Of technical interest only:
"In a 4-3 decision, the appellant court determined that the Judge Burke had made an error in allowing women to testify who were not part of the case.
'It is an abuse of judicial discretion to permit untested allegations of nothing more than bad behavior that destroys a defendant's character but sheds no light on their credibility as related to the criminal charges lodged against them,' the decision read"
^^ From the Daily Mail:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13349859/Harvey-Weinsteis-New-York-sex-crime-conviction-overturned.htmlwhich seems to consistently have more complete and accurate news than most news outlets.... just sayin' incidentally.
My "technical interest" involves my long-standing and oft-repeated opinion that procedural errors on the part of the prosecution or the judge should bar retrials on that case and all charges dismissed. See and apply the
concept of "legal lenity*."
This, on my theory that if the accusers can't make a proper case the first time around, tough noogies, and go find another violation to crucify someone on. It also smacks of the "double jeopardy" clause in the Bill Of Rights**, but who gives a *expletive deleted*it about the Bill Of Rights anymore anyhow. It's just a piece of wrinkled old paper.
My technical interest is completely apart from the salacity (tee-hee-giggle-giggle) of this case.
Terry, 230RN
*
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=legal+lenity&t=brave&ia=web** I regard the Constitution and BOR as a new edition of the Common Law, so don't bring up Blackstone to me.