A California appeals court on Friday upheld Harvey Weinstein’s 2022 rape and sexual assault conviction but ordered the trial judge to resentence him, marking a significant moment in the #MeToo-era case that has spanned multiple states and years of litigation.
A three-judge panel from California’s 2nd District Court of Appeal unanimously rejected Weinstein’s bid to overturn the verdict, concluding that the trial judge did not violate his constitutional rights. The judges wrote that they would reject his attempts to disturb the jury’s guilty verdicts. However, the court found that resentencing was necessary because the original judge had considered New York convictions that were later thrown out as an aggravating factor in determining the sentence. California’s attorney general agreed with that assessment.
Weinstein, 74, was convicted in December 2022 of one count of rape and two counts of sexual assault against an Italian model and actress identified during the trial as Jane Doe 1, later revealed to be Evgeniya Chernyshova. He received a 16-year prison sentence comprising eight years for forcible oral copulation, six years for forcible sexual penetration, and two years for forcible rape.
The appeal focused heavily on Weinstein’s claim that the trial judge, Superior Court Judge Lisa B. Lench, improperly restricted his defense by limiting testimony from the head of a film festival. Weinstein’s attorneys argued that the judge unfairly prevented them from questioning Chernyshova about Facebook messages between her and Pascal Vicedomini, the proprietor of the LA Italia Film Festival, which the defense claimed would have shown they had a sexual relationship. The defense contended this evidence would have demonstrated that Chernyshova perjured herself when she testified she and Vicedomini were merely friends and colleagues, and would have supported their argument that she was not even in her hotel room on the night of the alleged assault.
Attorney Jennifer Bonjean, representing Weinstein, told the appellate judges during oral arguments in April that the lower court had essentially “gutted” his client’s defense. However, the appeals court concluded that Weinstein did make the arguments he wanted to present during trial based on other evidence, including a separate set of Facebook messages that Judge Lench had allowed. The three-judge panel, writing through Justice Michelle Kim, stated that “there was no denial of Weinstein’s constitutional right to present a defense.”
The court also found that Weinstein’s legal team failed to comply with California’s rape shield law, which prohibits evidence of an accuser’s sexual history. Weinstein’s lawyers had argued the shield law did not apply because they sought to use the messages only to impeach the witness’s credibility rather than to introduce evidence of sexual conduct, but the appellate panel rejected this distinction.
Additionally, the court upheld the trial judge’s decision to allow four accusers to testify about sexual assaults Weinstein was not charged with. The appellate judges found such testimony was relevant to demonstrate his propensity to commit the sexual offenses charged in the case.
Chernyshova testified that Weinstein arrived uninvited to her hotel room during the 2013 LA Italia Film Festival and assaulted her. After the trial concluded, she publicly identified herself and subsequently sued Weinstein in civil court.
Weinstein’s spokesperson Juda Engelmayer said in a statement that the defense was “disappointed” by the decision and disagreed with the court’s conclusions about the fairness of the trial. However, he acknowledged that “the court correctly recognized that his sentence cannot stand.” Engelmayer announced that Weinstein would seek further review in the California Supreme Court, stating “This is not the end of the appellate process” and emphasizing that his legal team believes “significant legal errors affected the proceedings and warrant further review.”
The appeals court decision came just one day after prosecutors in New York announced they would drop a rape charge against Weinstein after the accuser said she could not bear to testify again. That case involved Jessica Mann and had resulted in two hung juries in previous trials.
Weinstein remains behind bars and faces additional legal jeopardy. He still stands convicted of another sexual felony in New York involving a different woman and is scheduled to be sentenced there in September. New York prosecutors are seeking a 20-year prison term on that conviction. He would serve any California sentence only after completing his New York term.
The Los Angeles jury that convicted Weinstein in 2022 had acquitted him of the sexual battery of a massage therapist and failed to reach verdicts on counts involving two other women.
Chernyshova’s attorney, David Ring, responded to the appellate decision by saying she “has persevered for years to reach this point against the man who raped her” and expressed gratitude to prosecutors and appellate lawyers “for putting Harvey Weinstein away for good.”
The case represents one of the most high-profile prosecutions emerging from the #MeToo movement, which intensified following revelations about Weinstein’s decades of alleged sexual misconduct. The former movie producer’s legal battles across multiple jurisdictions have stretched over several years, with this California decision now requiring Judge Lench to reconsider his sentencing in light of the overturned New York convictions that can no longer be used as an aggravating factor.