Search results
Should not have been allowed
- Last month the New York Court of Appeals — by a 4-3 vote — ruled the testimony of “prior bad acts” witnesses should not have been allowed in Weinstein's case because it “was unnecessary to establish defendant’s intent and served only to establish defendant’s propensity to commit the crimes charged.”
www.msn.com › en-us › newsHarvey Weinstein Could Face New Charges, Manhattan ... - MSN
People also ask
Should 'prior bad acts' witnesses be allowed before Weinstein retrial?
Did a bad act witness testify in the Weinstein trial?
Should 'prior bad acts' witnesses be allowed?
Did Weinstein err when he let women testify he assaulted them?
1 day ago · Wednesday’s hearing ahead of Weinstein’s retrial comes just over a month after the New York Court of Appeals – by a 4-3 vote – ruled the testimony of “prior bad acts” witnesses should ...
May 9, 2024 · In last month’s 4-3 ruling, the state’s highest court found the Weinstein jury could have been prejudiced against Weinstein because the judge allowed women to testify about allegations that...
23 hours ago · Last month the New York Court of Appeals — by a 4-3 vote — ruled the testimony of “prior bad acts” witnesses should not have been allowed in Weinstein's case because it “was unnecessary ...
Apr 25, 2024 · 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.
Apr 27, 2024 · Unless new accusers — who may be called as witnesses at the second trial — come forward, prosecutors would have to rely on the testimony of one or both of the women Mr. Weinstein was initially...
Apr 25, 2024 · However, the state court of appeals overturned that conviction Thursday and ordered a new trial, stating that the use of “prior bad acts” witnesses should not have been allowed.
