By Sandy . . . One of the greatest obstacles NARSOL faces is the belief that we want to keep people who sexually harm other people from being punished. Nothing could be further from the truth. NARSOL firmly believes that everyone has the responsibility for obeying the law and that people who harm others must be held accountable for what they did and face consequences, which includes punishment, for their actions.

The most important truth from that paragraph needs to be clarified and emphasized: They must be held accountable for what was proven in a court of law. That is the foundation on which our judicial system is built. That is inherent in the well-known phrase, “Innocent until proven guilty.”

New York’s Court of Appeals—the highest court in New York, in most states called the state supreme court—has issued a finding in a review of Harvey Weinstein’s 2020 New York conviction for rape that makes that same point. In an opinion that reverses that conviction, the Appeals Court found that the trial court judge committed “egregious” behavior by letting “women testify about allegations that weren’t part of the case.”

The Court of  Appeals emphasized, “[T]he trial court erroneously admitted testimony of uncharged, alleged prior sexual acts against persons other than the complainants of the underlying crimes.”

According to AP, an attorney representing some of Weinstein’s accusers said, “Courts routinely admit evidence of other uncharged acts . . . ”

And therein lies the problem.

“Other uncharged acts” may include behavior that, while annoying, unwelcome, or even vulgar, is not criminal. It may include behavior for which a district attorney could find no evidence of criminality. It may include behavior for which the accuser chose not to make a complaint.

Our criminal judicial system does not exist to assure that we will never be annoyed or even revulsed by the actions of another. It is a major responsibility of district attorneys to determine if a complaint rises to the level of criminality and with sufficient evidence to file charges. If complainants wish their day in court, they must make complaints to the authorities and be prepared to testify in court; they have no right—nor should they have the ability—to usurp the trials of other complainants and have their voices heard there, exemplifying “Me Too” literally.

Weinstein will remain in prison due to a rape conviction in California–which is also under appeal for the same issue.

Advocates for the complainants in the now-overturned trial say this ruling is unfair and that the women will have to testify again and relive their experiences again if the New York district attorney decides to re-try the case. Yes; they will.

Our judicial system is, after all, made up of fallible human beings. When mistakes are made, it is in our best interest to correct them.

That is what New York’s highest court has done.

The post NY Court of Appeals got it right in Weinstein case reversal first appeared on NARSOL.