California Appeals Court Upholds Harvey Weinstein's Rape Conviction, Orders Resentencing

An appeals court on Friday upheld Harvey Weinstein’s 2022 rape and sexual assault conviction in California, but ordered that the trial judge who sentenced him to 16 years in prison resentence the case.

A unanimous three-judge panel from California’s 2nd District Court of Appeal ruled that the trial judge did not violate the former movie mogul’s constitutional rights.

“We reject his attempts to disturb the jury’s guilty verdicts,” the judges wrote in their opinion.

Weinstein spokesperson Juda Engelmayer said in an email: “We are disappointed by today’s decision and respectfully disagree with the Court of Appeal’s conclusions regarding the fairness of Mr. Weinstein’s trial. At the same time, the court correctly recognized that his sentence cannot stand.”

The decision came a day after prosecutors in New York decided Weinstein would not face a fourth trial there, dropping the #MeToo-era case after the accuser said she could not bear to testify again.

The California panel said that resentencing was necessary because the judge who sentenced him considered New York convictions that were later thrown out as an aggravating factor. California's attorney general agreed.

Weinstein, 74, still stands convicted of another sexual felony in New York, and he remains behind bars awaiting a September sentencing there. Prosecutors there are seeking a 20-year prison term.

In California, Weinstein was convicted in December 2022 of one count of rape and two counts of sexual assault against an Italian model and actor known during the trial as Jane Doe 1. He would serve his new sentence there only after his New York term is complete.

After the trial, Jane Doe 1 came forward under her name, Evgeniya Chernyshova, when she sued Weinstein in civil court.

The Associated Press does not typically name people who say they have been sexually abused unless they come forward publicly as Chernyshova did. Her attorney also said she consented to being named.

Chernyshova testified that Weinstein arrived uninvited to her hotel room during the 2013 LA Italia Film Festival and assaulted her.

Weinstein’s defense argued that Weinstein deserved a new trial because Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Lisa B. Lench wrongly prevented his trial lawyers from asking about Facebook messages between Chernyshova and festival head Pascal Vicedomini that would have shown they had a sexual relationship.

The questioning would have demonstrated that she perjured herself when she said she and Vicedomini were just friends and colleagues, the defense said. And the lawyers argued it would have bolstered their assertion that she was not even in her room on the night of the alleged assault.

“The lower court all but gutted Mr. Weinstein’s defense,” attorney Jennifer Bonjean told the appeals judges at April 23 oral arguments.

But the appeals court said in its ruling that Weinstein did make the arguments he wanted during the trial based on other evidence, including another set of Facebook messages that Lench allowed.

“Thus, there was no denial of Weinstein’s constitutional right to present a defense,” the panel wrote in its opinion.

The three judges also found that Weinstein's lawyers failed to adhere to California's rape shield law prohibiting evidence of an accuser's sexual history when they tried to introduce the messages. Weinstein's lawyers had argued that the shield law was not pertinent because they wanted to use the messages only to impeach the witness's credibility.

And the appeals judges said testimony from accusers describing sexual assaults Weinstein was not charged with was appropriate, and allowed under state law.

Before his sentencing, Weinstein told the judge that this was a “made-up story” from a woman he had never met.

The Los Angeles jury acquitted Weinstein of the sexual battery of a massage therapist and failed to reach verdicts on counts involving two other women.

“This is not the end of the appellate process,” Engelmayer said in his email Friday. “We intend to seek review in the California Supreme Court because we continue to believe significant legal errors affected the proceedings and warrant further review.”

The Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office said it would not have comment on the decision until the office reviewed it.

An email seeking comment from Chernyshova’s attorney was not immediately answered.