Connect with us

California

Here’s why Weinstein’s conviction in California stands a better chance

Published

on

Here’s why Weinstein’s conviction in California stands a better chance


Harvey Weinstein may be getting a new trial in New York after the state’s highest court tossed out his 2020 felony sex crime conviction. But his case in California likely won’t face the same fate, according to Los Angeles prosecutors and legal experts.

In December of 2022, a Los Angeles jury found Weinstein guilty of several counts of sexual assault and was sentenced to 16 years in prison two months later.

The major difference between the two cases is how each state handles the admission of evidence of uncharged allegations. 

In California, state law allows the admission of allegations of sexual offenses not listed in the indictment — specifically in sex crime cases, in accordance with California Evidence Code section 1108. Prosecutors can bring forth evidence of a defendant’s past sexual misconduct, calling in witnesses whose accusations are not part of the charges against the defendant.

Advertisement

But in New York, no such law exists. In fact, the state specifically bars the admission of such evidence.

In its 4-3 decision Thursday, the state’s Court of Appeals described the allowance of such evidence during Weinstein’s trial as a series of “egregious errors.” In addition to several uncharged allegations of sexual misconduct, the Manhattan District Attorney brought forth evidence of things like Weinstein allegedly threatening violence against people who worked for him or photoshopping a female actor’s head onto another woman’s nude body. 

The New York appeals court described such evidence as “irrelevant, prejudicial, and untested,” portraying him in a “highly prejudicial light” while trying him on charges of first-degree criminal sexual act and third-degree rape. 

New York state law bars the admission of evidence of prior uncharged crimes or allegations in accordance with the “Molineux rule,” named after the landmark People vs. Molineux case. An appeals court acquitted Roland Burnham Molineux of murder in a ruling that established the “Molineux rule” as a constitutional safeguard protecting a defendant from the assumption of guilt because they committed other, similar crimes in the past.

In a statement, the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office said it was “saddened” by the New York appeals court’s decision. However, the DA’s office noted how the New York case is different from the one in California.

Advertisement

“The legal issues identified by the New York Court of Appeal are not present in the Los Angeles County case,” the DA’s office said.

Weinstein’s lawyer, Arthur Aidala, applauded the overturning of his New York conviction in accordance with state law.

“We knew Harvey Weinstein did not get a fair trial,” Aidala said during a news conference Thursday afternoon. “There are some people who are unpopular in society but we still have to apply the law fairly.”

Weinstein is currently incarcerated in New York at the Mohawk Correctional Facility.

On Friday, Gloria Allred called the conviction reversal a “cry out” for changes to New York state law. She called for a similar law  as the one in California during a news conference alongside her client, Mimi Haley, one of the victims in the New York case.

Advertisement

“In California, we have a specific statute,” Allred said, referring to Evidence Code section 1108, which allows such evidence in sex crime cases.

“I think it’s important for the New York legislature to pass a specific statute in New York, which more clearly defines the admission of prior bad acts, witnesses and their testimony in New York — and is more protective of victims’ rights,” Allred said.

Haley said hard evidence including witnesses corroborating her allegation against Weinstein should be enough to prove his guilt. Weinstein was convicted of forcibly performing oral sex on her at his New York apartment in 2006. The appeals court tossed out the conviction for that crime but did not appeal Weinstein’s third-degree rape charge involving another victim.

But Haley said evidence of Weinstein’s other alleged sexual misconduct should be considered relevant — whether or not he was actually charged for it.

“I personally do think it’s important information to know about somebody’s character and their pattern,” Haley said.

Advertisement

Allred said the conviction reversal could have a chilling effect on victims, making them more reluctant to come forward and testify before a jury. Meanwhile, prosecutors could decide against filing charges for fear of making too weak of a case, particularly when dealing with defendants who have the kind of resources and legal representation as Weinstein, she said.

“They may feel that it’s more difficult without (evidence of) prior bad acts to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and therefore, they may decide not to charge the defendant or seek to indict at all — especially in high profile cases against the rich, the famous the powerful, well-connected defendants.”

While saying she does have some reservations, Haley said she would “consider” testifying against Weinstein in a new trial. She said preparing for the trial took two years and she faced harassment, but she wants to keep “speaking truth to power.”

“It’s a crucial moment in history to keep going and to keep standing up for truth,” she said.

Advertisement



Source link

California

PlayOn Sports fined $1.1 million by California watchdog over student data violations

Published

on

PlayOn Sports fined .1 million by California watchdog over student data violations


California’s privacy watchdog has ordered PlayOn Sports to pay a $1.10 million fine and change how it handles consumer data after finding the company’s practices violated state law in ways that affected students and schools in the state.

The California Privacy Protection Agency Board issued the decision following a settlement reached by CalPrivacy’s Enforcement Division.

The decision is the first by the board to address privacy violations involving students and California schools.

Schools across the country use PlayOn Sports’ GoFan platform to sell digital tickets to high school sporting events, theater performances, and homecoming and prom dances, with attendees presenting tickets at the door on their mobile phones.

Advertisement

Schools also use PlayOn Sports’ platforms for other sports-related activities, including attending games, streaming them online, and looking up statistics about teams and players.

In California, about 1,400 schools contract with PlayOn Sports for these services.

[RELATED] X faces possible fines as EU probes Grok nonconsensual, sexualized deepfakes

GoFan is also the official ticketing platform for the California Interscholastic Federation, the governing body for high school sports.

