Connect with us

New York

The Harvey Weinstein Appeal Ruling, Annotated

Published

on

The Harvey Weinstein Appeal Ruling, Annotated

The 2020 conviction of Harvey Weinstein on felony sex crime charges in Manhattan was overturned on Thursday by New York’s top court. The ruling by the New York Court of Appeals said the trial judge in Mr. Weinstein’s case, Justice James M. Burke, erred in letting prosecutors call some women as witnesses who said Mr. Weinstein had assaulted them, but whose accusations were not included as charges.

The appeals court found that Mr. Weinstein, the disgraced Hollywood producer whose case ignited the #MeToo movement, had not received a fair trial. In a statement, a spokeswoman for the Manhattan district attorney’s office said, “We will do everything in our power to retry this case and remain steadfast in our commitment to survivors of sexual assault.” Donna Rotunno, Mr. Weinstein’s lead trial lawyer in New York, praised the ruling, saying, “They were prosecuting him for sins, not crimes.”

Mr. Weinstein, who was also sentenced to 16 years in prison in a California conviction, could be sent to that state to continue his sentence there, according to his spokesman.

The New York Times annotated the ruling.

Download the original PDF.

Advertisement

New York Times Analysis

Next »

1

The overturning of Harvey Weinstein’s New York sex crimes conviction, and the ordering of a new trial, may feel like a sudden, shocking turn. In the public mind, he is a fully disgraced figure: sentenced to long prison terms in two cities, defined by the public testimonies of nearly 100 alleged victims whose stories formed the cornerstone of the #MeToo movement. But in legal terms, his New York conviction was always controversial, and his appeals always stood a chance.

Advertisement
Page 2 of undefined PDF document.

New York Times Analysis

« Previous Next »

2

Central to the decision to overturn the conviction was something called “Molineux witnesses,” which refers to witnesses in a trial who are allowed to testify about criminal acts that the defendant has not been charged with committing.

Advertisement

3

During the Weinstein trial, prosecutors sought to persuade jurors that he had a long history of using his prominence as a Hollywood producer to lure young women to hotel rooms and sexually assault them. They did this by calling other women to the stand who said Mr. Weinstein had assaulted them, including Dawn Dunning, Tarale Wulff and Lauren Young. Mr. Weinstein was not charged with assaulting those women, but Justice James Burke allowed them to appear for the prosecution as Molineux witnesses, also known as “prior bad act” witnesses.

Advertisement
Page 3 of undefined PDF document.

New York Times Analysis

« Previous Next »

4

Complainant A is Miriam Haley, who previously went by the name Mimi Haleyi. At trial, she testified that she first met Mr. Weinstein at a movie premiere in London when she was a young production assistant.

Advertisement

5

Complainant B is Jessica Mann, who was an aspiring actress when she met Mr. Weinstein and who testified at the trial. Prosecutors said she maintained a relationship with Mr. Weinstein to save her career.

Advertisement
Page 4 of undefined PDF document.

New York Times Analysis

« Previous Next »

6

Complainant C is Annabella Sciorra, the actress best known for her roles in “The Sopranos” and “Jungle Fever.” She met Mr. Weinstein at a party in Los Angeles in the early 1990s when he was a young producer. She testified at the trial.

Advertisement

Page 5 of undefined PDF document.
Page 6 of undefined PDF document.
Page 7 of undefined PDF document.
Page 8 of undefined PDF document.
Page 9 of undefined PDF document.

New York Times Analysis

« Previous Next »

7

Advertisement

Witness 1 is Dawn Dunning, who was a waitress and aspiring actress when she met Mr. Weinstein. He offered to help with her acting career, and she had initially believed him to be a mentor, prosecutors said. She testified at the trial.

Page 10 of undefined PDF document.

New York Times Analysis

« Previous Next »

Advertisement

8

Witness 2 is Tarale Wulff, who was an aspiring actress waiting tables at an exclusive lounge in Manhattan when she met Mr. Weinstein. Mr. Weinstein, the restaurant owner’s friend, always sat at the owner’s table, where staff were expected to treat him well. She testified at the trial.

