Why Harvey Weinstein’s Conviction Was Overturned — A Legal Perspective on the Imperative of Due Process

By Devin Breitenberg

The decision by the New York Court of Appeals in April 2024 to overturn Harvey Weinstein’s 2020 rape conviction ignited fierce debate and emotional backlash. For many, Weinstein’s original conviction was a watershed moment — a symbol of progress in the reckoning against sexual misconduct in powerful circles. To have it reversed feels, understandably, like a setback.

But as an attorney who has spent years navigating the nuances of courtroom justice, I want to emphasize a critical truth: our legal system must not be driven by outcomes, but by the process that gets us there. The ruling in People v. Weinstein wasn’t about whether Weinstein is a good or bad person. It was about whether his trial followed the Constitution. In the eyes of the court, it did not.

What Went Wrong: The Core Legal Error

The central issue at the heart of the Court of Appeals’ 4–3 decision was the trial court's decision to admit extensive “prior bad acts” testimony — allegations from women who were not part of the criminal charges but were allowed to testify that Weinstein had also assaulted them in the past.

While this kind of evidence is not strictly prohibited, it is limited by Rule 404(b) and related precedent. The law generally bars using someone’s past behavior to prove they acted the same way in the instance being tried. Exceptions exist — for example, to show a pattern, motive, or intent — but those exceptions must be used with great caution, especially in emotionally charged trials like this one.

In Weinstein’s case, these testimonies were not just briefly referenced — they became central to the trial narrative. One could argue they overshadowed the actual charges, which focused on specific events involving two women. This not only muddied the evidentiary waters but also likely prejudiced the jury, prompting them to convict not based solely on the alleged incidents at trial, but because they were convinced that Weinstein was a “bad man.”

That is not justice. That is character assassination dressed up as evidence.

Why This Matters: The Right to a Fair Trial

The Sixth Amendment guarantees every defendant the right to a fair trial — and that includes a trial where guilt is determined strictly on the evidence legally admissible under procedural safeguards. When the prosecution relies heavily on uncharged conduct, and the court fails to draw a firm boundary around that, the entire process is compromised.

Let’s be clear: this ruling does not declare Weinstein innocent. It doesn’t invalidate the harm felt by his accusers. It simply affirms that the original trial was procedurally flawed, and therefore, the conviction cannot stand.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s dissent in this case offers an emotional and powerful counterpoint, but even she acknowledges the central tension: balancing a fair trial for the accused with the need to allow victims to be heard. The majority held that in this instance, the scale tipped too far in one direction — against fairness.

Comparative Legal Precedent

This is not the first time a high-profile conviction has been overturned due to improperly admitted “prior bad acts.” Consider the Bill Cosby case, where the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled in 2021 that Cosby’s rights had been violated because of a non-prosecution agreement and also flagged concerns about prejudicial testimony.

In both Cosby’s and Weinstein’s cases, appellate courts raised the alarm about trials morphing into referenda on the accused’s entire life, rather than focusing on the evidence specific to the charges. It sets a dangerous precedent to allow courts to pile on inflammatory, extraneous accusations that the defendant cannot adequately rebut, especially if they are not formally charged.

Public Backlash vs. Legal Clarity

The public — rightly incensed by the widespread abuse uncovered during the #MeToo movement — often views these reversals as miscarriages of justice. But appellate courts aren’t there to soothe public outrage. They exist to ensure that trials adhere to the rule of law — not the court of public opinion.

In fact, the hallmark of a just legal system is its willingness to protect the rights of the unpopular, even the reviled. When the system begins to justify “shortcuts” for the sake of securing convictions against high-profile offenders, it is not long before those same shortcuts are used to undermine the rights of ordinary people.

This principle is not an abstraction. It is what prevents the legal system from becoming a tool of vengeance rather than a mechanism of justice.

What Comes Next: Retrial and the Path Forward

Weinstein's retrial began in New York in April 2025, and he still faces a 16-year sentence from a separate conviction in Los Angeles for sexual assault. Prosecutors have vowed to retry the New York charges with a narrowed witness list and revised evidentiary boundaries.

The outcome of that retrial could be very similar — or very different — depending on how the new trial is handled. But that’s the point: Weinstein must be convicted again only if the new trial is fair. If he is to be found guilty, let it be because the evidence meets the standard — not because of public pressure, media hype, or emotionally charged but unrelated testimony.

This also poses a larger question to prosecutors nationwide: how can we ensure justice for victims without undermining constitutional protections for the accused? That balance will define the next generation of sexual assault litigation and perhaps shape the future of criminal law in the #MeToo era.

Final Thoughts: The System on Trial

If we truly care about justice — real, durable, principled justice — we must defend the rules even when we dislike the outcome. Courts must not be places where public emotion overrides legal process. They must be places where every person, no matter how despised, receives the rights guaranteed to them under the Constitution.

The reversal of Harvey Weinstein’s conviction is not a failure. It is evidence that our system is capable of holding itself accountable. Whether the retrial results in a conviction or acquittal, the integrity of that process is what truly matters.  This ruling does not exonerate Weinstein. It does not say the jury got it wrong. It simply says the trial was conducted in a manner inconsistent with the law, and as such, the verdict cannot stand.

A Retrial Ahead

A retrial is already underway in New York, and Weinstein remains imprisoned due to a separate 16-year sentence handed down in Los Angeles in 2022 for sexual assault. The Manhattan District Attorney has re-indicted him on multiple counts, and prosecutors are presenting many of the same allegations — this time within stricter evidentiary bounds.

Whether he is convicted again or not, the retrial will be seen as a test of whether the justice system can hold high-profile defendants accountable without compromising their constitutional rights.

The Takeaway

The reversal of Weinstein’s conviction is not a loophole or technicality — it is a reminder that justice must be pursued lawfully. If the rules are bent for the most reviled, they can be bent for anyone. That is not a flaw in the system; it is the system working exactly as it should.

For the rule of law to have meaning, it must be applied even — and especially — when the stakes are highest and emotions run deepest.

Devin Breitenberg is a legal consultant and senior counsel at Devin Law LLC and legal contributor  for Veritas Expositae.  You can reach her at devin.breitenberg@veritasexpositae.com