Harvey Weinstein‘s lawyer urged the best courtroom in New York to overturn his conviction on Wednesday, saying that too many accusers had been allowed to testify at his trial.

Arthur Aidala challenged the trial decide’s ruling permitting three girls to testify as “Molineux” witnesses. The ladies spoke about sexual assaults that weren’t among the many fees, however did assist set up a sample of misconduct.

Had Weinstein testified in his personal protection, the prosecutors additionally would have been allowed to boost 28 allegations of different dangerous acts, together with that Weinstein threw a desk of meals at an worker and threatened to sever somebody’s genitals.

Aidala argued that the 2 rulings made it inconceivable for Weinstein to get a good trial.

“That is main prejudice,” Aidala stated. “It’s saying, ‘He’s a foul man. He’s a foul man. He’s a foul man.’”

Weinstein, the previous Hollywood producer, is serving a 23-year sentence for rape and sexual assault at Mohawk Correctional Facility in Rome, N.Y. He was individually convicted in Los Angeles of further rape fees and was sentenced to 16 years in that case.

In New York, a decrease courtroom rejected Weinstein’s arguments and upheld his conviction on a 5-0 vote in June 2022. Weinstein appealed to the Courtroom of Appeals — the state’s highest courtroom — which agreed to listen to the case.

In the course of the questioning, among the judges raised questions in regards to the Molineux ruling and the Sandoval ruling, which might have allowed the prosecution to assault Weinstein’s credibility if he had taken the stand.

Aidala argued that Weinstein was “begging to inform his facet of the story,” however that the Sandoval ruling made that too nice a danger.

“It’s a he-said, she-said case, and he stated, ‘That’s not the way it occurred. There was an interplay. I’ll let you know the way it occurred,’” Aidala stated. “Then this Sandoval ruling got here down — in contrast to something we’ve ever seen.”

Questioning the prosecutor’s workplace, Affiliate Justice Betsy Barros appeared to agree that the ruling was extreme.

“This Sandoval ruling — I don’t assume anyone of their proper thoughts would testify,” she stated. “How is that this a good trial, while you’re not in a position to put in your facet of it?”

Decide Jenny Rivera additionally appeared to query whether or not the Molineux witnesses had been wanted to ascertain a singular sample of occasions.

“What’s distinctive a few highly effective man attempting to get a girl to have intercourse with him?” she requested.

At one other level, she prompt that Molineux — a case determined in 1901 — may want “rethinking.”

Steven Wu, the chief of appeals for the Manhattan D.A.’s workplace, argued that the Molineux witnesses had been known as to ascertain that Weinstein didn’t care whether or not the ladies he focused had been consenting or not.

“He knew he was going to provoke a sexual encounter, no matter their consent,” Wu stated.

And different judges appeared to consider that the Molineux testimony was applicable.

Decide Madeline Singas famous that Weinstein’s protection was that the sexual encounters had been transactional, and that the Molineux witnesses helped set up that they weren’t.

“The jury has a proper to know that when these girls are put into that place, that he has carried out this time and time once more, and that he is aware of this isn’t a consensual state of affairs as a result of he is aware of these different girls haven’t consented to that, and have run out,” she stated.

Decide Anthony Cannataro additionally argued that the proof might be helpful in serving to to find out whether or not each side had been really consenting.

“That to me looks as if what Molineux was made for,” he stated.

The judges’ questions could have restricted predictive energy.

In the course of the December 2021 oral argument on the Appellate Division, First Judicial Division, three of the 5 judges expressed concern that the Molineux and Sandoval rulings had gone too far. One referred to it as “overkill.” However all 5 later voted to uphold the conviction.

In a press release following the argument, Aidala famous that the judges had raised issues about a number of vital points, and stated, “we’re cautiously optimistic that Harvey Weinstein’s conviction can be overturned.”