9

Advertisement

Witness 3 is Lauren Young, a model who wanted to break into the film business. She brought a script to a meeting with Mr. Weinstein at a hotel bar in Beverly Hills, which prosecutors say was a ruse for Mr. Weinstein to sexually assault her. She testified at the trial.

Page 11 of undefined PDF document.

New York Times Analysis

« Previous Next »

Advertisement

10

Thursday’s ruling in New York also raised questions about whether a separate conviction in California in 2022 — on rape and sexual assault charges — can survive a similar legal challenge. That case also relied in part on witnesses whose accusations did not lead to charges. Mr. Weinstein’s lawyer in the California case said she planned to file an appeal next month.

Advertisement
Page 12 of undefined PDF document.

New York Times Analysis

« Previous Next »

Page 13 of undefined PDF document.
Page 14 of undefined PDF document.
Page 15 of undefined PDF document.
Page 16 of undefined PDF document.
Page 17 of undefined PDF document.
Page 18 of undefined PDF document.
Page 19 of undefined PDF document.
Page 20 of undefined PDF document.
Page 21 of undefined PDF document.
Page 22 of undefined PDF document.
Page 23 of undefined PDF document.
Page 24 of undefined PDF document.
Page 25 of undefined PDF document.
Page 26 of undefined PDF document.
Page 27 of undefined PDF document.

New York Times Analysis

« Previous Next »

12

The majority of the court appeared to take umbrage with the fierce statements of the dissenting judges, defending their ruling in numerous footnotes and throughout the opinion, a back-and-forth that suggested the decision had given rise to considerable tension among the judges.

Advertisement

Page 28 of undefined PDF document.
Page 29 of undefined PDF document.
Page 30 of undefined PDF document.
Page 31 of undefined PDF document.
Page 32 of undefined PDF document.
Page 33 of undefined PDF document.

New York Times Analysis

« Previous Next »

13

Advertisement

The appeals court agreed with Mr. Weinstein that the trial judge violated his right to testify in his own defense. The trial judge had ruled that if Mr. Weinstein took the stand, prosecutors would be allowed to question him about a long history of bad behavior, including allegations that he threw food at an employee and punched his brother at a business meeting. The appeals ruling said this “impermissibly” affected Mr. Weinstein’s decision not to testify at trial.

Page 34 of undefined PDF document.
Page 35 of undefined PDF document.
Page 36 of undefined PDF document.
Page 37 of undefined PDF document.
Page 38 of undefined PDF document.
Page 39 of undefined PDF document.
Page 40 of undefined PDF document.

New York Times Analysis

« Previous Next »

Advertisement

14

Thursday’s decision did not discount the credibility of the accusations against Mr. Weinstein. Rather, it found fault with the admission of the testimony of women whose descriptions of abuse fell outside the criminal case.

15

Advertisement

The reversal of the conviction was determined by a single vote, by a majority female panel of judges, who in February held a searching public debate about the fairness of the trial.

Page 41 of undefined PDF document.
Page 42 of undefined PDF document.
Page 43 of undefined PDF document.
Page 44 of undefined PDF document.
Page 45 of undefined PDF document.
Page 46 of undefined PDF document.
Page 47 of undefined PDF document.
Page 48 of undefined PDF document.
Page 49 of undefined PDF document.
Page 50 of undefined PDF document.
Page 51 of undefined PDF document.
Page 52 of undefined PDF document.
Page 53 of undefined PDF document.
Page 54 of undefined PDF document.
Page 55 of undefined PDF document.
Page 56 of undefined PDF document.
Page 57 of undefined PDF document.
Page 58 of undefined PDF document.
Page 59 of undefined PDF document.

New York Times Analysis

« Previous Next »

Advertisement

16

Judge Madeline Singas wrote in a dissent that the witness testimony of the additional women, who described their disgust and horror at Mr. Weinstein’s advances, had made it clearer to the jury that the former producer had to have known that he did not have the women’s consent.

Advertisement
Page 60 of undefined PDF document.
Page 61 of undefined PDF document.
Page 62 of undefined PDF document.
Page 63 of undefined PDF document.

New York Times Analysis

« Previous Next »

17

Judge Singas’s fiery dissent accused the court of making it more difficult for victims to seek justice against their assailants in future cases.

