A state appeals court has upheld Harvey Weinstein‘s rape conviction in California while ordering him to be resentenced.
Weinstein is currently serving a 16-year sentence for his California conviction, the higher end of the maximum term because of his prior guilty verdict in New York. A three-judge panel of California’s 2nd District Court of Appeal found on Friday that the sentence should be revisited after that conviction was overturned.
“The sentence is vacated and the matter is remanded for resentencing,” noted the docket. “In all other respects, the judgment is affirmed.”
In a statement, a spokesperson for Weinstein said the former film producer will appeal to the California Supreme Court and that his lawyers “remain confident that significant legal issues deserve further consideration.” He added, “While the court affirmed the convictions, it also recognized that Mr. Weinstein is entitled to a new sentencing hearing.”
The order was issued the same day that a New York state court judge dismissed a third-degree rape charge against Weinstein after Manhattan prosecutors said they wouldn’t pursue a fourth trial. He awaits sentencing for a conviction on a single court of criminal sexual act against former Project Runway assistant Miriam Haley. Prosecutors said they’ll move for a 20-year prison term.
Since 2020, Weinstein has faced four trials in two states. Two juries in New York have deadlocked on a charge related to whether he raped Jessica Mann, who elected not to proceed testifying in a fourth trial, in a hotel room in 2013.
“It is clear, when a convicted rapist is awarded privileges to continue to shield a jury from past settlements, nondisclosure agreements, prior convictions, or other abuse, there is no true justice for a victim of sexual assault when that rapist is a predator,” she said in a statement.
In 2024, the New York’s highest court overturned Weinstein’s 2020 rape conviction after finding that the judge who oversaw the trial “erroneously admitted testimony of uncharged, alleged prior sexual acts” in what amounted to an “abuse of judicial discretion.”
Unlike in New York, courts in California are allowed to introduce evidence that demonstrate a defendant’s propensity to commit sex crimes, even when the allegations haven’t led to formal charges. Such evidence is only allowed in New York courts when it’s necessary to provide history on a defendant’s motive, intent or common scheme to carry out the alleged crimes.
