[Topspinmo]

Then wonder why Oscar Lopez Rivera was pardoned?

[MightyDog]

Well, color me completely not shocked about this. The overturning of the Weinstein conviction was engineered by politicians and judges. You may call them FOH (Friends of Harvey).

From article: If you’re upset that New York’s top court tossed Harvey Weinstein’s sex-crimes conviction, blame state Sen. Mike Gianaris.

The Queens Democrat and his progressive allies engineered the elevation of Rowan Wilson to the chief judgeship; after two other members of the Court of Appeals recused themselves in this case, Wilson chose the two “pinch-hitter” judges — and all three joined another lefty in issuing the 4-3 ruling that rewrote New York law to force a Weinstein retrial.

The state for a century had allowed prosecutors to bring witnesses to testify to the accused’s behavior in incidents not charged in the indictment, as the prosecution did in Weinstein’s trial; Wilson & Co. decided that’s unfair — so Harvey may walk.

His lawyers will likely use the NY decision to contest his California conviction on similar crimes.

And this is exactly the kind of result that Gianaris, state Sen. Brad Hoylman-Sigal and their cabal said they wanted in the drama that led to Wilson’s elevation.
Blame NY progressives for the outrageous Harvey Weinstein ruling

Paging BrianL99 - How about answering the questions posed in comment #28?

[Rainger99]

If you have an hour, you can watch the Weinstein appellate arguments in the NY Supreme Court. It is very interesting.

https://youtu.be/GQUD3pEKv4w?si=D8g_erA_afs_APev

There are currently seven judges on the court (four women and three men) but for some reason, two women judges didn't participate in the decision. It looks like the court asked for two other women judges to participate in this decision.

The decision was 4-3. Three women and one man voted to reverse the conviction. That decision was written by a woman. The three dissenting votes were one woman and two men. The dissent was written by a woman.

So the vote was three women and one man voting to reverse the conviction and one woman and two men voting to uphold the conviction. The women judges voted 3-1 in favor of reversal and the men judges voted 2-1 in favor of convicting him.

Does that say anything about the MeToo movement?

[MightyDog]

Originally Posted by Rainger99

There are currently seven judges on the court (four women and three men) but for some reason, two women judges didn't participate in the decision. It looks like the court asked for two other women judges to participate in this decision.

The decision was 4-3. Three women and one man voted to reverse the conviction. That decision was written by a woman. The three dissenting votes were one woman and two men. The dissent was written by a woman.

So the vote was three women and one man voting to reverse the conviction and one woman and two men voting to uphold the conviction. The women judges voted 3-1 in favor of reversal and the men judges voted 2-1 in favor of convicting him.

I think you're trying to front some theory that the gender of judges is more relevant than their expertise in the law, regarding court outcomes. I don't agree with the premise.

It was almost entirely lost in media coverage that THREE judges voted against this overturn. That should be a red flag to any rational person. I started laughing when I saw the ratio of 4/3 and immediately figured HW and his lawyers wrangled that outcome - it's the Harvey way.

If the info put forth in that linked NY Post article is accurate, that's exactly what they did. Stacked the court for the outcome they wanted. That's "justice" in America.

[Rainger99]

Originally Posted by MightyDog

I think you're trying to front some theory that the gender of judges is more relevant than their expertise in the law, regarding court outcomes. I don't agree with the premise.

I am not trying to front some theory on gender. I am just pointing out the sex of the judges that made the decision.

However, some people have said that we need more women on the courts so that they courts can better understand women. I was a bit surprised that the women on the court were less sympathetic to the victims (all women) than the men were.

In fact, the dissent said "because New York’s women deserve better, I dissent.”

One of the men in his dissent stated "Rooted in centuries of deeply patriarchal and misogynistic legal tradition, progress toward a more enlightened and evidence-based approach to the prosecution of rape and related crimes perpetrated predominantly against women has been both challenging and sporadic, with most meaningful progress achieved only over the past 50 years."

I would not expect three women would vote in favor of a "deeply patriarchal and misogynistic legal tradition" and against an "enlightened and evidence based approach to the prosecution of rape."

[MightyDog]

Originally Posted by Rainger99

I would not expect three women would vote in favor of a "deeply patriarchal and misogynistic legal tradition" and against an "enlightened and evidence based approach to the prosecution of rape."

Thanks for the details. I will only repeat what appears to be the unsurprising case here: STACKED court.

(Just like Congress is stacked, many state Governors, AGs and legislators, Boards of large corporations and on and on. Not starting a verboten political dialogue; just making a valid point.)