Harvey Weinstein’s lawyers faced a skeptical appellate court panel in Los Angeles on Thursday, arguing that Weinstein’s 2022 rape conviction should be thrown out.
Weinstein, 74, was sentenced to 16 years in prison in February 2013 for raping an Italian model at the Mr. C Hotel near Beverly Hills.
During Thursday’s oral argument, defense attorney Jennifer Bonjean argued that the trial court wrongly withheld lewd Facebook messages between the victim and Italian film festival operator Pascal Vicedomini.
“The lower courts pretty much destroyed Mr. Weinstein’s defense,” Bonjean argued, arguing that jurors were unaware of key evidence that the victim was with Mr. Vicedomini, not Mr. Weinstein, on the night of the incident. “It would have helped prove the defense a lot.”
Mr. Weinstein’s previous rape conviction in New York state was overturned by the state Supreme Court, which found that prosecutors were allowed to introduce unfavorable testimony from women who said they had been assaulted but were not charged.
Mr. Weinstein faced similar testimony at his Los Angeles trial, but that testimony was not the main subject of Thursday’s appellate arguments. Outside court, Bonjean explained that California law gives prosecutors the freedom to introduce “propensity” evidence of sexual assault.
Although she argued that excessive additional testimony was allowed, her main argument related to the exclusion of evidence of a sexual relationship with Vicedomini. The victim and deputy Domini both deny having an affair, and Bonjean argued that the defense should have relied on sexually suggestive messages to impeach testimony.
In response, Deputy Attorney General David Glassman argued that the defense had in fact discussed the alleged incident extensively with the jury. Furthermore, he argued that the incident — if it actually occurred — was unrelated to the question of whether the victim was raped.
“This is yet another despicable message,” he said. “It does not apply to the issues at issue in this case.”
Mr. Glassman also argued that any attempt to prove a sexual relationship between the victim and another person violates California’s rape shield law, which prevents the defense from investigating a rape victim’s sexual history.
All three justices, Michelle Kim, Gregory Weingart and Helen Bendix, directed skeptical questions at Weinstein’s lawyers.
“Some may argue that you have presented the theory,” Bendix said at one point.
Mr. Weingart and Mr. Kim each noted that Mr. Weinstein’s trial lawyers had not objected to excluding some of the messages, and refrained from Mr. Weinstein raising the issue in his appeal. Mr. Weingart also pressed Mr. Bonjean about why the rape shield law does not apply.
Mr. Bonjean also argued that Mr. Vicedomini’s testimony (obtained via Zoom from Italy before the trial and then presented to the jury) should have been excluded because Mr. Weinstein’s lawyers were denied the opportunity to cross-examine Mr. Weinstein directly.
Bendix shook his head and said he was “absolutely not complying,” noting that the defense needed Vicedomini’s testimony to make its case. “He was the key to your alibi,” she said.
Mr. Weinstein is in New York, facing a fourth rape trial on one of two counts that were overturned by the state appellate court. He was re-convicted last summer on other charges but has not yet been sentenced.
