MouthBQ98 said:

---

They only needed him guilty long enough to wait for me too to fizzle.

---

Quote:

---

We conclude that the trial court erroneously admitted testimony of uncharged, alleged prior
sexual acts against persons other than the complainants of the underlying crimes because
that testimony served no material non-propensity purpose. The court compounded that
error when it ruled that defendant, who had no criminal history, could be cross examined about those allegations as well as numerous allegations of misconduct that portrayed defendant in a highly prejudicial light. The synergistic effect of these errors was not harmless.

The only evidence against defendant was the complainants' testimony, and the
result of the court's rulings, on the one hand, was to bolster their credibility and diminish
defendant's character before the jury. On the other hand, the threat of a cross-examination
highlighting these untested allegations undermined defendant's right to testify. The remedy
for these egregious errors is a new trial.

---

usmcbrooks said:

---

Turning rapists and murders loose is the DemonRats way. What happened to believe women? Oh that's right, just a campaign slogan.

---

AtticusMatlock said:

---

The full text is available on foxnews.com.

Quote:

---

We conclude that the trial court erroneously admitted testimony of uncharged, alleged prior
sexual acts against persons other than the complainants of the underlying crimes because
that testimony served no material non-propensity purpose. The court compounded that
error when it ruled that defendant, who had no criminal history, could be cross examined about those allegations as well as numerous allegations of misconduct that portrayed defendant in a highly prejudicial light. The synergistic effect of these errors was not harmless.

The only evidence against defendant was the complainants' testimony, and the
result of the court's rulings, on the one hand, was to bolster their credibility and diminish
defendant's character before the jury. On the other hand, the threat of a cross-examination
highlighting these untested allegations undermined defendant's right to testify. The remedy
for these egregious errors is a new trial.

---

This seems like the appropriate ruling.




However, he's now been convicted in California. So even though he's won a new trial guess what can come in?

---

AtticusMatlock said:

---

The full text is available on foxnews.com.

Quote:

---

We conclude that the trial court erroneously admitted testimony of uncharged, alleged prior
sexual acts against persons other than the complainants of the underlying crimes because
that testimony served no material non-propensity purpose. The court compounded that
error when it ruled that defendant, who had no criminal history, could be cross examined about those allegations as well as numerous allegations of misconduct that portrayed defendant in a highly prejudicial light. The synergistic effect of these errors was not harmless.

The only evidence against defendant was the complainants' testimony, and the
result of the court's rulings, on the one hand, was to bolster their credibility and diminish
defendant's character before the jury. On the other hand, the threat of a cross-examination
highlighting these untested allegations undermined defendant's right to testify. The remedy
for these egregious errors is a new trial.

---

This seems like the appropriate ruling.

However, he's now been convicted in California. So even though he's won a new trial guess what can come in?

---

Quote:

---

. . .
"By whitewashing the facts to conform to a he-said/she-said narrative, by ignoring evidence of defendant's manipulation and premeditation, which clouded issues of intent, and by failing to recognize that the jury was entitled to consider defendant's previous assaults," Singas continued, "This court has continued a disturbing trend of overturning juries' guilty verdicts in cases involving sexual violence."

Singas added that while she joins Judge Cannataro in dissent from the majority opinion to overturn the conviction, she wrote her dissent separately in order to "highlight how the majority's determination perpetuates outdated notions of sexual violence and allows predators to escape accountability."

The New York Judge slammed the court's decision to rule that evidence of Weinstein's previous sexual assaults was "irrelevant to this case."

"While the majority's holding may, at first glance, appear to endorse a utopic vision of sexual assault prosecution in which a victim's word is paramount, the reality is far bleaker," Singas wrote. "Critically missing from the majority's analysis is any awareness that sexual assault cases are not monolithic and that the issue of consent has historically been a complicated one, subject to vigorous debate, study, and ever-evolving legal standards."

"By ignoring the legal and practical realities of proving a lack of consent, the majority has crafted a nave narrative: that within the most fraught and intimate settings, intent is readily apparent, and issues of consent are easily ascertained," Singas said. "This conclusion deprives juries of the context necessary to do their work, forecloses the prosecution from using an essential tool to prove intent, 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."

"Because New York's women deserve better," Singas concluded. "I dissent."

---

Quote:

---

"Because New York's women deserve better," Singas concluded. "I dissent."

---