The majority decision “ignores the nuances of how sexual violence is perpetrated and perceived, and demonstrates the majority’s utter lack of understanding of the dynamics of sexual assault,” she wrote. “Because New York’s women deserve better, I dissent.”

On Thursday afternoon, Weinstein’s lawyer, Arthur Aidala, stood alongside his legal team across the street from the Manhattan courthouse where the Miramax founder was convicted in 2020, and praised the ruling.

“From our collective hundreds of years of experience, we knew Harvey Weinstein did not get a fair trial,” Aidala said. “At this courthouse behind us, at that trial, the law was not applied fairly to Harvey Weinstein. What the Court of Appeals, the highest court in the greatest state in the greatest country, said today is that no one is above the law but no one is below the law either.”

He said Weinstein is prepared to testify in his own defense at a new trial.

“We’re relieved that our system of justice wasn’t perverted,” Aidala said. “There was so much pressure because Harvey was the face of this movement that he had to be convicted under any circumstances, even if you have to throw the rulebook out the window.”

The appeals court decision dismantles a legacy achievement by former Manhattan DA Cy Vance, who retired a year after the landmark conviction. Vance did not immediately return messages seeking comment.

Joan Illuzzi-Orbon, the lead prosecutor in the case, who’s now in private practice, declined comment Thursday.

At issue was testimony by three women —Taralê Wulff who testified that Weinstein sexually assaulted her at work when she was a waitress at Cipriani’s and raped her inside his SoHo loft in 2005; Lauren Young, who said he pinned her against a hotel room sink in Beverly Hills in 2013 while groping her and masturbating; and Dawn Dunning, who testified about running out of a hotel when Weinstein tried to force her into a threesome in 2004 to get a movie role.

“The trial court abused its discretion when it ruled that defendant, who had no criminal history, could be cross-examined about prior uncharged alleged bad acts and despicable behavior which was immaterial to his in-court credibility, and which served no purpose other than to display for the jury defendant’s loathsome character,” Rivera wrote.

Lawyer Dougals Wigdor, who represents Wulff and Dunning, blasted the court’s “tragic” decision.

...continued

©2024 New York Daily News. Visit at nydailynews.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.