Advertisement
Page 64 of undefined PDF document.
Page 65 of undefined PDF document.
Page 66 of undefined PDF document.

New York Times Analysis

« Previous

18

Judge Anthony Cannataro, who also dissented, wrote that the additional witnesses the prosecution presented were vital to show Mr. Weinstein’s pattern of manipulation and coercion.

Advertisement
Page 67 of undefined PDF document.
Page 68 of undefined PDF document.
Page 69 of undefined PDF document.
Page 70 of undefined PDF document.
Page 71 of undefined PDF document.
Page 72 of undefined PDF document.
Page 73 of undefined PDF document.
Page 74 of undefined PDF document.
Page 75 of undefined PDF document.
Page 76 of undefined PDF document.
Page 77 of undefined PDF document.
Advertisement

New York

Vote For the Best Metropolitan Diary Entry of 2025

Published

on

Vote For the Best Metropolitan Diary Entry of 2025

Every week since 1976, Metropolitan Diary has published stories by, and for, New Yorkers of all ages and eras (no matter where they live now): anecdotes and memories, quirky encounters and overheard snippets that reveal the city’s spirit and heart.

For the past four years, we’ve asked for your help picking the best Diary entry of the year. Now we’re asking again.

Advertisement

We’ve narrowed the field to the five finalists here. Read them and vote for your favorite. The author of the item that gets the most votes will receive a print of the illustration that accompanied it, signed by the artist, Agnes Lee.

The voting closes at 11:59 p.m. on Sunday, Dec. 21. You can change your vote as many times as you’d like until then, but you may only pick one. Choose wisely.

Advertisement

Click “VOTE” to choose your favorite Metropolitan Diary entry of 2025, and come back on Sunday, Dec. 28, to see which one our readers picked as their favorite.

Click “VOTE” to choose your favorite Metropolitan Diary entry of 2025, and come back on Sunday, Dec. 28, to see which one our readers picked as their favorite.

Two Stops

Advertisement

Dear Diary:

It was a drizzly June night in 2001. I was a young magazine editor and had just enjoyed what I thought was a very blissful second date — dinner, drinks, fabulous conversation — with our technology consultant at a restaurant in Manhattan.

I lived in Williamsburg at the time, and my date lived near Murray Hill, so we grabbed a cab and headed south on Second Avenue.

“Just let me out here,” my date said to the cabby at the corner of 25th Street.

Advertisement

We said our goodbyes, quick and shy, knowing that we would see each other at work the next day. I was giddy and probably grinning with happiness and hope.

“Oh boy,” the cabby said, shaking his head as we drove toward Brooklyn. “Very bad.”

“What do you mean?” I asked in horror.

“He doesn’t want you to know exactly where he lives,” the cabby said. “Not a good sign.”

I spent the rest of the cab ride in shock, revisiting every moment of the date.

Advertisement

Happily, it turned out that my instinct about it being a great date was right, and the cabby was wrong. Twenty-four years later, my date that night is my husband, and I know that if your stop is first, it’s polite to get out so the cab can continue in a straight line to the next stop.

— Ingrid Spencer

Ferry Farewell

Ferry Farewell

Advertisement

Dear Diary:

On a February afternoon, I met my cousins at the Staten Island Ferry Terminal. Their spouses and several of our very-grown children were there too. I brought Prosecco, a candle, a small speaker to play music, photos and a poem.

We were there to recreate the wedding cruise of my mother, Monica, and my stepfather, Peter. They had gotten married at City Hall in August 1984. She was 61, and he, 71. It was her first marriage, and his fourth.

I was my mother’s witness that day. It was a late-in-life love story, and they were very happy. Peter died in 1996, at 82. My mother died last year. She was 100.

Advertisement

Peter’s ashes had waited a long time, but finally they were mingled with Monica’s. The two of them would ride the ferry a last time and then swirl together in the harbor forever. Cue the candles, bubbly, bagpipes and poems.

Two ferry workers approached us. We knew we were in trouble: Open containers and open flames were not allowed on the ferry.

My cousin’s husband, whispering, told the workers what we were doing and said we would be finished soon.

