became an appreciably better place. On the other hand, this overturned decision sounds like the right thing to me. Both things can be true at the same time.

I might be former court employee who barely understands the law, but I can agree with the four justices who ruled that a judge can't just allow witnesses to come in and testify that the defendant is a shitty person because they had bad dealings with him in the past. Ones he's not charged with. You can cheer them on in this case because Weinstein is a savage, sadistic monster with no regard for women's well being (or their natural cycles). But you have to also consider what would happen if that was someone you care about at that defendant's chair. For instance, yourself. If you get charged with robbing a liquor store, do you want the prosecution bringing in all your former coworkers to list all the times you stole office supplies, helped yourself to a bottle of scotch during the open bar part of the holiday party and fudged the numbers on the expense reports you turned in? Or do you want the focus on whether or not that's you on the security camera pointing a gun at the store clerk?

Just keep this in mind the next time your frustrated with some high profile court case or wondering why it's taking so long when it's obvious to you the creep is guilty. The rights defendants have apply to everyone. If you want a fat, bloated, deformed orc like Weinstein:

… brought to justice, you have to make sure that he's getting actual justice. Put him away right, so he stays away for good. Now let's just hope they didn't screw up the prosecution in all his other cases, so it sticks. We all prefer our Harvey Weinsteins incarcerated.