Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Grasso from Bloomberg Radio.
Speaker 1: Harvey Weinstein was sentenced to twenty three years in prison
Speaker 1: for raping one woman and sexually assaulting another after decades
Speaker 1: of using his immense power in Hollywood to target aspiring
Speaker 1: actresses and sparking the Me Too movement. It's a virtual
Speaker 1: life sentence for the sixty seven year old who was
Speaker 1: in poor health. Weinstein's lead defense attorney, Donna Rotuno, called
Speaker 1: the sentence up scene. I am um overcome with anger
Speaker 1: at that number. I think that number is a cowardly
Speaker 1: number to give. I think the judge caved, just as
Speaker 1: I believe the jury caved. Joining me as former federal
Speaker 1: prosecutor Jennifer Rogers a lecture at Columbia Law School. This
Speaker 1: sentence was short of the maximum, but there were audible
Speaker 1: gasps in the courtroom when the judge announced the sentence.
Speaker 1: How harsh was this sentence? Well, it's very high in
Speaker 1: terms of the range that was available to the judges.
Speaker 1: Just two years short of the max, and the minimum
Speaker 1: was five years. And he's, you know, almost sixty eight
Speaker 1: years old. So when you think about it that way,
Speaker 1: and also when you think about it compared to kind
Speaker 1: of the average sentence for the two crimes of conviction,
Speaker 1: you know, the two counts he actually was convicted of.
Speaker 1: It's very high in that respect too, So in those ways,
Speaker 1: it definitely was a sentence on the very high end.
Speaker 1: Judge James Burke said that although this was Weinstein's first conviction,
Speaker 1: it wasn't a first offense. So was he basing his
Speaker 1: sentence on the allegations of other women, allegations that were
Speaker 1: not proven at trial since the jury acquitted him of
Speaker 1: the most serious charges against him. Was Weinstein being sentenced
Speaker 1: as the emblem of the me too movement? I don't
Speaker 1: think so. You know, judges are allowed to take into
Speaker 1: account conduct that was not proved even at trial, and
Speaker 1: the prosecutors did make an aggressive pitch for the judge
Speaker 1: to do that, listing, you know, thirtysome episodes spanning forty
Speaker 1: years that Harvey Weinstein had done according to their investigation.
Speaker 1: But the judge did say during the sentencing, in response
Speaker 1: to the defense lawyer's plea that he not consider those
Speaker 1: uncharged allegations, he said something to the effect of, I'm
Speaker 1: reading the letter through the same prism you are, so
Speaker 1: that suggests to me that he didn't actually put undue
Speaker 1: emphasis on the matters in the letter that were uncharged.
Speaker 1: But remember, six women testified at trial. The judge sat
Speaker 1: through the entire trial, and the sentence suggests to me
Speaker 1: that while the defendant was not convicted of those top counts,
Speaker 1: the judge was convinced by the testimony at trial, and
Speaker 1: so to me, it said he didn't make that decision
Speaker 1: based on, you know, Harvey Weinstein being sort of a
Speaker 1: symbol that should be punished, or even based on the
Speaker 1: uncharged allegations of the prosecutor's letter, but rather on the
Speaker 1: evidence that he saw at trial from the six women
Speaker 1: who testified there, and that caused him to go much
Speaker 1: higher in the sentencing range than he otherwise might have.
Speaker 1: Arthur Idalla, one of Weinstein's lawyers, said the sentence was
Speaker 1: three times as long as the one the same judge
Speaker 1: had given a man convicted of first degree rape and
Speaker 1: the drugging of a female employee. Will that make a
Speaker 1: good appellate court challenge the length of the sentence, It's
Speaker 1: not a particularly good argument on appeal. You know, you
Speaker 1: can play this game all day long, right, You can
Speaker 1: find cases anywhere where it was harsher, it was less harsh.
Speaker 1: I mean, you know, each sentence is supposed to be
Speaker 1: individual to the defendant, to the defendants particular crime. That's
Speaker 1: how the system is set up. And so I don't
Speaker 1: think it's an issue one appeal in terms of that
Speaker 1: this sentence was too harsh because you're pointing to anybody
Speaker 1: else's specific sentence. And you know, remember another thing that
Speaker 1: the judge will consider is the sentence remorse. And I
Speaker 1: don't know how remorseful these other defendants were in the
Speaker 1: cases that Harvey Weinstein's lawyer was talking about. But Harvey
Speaker 1: Weinstein spoke today and he was not remorseful. In fact,
Speaker 1: he declared himself totally confused about what's going on here.