They walked off, and then returned. They said they had spoken to the captain, and they ushered us to the stern for some privacy. As the cup of ashes flew into the water, the ferry horn sounded two long blasts.

Advertisement

— Caitlin Margaret May

Unacceptable

Unacceptable

Dear Diary:

Advertisement

I went to a new bagel store in Brooklyn Heights with my son.

When it was my turn to order, I asked for a cinnamon raisin bagel with whitefish salad and a slice of red onion.

The man behind the counter looked up at me.

“I’m sorry,” he said. “I can’t do that.”

Advertisement

— Richie Powers

Teresa

Teresa

Dear Diary:

Advertisement

It was February 2013. With a foot of snow expected, I left work early and drove from New Jersey warily as my wipers squeaked and snow and ice stuck to my windows.

I drove east on the Cross Bronx Expressway, which was tied up worse than usual. Trucks groaned on either side of my rattling Toyota. My fingers were cold. My toes were colder. Got to get home before it really comes down, I thought to myself.

By the time I got home to my little red bungalow a stone’s throw from the Throgs Neck Bridge, the snow was already up to my ankles.

Inside, I took off my gloves, hat, scarf, coat, sweater, pants and snow boots. The bed, still unmade, was inviting me. But first, I checked my messages.

There was one from Teresa, the 92-year-old widow on the corner.

Advertisement

“Call me,” she said, sounding desperate.

I looked toward the warm bed, but … Teresa. There was a storm outside, and she was alone.

On went the pants, the sweater, the coat, the scarf, the boots and the gloves, and then I went out the door.

The snow was six inches deep on the sidewalks, so I tottered on tire tracks in the middle of the street. The wind stung my face. When I got to the end of the block, I pounded on her door.

“Teresa!” I called. No answer. “Teresa!” I called again. I heard the TV blaring. Was she sprawled on the floor?

Advertisement

I went next door and called for Kathy.

“Teresa can’t answer the door,” I said. “Probably fell.”

Kathy had a key. In the corner of her neat living room, Teresa, in pink sweatpants and sweaters, was sitting curled in her armchair, head bent down and The Daily News in her lap.

I snapped off the TV.

Startled, she looked up.

Advertisement

“Kathy! Neal!” she said. “What’s a five-letter word for cabbage?”

— Neal Haiduck

Nice Place

Nice Place

Advertisement

Dear Diary:

When I lived in Park Slope over 20 years ago, I once had to call an ambulance because of a sudden, violent case of food poisoning.

Two paramedics, a man and a woman, entered our third-floor walk-up with a portable chair. Strapping me in, the male medic quickly inserted an IV line into my arm.

Out of the corner of my eye, I could see his partner circling around and admiring the apartment.

Advertisement

“Nice place you’ve got here.” she said. “Do you own it?”

“Yeah,” I muttered, all but unconscious.

Once I was in the ambulance, she returned to her line of inquiry.

“Do you mind me asking how much you paid for your apartment?”

“$155,000,” I croaked.

Advertisement

“Wow! You must have bought during the recession.”

“Yeah” I said.

They dropped me off at Methodist Hospital, where I was tended to by a nurse as I struggled to stay lucid.

At some point, the same medic poked her head into the room with one last question:

“You wouldn’t be wanting to sell any time soon, would you?”

Advertisement

— Melinda DeRocker

Illustrations by Agnes Lee.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

New York

They Witness Deaths on the Tracks and Then Struggle to Get Help

Published

on

They Witness Deaths on the Tracks and Then Struggle to Get Help

‘Part of the job’

Edwin Guity was at the controls of a southbound D train last December, rolling through the Bronx, when suddenly someone was on the tracks in front of him.

Advertisement

He jammed on the emergency brake, but it was too late. The man had gone under the wheels.

Stumbling over words, Mr. Guity radioed the dispatcher and then did what the rules require of every train operator involved in such an incident. He got out of the cab and went looking for the person he had struck.

“I didn’t want to do it,” Mr. Guity said later. “But this is a part of the job.”

Advertisement

He found the man pinned beneath the third car. Paramedics pulled him out, but the man died at the hospital. After that, Mr. Guity wrestled with what to do next.

