The recent overturning of Harvey Weinstein’s sex crimes conviction by a New York court has reignited discussions surrounding the challenges faced by survivors in seeking justice, particularly within the #MeToo movement. Despite significant strides in public opinion regarding sexual harassment, the legal landscape often proves to be an uphill battle for survivors. 

Harvey Weinstein’s conviction overturning has a lot to do with the rights and legal remedies provided to women in a democracy. This judgement poses questions as to what we define as justice.  

What Was The Case?

In October 2017, The New York Times released an investigative report detailing Weinstein’s alleged pattern of sexual harassment, abuse, and clandestine settlements, revealing that he had reportedly paid off at least eight women who had accused him of sexual misconduct. Additionally, Weinstein was accused of leveraging his influence in Hollywood to exploit young women.

These revelations sparked a wave of similar accusations against powerful figures, catalysing the emergence of the ‘MeToo’ movement. Women across various industries and regions began raising awareness and advocating for resistance against sexual harassment and abuse.

Three years later, a New York court delivered a verdict, finding Weinstein guilty of sexually assaulting a former production assistant in 2006 and raping an aspiring actress in 2013. As a result, Weinstein was convicted of first-degree criminal sexual act and third-degree rape charges, ultimately receiving a sentence of 23 years behind bars.

The Court of Appeals, as reported by The New York Times, criticised Justice James M. Burke’s decision to allow prosecutors to call witnesses who accused Weinstein of assault not included in the charges against him, stating that he “erred” in this regard. This discrepancy arose because their accusations did not align with the formal charges brought against Weinstein.

Also Read: What Were The 10 Things That Helped Johnny Depp In The Victory Trial? Explained!


Despite the presence of numerous witnesses, only a few met the minimum requirements for a criminal trial in the New York case. The Times attributed this limitation to several factors. 

Firstly, some testimonies pertained to incidents of sexual harassment, which constitute civil violations rather than criminal offences. In criminal cases, the state or government initiates legal proceedings to punish offenders for violating criminal laws, potentially resulting in imprisonment, fines, probation, or counselling. Conversely, civil cases involve victims suing the accused for compensation for harm caused by assault, lacking the imposition of criminal penalties like imprisonment.

Furthermore, some witnesses’ cases were barred by the statute of limitations, which dictates the timeframe within which legal cases must be brought to court. The trial primarily relied on the testimonies of two victims who accused Weinstein of sexual assault, albeit admitting to consensual sexual activity at other times. The Times noted expert opinions characterising this evidential basis as “messy and fragile” for securing a conviction.

Another pivotal aspect leading to the overturning of the 2020 conviction was the presence of “Molineux witnesses,” also known as “prior bad act” witnesses. These witnesses, referenced in legal proceedings, testify about criminal acts the defendant has not been charged with committing.

What Are Molineux Witnesses? 

Molineux witnesses, as defined by The New York Times, are individuals allowed to testify about criminal acts not formally charged against the defendant. The analysis of the 2020 decision highlighted that a majority of the witnesses were not listed in the charges but were still called upon to testify. This legal concept originates from the 1991 decision of the New York Court of Appeals in ‘People v. Molineux,’ permitting prosecutors to present evidence of a defendant’s prior bad acts or crimes to establish various elements such as motive, opportunity, or intent.

In her judgement, Justice Jenny Rivera invoked the 1991 ruling, affirming that the accused should only be held accountable for the specific crime charged. Allegations of prior bad acts cannot be admitted solely to establish the defendant’s propensity for criminal behaviour. The court cited the 1974 decision in ‘People v. Sandoval,’ prohibiting the use of prior convictions or proof of specific criminal acts by the prosecution.

Furthermore, the reliance on the Molineux principle in the 2020 verdict was deemed contrary to the Supreme Court’s 1886 ruling in ‘Boyd vs. United States.’ This decision emphasised the court’s duty to diligently safeguard the rights of the accused, irrespective of their reputation or the pressure to secure a conviction.

Despite the overturning of Weinstein’s conviction, he remains imprisoned due to a separate rape case in Los Angeles, where he was sentenced to 16 years in prison in 2022. The December 2022 ruling in LA found Weinstein guilty of sexual penetration by a foreign object, forcible oral sex, and rape, based on accusations brought by documentary filmmaker Jennifer Siebel Newsom and an Italian actress. 