Speaker 1: And so you know, here's a person who has this
Speaker 1: four decade history of abuse, was convicted of very serious crimes,
Speaker 1: was charged with, although not convicted of even more serious crimes.
Speaker 1: But the judge, I think, credited that testimony and there's
Speaker 1: no remorse, so you know, I think the judge probably
Speaker 1: took that into account as well. I was surprised that
Speaker 1: Weinstein made a statement to the court when he wasn't
Speaker 1: going to show remorse and also when he's facing trial
Speaker 1: in California. Yeah, you know, defendants usually do make a
Speaker 1: statement at sentencing. Usually their lawyers write it for them
Speaker 1: so that they don't just add lib and start saying
Speaker 1: things that will hurt them, which appeared to happen to V.
Speaker 1: Weinstein today. He did not and would not have talked
Speaker 1: about the California charges, so you know, he wouldn't need
Speaker 1: to worry about that hurting him there. But I am
Speaker 1: surprised that he didn't at least express some remorse or
Speaker 1: understanding of the women who were involved in this case.
Speaker 1: He didn't need to go beyond the people, you know,
Speaker 1: who were involved in this particular case in New York.
Speaker 1: But his frankly clueless statement today I think hurt him
Speaker 1: more than if he just said nothing at all. So
Speaker 1: I think it was a mistake. One of the grounds
Speaker 1: for appeal, according to the defense attorneys, is that the
Speaker 1: judge allowed witnesses on prior bad acts cal Molino witnesses
Speaker 1: in New York, and then allowed other witnesses to testify
Speaker 1: to share up their credibility to corroborate what they said.
Speaker 1: Is that a good appalet argument? Well, the first argument
Speaker 1: about the witnesses on uncharged acts. Is this is a
Speaker 1: solid of a pellet argument, I don't. I don't know
Speaker 1: that it will win, but it's a it's a legitimate
Speaker 1: argument in the sense that it's not a settled that
Speaker 1: letting those kinds of witnesses in is okay because they
Speaker 1: are so prejudicial, you know, um. And the question is
Speaker 1: are they unfairly prejudicial? Um. So they'll have to sort
Speaker 1: that out on appeal. I think it's a reasonable question
Speaker 1: is to whether they will win that or not. In
Speaker 1: other words, it's not a slam dunk that that that
Speaker 1: will be upheld. We'll have to see, um. But letting
Speaker 1: other witnesses testify to shore up their testimony is perfectly
Speaker 1: okay if their credibility is attacked. And so that's kind
Speaker 1: of the the preface you're looking for. If if a
Speaker 1: witness testifies and her credibility is attacked and it suggested
Speaker 1: that she's making this up, then you're allowed to bring
Speaker 1: other witnesses and who say, no, you know, she she
Speaker 1: said the same thing at the time to me, and
Speaker 1: so on. So that's a very well established rule of evidence.
Speaker 1: So so that is not likely to be a legitimate
Speaker 1: argue on appeal. If if that's how that plans out. Finally,
Speaker 1: what does this trial, conviction and sentence, What kind of
Speaker 1: message does it send out about the me too movement? Well?
Speaker 1: I think, you know, you can see the victim is
Speaker 1: not just of Harvey Weinstein, but all of the women
Speaker 1: who have kind of come forward in this wave of
Speaker 1: me too in the last few years celebrating today's sentence,
Speaker 1: because I think it says to them that they're being
Speaker 1: taken seriously now that that people understand that this sort
Speaker 1: of thing happens, that women are not making it up,
Speaker 1: that they're not exaggerating, that this was going on and
Speaker 1: it's very harmful to them, and that the criminal justice
Speaker 1: system finally is listening to them and taking them seriously.
Speaker 1: And so, you know, I think they rightly feel like
Speaker 1: they're being heard, and that's a good thing. Thanks Jennifer.
Speaker 1: That's former federal prosecutor Jennifer Rogers, a lecture of Columbia
Speaker 1: Law School. Even with credit for good behavior, Wine Steam
Speaker 1: will have to serve almost twin years of his sentence
Speaker 1: and would be close to ninety on his release. Thanks
Speaker 1: for listening to the Bloomberg Law podcast. You can subscribe
Speaker 1: and listen to the show on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud, and
Speaker 1: on bloomberg dot com slash podcast. I'm June Brosso. This
Speaker 1: is Bloomberg