“This is major prejudice,” Aidala argued in February. “It’s saying, ‘He’s a bad guy. He’s a bad guy. He’s a bad guy.’”
Your client is a bad guy.
This ruling is ridiculous. The purpose of other women testifying was to establish a pattern of behavior. Not in the broad sense, but in the narrow sense of following the same play book each time he attacked a victim.
He is a bad guy but the law is the law. We need it to be applied fairly.
It just means there will be a new trial and then he’ll be back in prison.
A court case should be a finding of truth about what happened, it should not be a referendum on somebody’s popularity. I totally agree with you, they will try the case again, they will make their finding of fact. And we will all move on with our lives
Judge Jenny Rivera in the court’s majority opinion. “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.”
I find it interesting the vote was four to three, and the dissenting opinion was focused on political precedent rather than the rule of law. This tells me this case was more about popularity and political issues than the actual matter in front of the court. That is a very dangerous precedent
It should be all about the law. Weinstein is a bad man and should be in prison but the law has to be followed. If our system isn’t fair and run properly, it isn’t a real legal system.
One of his rape convictions, to be sent back to retrial. He’s still doing 14 years for the other one
