Weinstein’s NY conviction overturned

Trump has some very good lawyers, you simply don't hear from them because they don't go on every right wing media outlet spouting Trump's BS. That's what his "Alina Habbas" are for. You also seemed to have glossed over how many of his prior counsel can no longer practice law, are under indictment or both.

 

Yes, they do. In NY, it's called the Molineux Rule.

https://www.nycourts.gov/judges/evidence/4-RELEVANCE/4.21_EVIDENCE_OF_CRIMES_(MOLINEUX).pdf

Evidence of other bad acts can come in to show:

"motive, opportunity, intent, preparation,
common scheme or plan, knowledge, identity,
absence of mistake or accident, or conduct that
is inextricably interwoven with the charged acts;
or to provide necessary background information
or explanation; or to complete the narrative of
the subject event or matter."

 

At least according to the legal talking heads the lawyers who are currently representing Trump are well respected litigators and John Sauer the attorney who represented him in the absolute immunity case before the Supreme Court is a well-respected appellate attorney and former Solicitor General for the State of Missouri. If they should appear less than competent it is because every one of them is constrained by an egotistical client who thinks that he knows more than they do.
Who Is Todd Blanche? Trump’s N.Y. Criminal Trial Lawyer Left High-Profile Firm Before Joining Legal Team.
And this is an article about Steven Sadow, the criminal defense attorney representing Trump in Georgia
Meet Steven Sadow, Donald Trump’s new Atlanta attorney

Sadow has represented clients such as rappers Rick Ross and T.I., NFL players Ray Lewis and Isiah Crowell, Howard Stern, and Usher. Most recently, he represented rapper Gunna in Fulton County’s other high-profile RICO trial, involving Jeffery Williams, aka Young Thug.​

 

Yes. And the New York opinion said that it was largely based on criminal law although only in one place. But in my experience, these things tend to have crossover influence

 

Reading the majority opinion, I thought they had at least a colorable argument that the judge was wrong to allow it in based upon the exception to show why HW would consider the fact that they came to the room to be affirmative consent. The majority argued that his forcible violent actions negated any suggestion that it was necessary allow in the testimony to show that he was not mistaken about consent.


But when you read the dissent, that was exactly the defense argument. Then it seemed squarely admissible

 

Notice how that poster scurried out of the thread after you posted this lol

 

This is a painful read. That decision, but I did so many survivors who testified courageously, and feel completely betrayed by the decision, justifiably so.



#MeToo advocates vow reckoning will continue after Weinstein ruling
#MeToo advocates vow reckoning will continue after Weinstein ruling - Tampa Bay Times