(CNN) — The star witness in Harvey Weinstein’s historic rape trial says she would consider testifying in a new trial, after the former Hollywood producer’s New York conviction was overturned by the state Court of Appeals this week.
Mimi Haley, who was a production assistant on The Weinstein Company’s show “Project Runway,” testified in the 2020 criminal trial that Weinstein had restrained her and forced her to have sex in 2006. After a jury found him guilty of first-degree criminal sexual act against Haley and third-degree rape of another key witness, Jessica Mann, Weinstein was sentenced to 23 years, 20 of them related to the charge to which Haley testified. Weinstein has maintained his innocence and has denied any non-consensual sexual activity.
“We’re all in a little bit of shock,” Haley said Friday during a news conference with her attorney Gloria Allred following the overturning of the conviction. “I felt sick to my stomach and my heart sank.” She also said that in the previous 24 hours she had been in contact with at least one other woman who testified at the historic trial.
On Thursday, the New York Court of Appeals overturned Weinstein’s conviction and ordered a new trial, stating that the use of witnesses to “prior bad acts” should not have been allowed. And although the court disagreed with what the judge allowed at trial, the surprising decision to overturn the conviction is seen as a setback for the #MeToo movement, after Weinstein’s fall from grace sparked a cultural revolution for victims of sexual assaults.
A spokesman for the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office said “we will do everything in our power” to retry the case. In the event of a new trial, Haley said she is weighing whether to testify again. She noted the personal cost of enduring a high-profile sexual assault trial, but said she believes the case is strong enough without witnesses to “prior bad acts,” who would not be allowed to testify in the new trial. .
“The truth doesn’t change, the evidence is still there, so I don’t see why there would be any other outcome,” Haley said.
Haley told reporters at the virtual press conference that preparing for a trial of this nature is a “very, very long process,” which is “much longer than what the public sees.” Referring to the sacrifice victims make to testify in a high-profile criminal trial, she shared her personal experience, stating that she was “living in fear for years” and that she was harassed by the public.
“It involves retraumatizing, repeating and reliving over and over again,” Haley said. “I definitely don’t want to go through that again.”
And he continued: “It’s not just about me. It’s a very important case. It’s in the public spotlight, which is difficult for me personally, but it’s important for the collective. Those are the reasons why “I would do it again. I don’t do it just for myself.”
Haley and Allred said they believe witnesses to “prior bad acts” are relevant in sex crime cases, and should be allowed in court, although it is up to the judge’s discretion.
“I personally think it’s important information to know someone’s character and their employer,” Haley said.
Allred called for new legislation in New York state to clarify when and how victims of “prior bad acts” are allowed to be used. In the Harvey Weinstein cases, prosecutors asked to use these witnesses to help establish a pattern of Weinstein’s behavior. But the state’s highest court disagreed, ruling on appeal by a 4-3 vote this week that witnesses to “prior bad acts” should not have been allowed because “they were unnecessary to establish the defendant’s intent and “They only served to establish the defendant’s propensity to commit the crimes charged.”
The difference with the Harvey Weinstein trial in California
In the state of California, where Weinstein was convicted in 2022 of rape and sexual assault, the use of “prior bad acts” witnesses is allowed to demonstrate things such as motive, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, absence of error or accident, or if a defendant charged with an unlawful sexual act did not reasonably and in good faith believe that the victim consented. Allred said he would like to see New York state adopt similar laws.
“I think it is important for the New York legislature to pass a specific statute in New York that more clearly defines the admission of witnesses to prior wrongdoing and their testimony in New York, and that further protects the rights of victims in cases criminal charges for sexual crimes,” Allred said.
Allred does not believe Weinstein’s appeal in New York will affect the case in Los Angeles, where Weinstein has been sentenced to 16 years. But he did express concern about how the court’s decision could affect future victims when it comes to coming forward.
“I’m concerned that it may affect survivors’ decision to come forward by thinking that it may not matter if they do so because their testimony may not be admissible at trial,” Allred said.
Weinstein is expected to appear in Manhattan Supreme Court for his first court appearance since his conviction was overturned on Wednesday, May 1, according to a spokesperson for the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office.
