An attorney for Harvey Weinstein said Monday that her client’s Los Angeles sex crime convictions should be in jeopardy “if fairness prevails” in the California courts, arguing that the overturning of the disgraced movie producer’s rape conviction in New York is highly relevant to existing appellate efforts.
Jennifer Bonjean appeared on NewsNation’s “Dan Abrams Live” on Monday and made the case that because the Los Angeles jury that convicted Weinstein in 2022 reached that decision knowing that he was a convicted felon in NY, which changed last week when the Empire State’s top court determined that “uncharged, alleged prior sexual acts against persons other than the complainants of the underlying crimes” were “erroneously admitted” into evidence.
Bonjean, also an R. Kelly lawyer, said that the “presumption of innocence just didn’t exist for Harvey Weinstein from the start,” whether in NY or, later, LA.
“Well, you have to understand that when that Los Angeles jury walked into that courtroom, not only did every potential juror understand that there were allegations generally in the media that he was alleged to have committed these heinous sex crimes. But what they also understood and knew was that he was a convicted felon, he came into that courtroom with the stamp of convicted felon on his back,” Bonjean told host Dan Abrams. “And they believed that he had been righteously convicted in a fair trial by 12 jurors, of his peers, and that it was done so fairly.”
The lawyer said that NY case was “essentially rigged” but nonetheless played a role in both Weinstein’s LA convictions and sentencing.
“And that turns out not to be the case at all, that that trial was essentially rigged in the sense that the prosecution cheated by presenting excessive evidence of other bad acts that prevented him from getting a fair shake on the charged offenses. And that was the lens through which this jury look through the evidence in the Los Angeles trial, so the presumption of innocence just didn’t exist for Harvey Weinstein from the start,” Bonjean said.
In Bonjean’s view, the overturned conviction should play a key role in challenging the LA case outcome as a whole or at least lead to a sentence that is not based on convicted felon status.
“And now we have much to unravel as a result of not only this New York case being overturned, but also because there was evidence that was excluded from the jury. So it’s not just the New York case on which this appeal hangs, if you will, not to mention his sentence was premised on a prior conviction,” the attorney said. “He was sentenced with a conviction. So you know, even just the mere fact of a sentencing hearing, you know is another thing that we need to consider.”
Near the end of the interview, Bonjean was asked if she had anything to say to Weinstein accusers who were shocked by the overturned conviction.
“I don’t really know that I understand that question. What do I say to them? Why? Because I’m a woman,” she said. “My client who is presumed innocent and who I believe is innocent so that’s my loyalties lie. I don’t really believe it’s my place to be speaking to the victims in this case, or the alleged victims, that is for someone else to do.”
Have a tip we should know? [email protected]