A 32-year-old who had once lived in a family shelter with his parents, he viewed the job as paying well and offering a rare chance at upward mobility. It also helped cover the costs of his family’s groceries and rent in the three-bedroom apartment they shared in Brooklyn.

Advertisement

But striking the man with the train had shaken him more than perhaps any other experience in his life, and the idea of returning to work left him feeling paralyzed.

Edwin Guity was prescribed exposure therapy after his train struck a man on the tracks.

Advertisement

Hundreds of train operators have found themselves in Mr. Guity’s position over the years.

And for just as long, there has been a path through the state workers’ compensation program to receiving substantive treatment to help them cope. But New York’s train operators say that their employer, the Metropolitan Transportation Authority, has done too little to make them aware of that option.

Advertisement

After Mr. Guity’s incident, no official told him of that type of assistance, he said. Instead, they gave him the option of going back to work right away.

But Mr. Guity was lucky. He had a friend who had been through the same experience and who coached him on getting help — first through a six-week program and then, with the assistance of a lawyer, through an experienced specialist.

The specialist prescribed a six-month exposure therapy program to gradually reintroduce Mr. Guity to the subway.

Advertisement

His first day back at the controls of a passenger train was on Thanksgiving. Once again, he was driving on the D line — the same route he had been traveling on the day of the fatal accident.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Mr. Guity helps care for his 93-year-old grandmother, Juanita Guity.

M.T.A. representatives insisted that New York train operators involved in strikes are made aware of all options for getting treatment, but they declined to answer specific questions about how the agency ensures that drivers get the help they need.

Advertisement

In an interview, the president of the M.T.A. division that runs the subway, Demetrius Crichlow, said all train operators are fully briefed on the resources available to them during their job orientation.

“I really have faith in our process,” Mr. Crichlow said.

Advertisement

Still, other transit systems — all of which are smaller than New York’s — appear to do a better job of ensuring that operators like Mr. Guity take advantage of the services available to them, according to records and interviews.

Advertisement

An Uptick in Subway Strikes

A Times analysis shows that the incidents were on the rise in New York City’s system even as they were falling in all other American transit systems.

Advertisement

Source: Federal Transit Administration.

Note: Transit agencies report “Major Safety and Security Events” to the F.T.A.’s National Transit Database. The Times’s counts include incidents categorized as rail collisions with persons, plus assaults, homicides and attempted suicides with event descriptions mentioning a train strike. For assaults, The Times used an artificial intelligence model to identify relevant descriptions and then manually reviewed the results.

Bianca Pallaro/The New York Times

Advertisement

San Francisco’s system provides 24-hour access to licensed therapists through a third-party provider.

Los Angeles proactively reaches out to its operators on a regular basis to remind them of workers’ compensation options and other resources.

Advertisement

The Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority has made it a goal to increase engagement with its employee assistance program.

The M.T.A. says it offers some version of most of these services.

But in interviews with more than two dozen subway operators who have been involved in train strikes, only one said he was aware of all those resources, and state records suggest most drivers of trains that strike people are not taking full advantage of them.

Advertisement

“It’s the M.T.A.’s responsibility to assist the employee both mentally and physically after these horrific events occur,” the president of the union that represents New York City transit workers, John V. Chiarello, said in a statement, “but it is a constant struggle trying to get the M.T.A. to do the right thing.”

Continue Reading

New York

Video: Protesters Arrested After Trying to Block a Possible ICE Raid

Published

on

Video: Protesters Arrested After Trying to Block a Possible ICE Raid

new video loaded: Protesters Arrested After Trying to Block a Possible ICE Raid

transcript

transcript

Protesters Arrested After Trying to Block a Possible ICE Raid

Nearly 200 protesters tried to block federal agents from leaving a parking garage in Lower Manhattan on Saturday. The confrontation appeared to prevent a possible ICE raid nearby, and led to violent clashes between the police and protesters.

[chanting] “ICE out of New York.”

Advertisement
Nearly 200 protesters tried to block federal agents from leaving a parking garage in Lower Manhattan on Saturday. The confrontation appeared to prevent a possible ICE raid nearby, and led to violent clashes between the police and protesters.

By Jorge Mitssunaga

November 30, 2025

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending