WendyMurphy's blog

When Harvey Weinstein’s rape conviction was overturned last month, women were outraged, not only because a man accused of sexually assaulting nearly 100 women was exonerated, but also because of why the court ruled the way it did.

The court said Weinstein did not get a fair trial because in addition to the three victims whose cases were part of the formal charges, three other women that Weinstein had sexually violated were also allowed to testify. This violated Weinstein’s rights, the court said, because instead of focusing on the evidence in the case, it painted Weinstein as a bad man who has a propensity to harm women.

This issue in the law - known as the prior bad acts rule - refers to how courts treat evidence that is relevant, but also prejudicial. For example, if a man is charged with arson of his home, and cops learn during their investigation that the man previously filed a false insurance claim involving a car accident, one could argue that the false insurance claim is fair game to use against him in the arson case because it shows that he had a financial motive to burn the house down. But there’s a difference between a false insurance claim and an arson case, and a jury should not find a person guilty just because they think he’s the type of person who has a propensity to steal things for money. A judge must balance how helpful the evidence is against how harmful it is. To determine helpfulness, the court first looks at what the prosecution must prove to win its case. In the arson example, the prosecution must prove that the man unlawfully set fire to his home. They do not have to prove that he had a specific motive or intent, so his reason for committing the crime isn’t critical to the case, even though it is relevant. Likewise, in Weinstein’s case, the prosecution did not have to prove that the Hollywood mogul had a specific motive or intent when he raped women, so reasonable judges can disagree about whether the prior bad acts evidence should be admitted. The trial judge and the lower appellate court said the evidence was fair game; New York’s highest court disagreed.