According to the board’s decision, PlayOn Sports used tracking technologies to collect personal information and deliver targeted advertisements to ticketholders and others using its services.

Advertisement

The company allegedly required Californians to click “agree” to tracking technologies before they could use their tickets or view PlayOn Sports websites, without providing a sufficient opt-out option.

“Students trying to go to prom or a high school football game shouldn’t have to leave their privacy rights at the door,” said Michael Macko, CalPrivacy’s head of enforcement. “You couldn’t attend these events without showing your ticket, and you couldn’t show your ticket without being tracked for advertising. California’s privacy law does not work that way. Businesses must ensure they offer lawful ways for Californians to opt-out, particularly with captive audiences.”

The decision also describes students as a uniquely vulnerable population and warns that targeted advertising systems can subject students to profiling that can follow them for years, expose them to manipulative or harmful content, and develop sensitive inferences about their lives.

Instead of providing its own opt-out method, PlayOn Sports directed students and other users to opt out through the Network Advertising Initiative and the Digital Advertising Alliance, which the decision said violated the company’s responsibility to provide its own way for consumers to opt out. The company also allegedly failed to recognize opt-out preference signals and did not provide Californians with sufficient notice of its privacy practices.

“We are committed to making it as easy as possible for all Californians — from high school students to older adults, and everyone in between — to make the choice of whether they want to be tracked or not,” said Tom Kemp, CalPrivacy’s executive director. “Californians can opt-out with covered businesses, and they can sign up for the newly launched DROP system to request that data brokers delete their personal information.”

Advertisement

Beyond the $1.10 million fine, the board’s order requires PlayOn Sports to conduct risk assessments, provide disclosures that are easy to read and understand, and implement proper opt-out methods.

The order also requires the company to comply with California’s privacy law prohibiting the selling or sharing of personal information of consumers between 13 and 16 without their affirmative opt-in consent.



Source link

Continue Reading

California

California bill to bar police from taking second job with ICE advances in state Assembly

Published

on

California bill to bar police from taking second job with ICE advances in state Assembly


Wednesday, March 4, 2026 4:43AM

CA bill to keep police from moonlighting with ICE advances

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (KABC) — A bill that would prevent police officers from moonlighting with federal immigration enforcement agencies, such as U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, is advancing through the California State Assembly.

AB 1537 passed the State Assembly’s committee on public safety on Tuesday.

The bill also requires that officers report any offers for secondary employment related to immigration enforcement to their place of work.

Those failing to comply could face decertification as a peace officer in California.

Advertisement

The bill was introduced by Assemblymember Isaac Bryan, whose district includes Mar Vista, Ladera Heights, Mid-Wilshire and parts of South Los Angeles.

Copyright © 2026 KABC Television, LLC. All rights reserved.



Source link

Continue Reading

California

Can’t win in primary election? Drop out, California Democrats say

Published

on

Can’t win in primary election? Drop out, California Democrats say


play

California Democrats running for governor, your party has a message for you. Think carefully about your candidacy and campaign ahead of the swiftly approaching filing deadline.

California Democratic Party Chair Rusty Hicks urged candidates looking to assume the state’s highest office to “honestly assess the viability of their candidacy and campaign” as March 6, the final day to declare candidacy, nears. Hicks said that concerns about the crowded field of Democrat candidates “persist” in an open letter on Tuesday, March 3.

Advertisement

It comes as five leading candidates, several of which are Democrats — Katie Porter, Eric Swalwell, and Tom Steyer — are in a “virtual tie” per a recent poll, the Desert Sun reported, which is part of the USA TODAY Network.

Two Republican candidates pushing out California democrats in the gubernatorial bid may be “implausible,” but “it is not impossible,” Hicks said of the reasoning behind his latest message. Steve Hilton and Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco, both Republicans, lead in RealClear Polling’s average of various polls.

The party chair spotlighted the need for California Democrats’ leadership, particularly over Proposition 50, the voter-approved measure that will temporarily implement new congressional district maps, paving the way for Democrats to secure more seats in the U.S. House of Representatives.

“If in the unlikely event a Democrat failed to proceed to the general election for governor, there could be the potential for depressed Democratic turnout in California in November,” Hicks said. “The result would present a real risk to winning the congressional seats required and imperil Democrats’ chances to retake the House, cut Donald Trump’s term in half, and spare our nation from the pain many have endured since January 2025.”

Advertisement

During a press conference on March 2, Gov. Gavin Newsom said that when he is out in communities, people aren’t talking about the governor’s race. It’s an observation he called “interesting,” considering voting in the primary election starts in May.

“It’s been hard, I think, to focus on that race,” Newsom said, pointing to the attention on President Donald Trump, redistricting, and other matters.

What exactly is California Democratic Party asking of candidates?

In his open letter, Hicks gave directions to candidates.

First, assess your candidacy and campaign. If you don’t have a viable path to the general election, don’t file to get your name on the ballot for the primary election in June. Also, be prepared to suspend your campaign and endorse another candidate by April 15 if you decide to file but can’t show “meaningful progress towards winning the primary election.”

Advertisement

When is the next California election? Primary election in 2026

California voters will trim the field of candidates for governor on June 2. Only the two candidates who receive the most votes, regardless of party preference, will move on to the November election.  

Paris Barraza is a reporter covering Los Angeles and Southern California for the USA TODAY Network. Reach her at pbarraza@usatodayco.com.



Source link

Continue Reading

Trending