Notably, California laws differ from those in New York, allowing prosecutors to present evidence of similar crimes in sexual assault cases to establish a pattern of behavior.

The reversal of Weinstein’s conviction marks another setback for the #MeToo movement, following the 2021 decision to overturn actor Bill Cosby’s sexual assault conviction. Any appeal against the New York Court of Appeals’ decision on Weinstein will now be brought before the Supreme Court, mirroring the legal trajectory of Cosby’s case.

 Survivors’ Disappointment

The New York appeals court’s decision to overturn Harvey Weinstein’s conviction sent shockwaves through the #MeToo movement, leaving many survivors disillusioned and angered. 

Rosanna Arquette, who had made accusations against Weinstein, expressed her disappointment, stating, “Harvey was rightfully convicted. It’s unfortunate that the court has overturned his conviction. As a survivor, I am beyond disappointed.” Rose McGowan, a Weinstein accuser, emphasised the resilience of survivors, stating, “No matter what they overturn, they cannot take away who we are and what we know, what we’ve gone through and what we can achieve in this life. We are not victims. We are people that were injured by evil.” 

In response to Weinstein’s overturned conviction, advocacy groups like the Silence Breakers condemned the appeals court’s decision as profoundly unjust. The Silence Breakers stated, “The ruling overturning Weinstein’s conviction is profoundly unjust,” while reaffirming their commitment to supporting survivors and advocating for systemic change. 

Tarana Burke, credited as the founder of the #MeToo movement, emphasised the necessity of such movements in combating systemic injustices, stating, “Moments like this underscore why movements are necessary.” These collective responses highlight the resilience of survivor-led initiatives in the face of legal setbacks and underscore the ongoing battle for accountability.

High-Profile Legal Reversals 

Weinstein’s case is not an isolated incident, as evidenced by the overturning of Bill Cosby’s conviction in 2021. Amber Tamblyn, a founder of Time’s Up, expressed shock and disgust at the decision, stating, “I personally know women who this man drugged and raped while unconscious. Shame on the court and this decision.” 

Despite advancements in public discourse, the prevalence of legal reversals in the cases of the powerful agitators of law illustrates the enduring challenges faced by common people seeking justice in the US.

The challenges of seeking justice extend beyond the US, with similar struggles observed globally. This is evidenced by analogous struggles in nations like China and India. The resolution of Zhou Xiaoxuan #MeToo case in China, which concluded without a definitive determination of sexual harassment, mirrors the systemic impediments to accountability prevalent in broader societal structures. 

Similarly, in India, the handling of allegations against Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi illuminates the intricate web of complexities and barriers confronted by survivors within legal frameworks.

Navigating the legal system presents numerous barriers and dilemmas for survivors of sexual harassment. Priya Ramani, a journalist, faced a defamation case by former Union minister MJ Akbar after levelling allegations against him. 

Senior Advocate Rebecca John acknowledged the arduous legal process, stating, “It can take forever.” These barriers compel survivors to grapple with the difficult choice between seeking justice and enduring the trauma in silence.

The overturning of Harvey Weinstein’s conviction serves as a stark reminder of the enduring obstacles faced by survivors within the legal system. Despite advancements in public awareness and advocacy efforts, legal reversals and systemic barriers continue to impede the pursuit of justice for survivors of sexual harassment. 

From the US to China and India, the challenges encountered by survivors underscore the urgent need for systemic reforms and increased support mechanisms within legal frameworks. Until substantive changes are enacted, survivors will continue to confront daunting dilemmas in their quest for accountability and healing.

Sources: The New York Times, FirstPost, Indian Express

Image sources: Google Images

Feature Image designed by Saudamini Seth

Find the blogger: Katyayani Joshi

This post is tagged under: Harvey Weinstein, #MeToo, victims, survivors, justice, democracy, judiciary, legal remedies, dilemmas, accountability, Molineux Witness, appeal, Supreme Court, MJ Akbar, reforms, Weinstein, rape, harassment, sexual assault, advocacy

We do not hold any right over any of the images used, these have been taken from Google. In case of credits or removal, the owner may kindly mail us.

Other Recommendations:


ResearchED: Here’s How The Supreme Court Grants Citizens A ‘Right Against Climate Change’



Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here