A Case for Rule 413 and Evidentiary Rule-Bending in Sexual Assault Cases

By Emily Gwydir

A national reckoning on sexual assault began in October of 2017 when The New York Times and The New Yorker reported groundbreaking exposés on “one of Hollywood’s most powerful producers”—Harvey Weinstein. Weinstein was accused by over a dozen women of sexual harassment, assault, and rape, spanning decades. Soon, people across social media platforms began using the hashtag #MeToo to share their own stories of sexual harassment and misconduct by other powerful men, exposing the pervasive culture of sexual assault and ultimately “build[ing] a community of survivors” around the world. The viral outpouring of discourse surrounding sexual assault came to be known as the “#MeToo Movement,” which critically called attention to the pervasive gender inequities and power dynamics that shaped women’s experiences with sexual violence. By May of 2018, more than 50 women had accused Weinstein of sexual assault. That same month, the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office indicted Weinstein, charging him with first- and third-degree rape, firstdegree criminal sexual act, and two counts of predatory sexual assault.

A month-long trial in 2020 followed, where prosecutors presented evidence to a jury purporting to support these charges. All three complainants had met Weinstein through the entertainment industry. Each detailed their relationships with Weinstein and the incidents of sexual violence that led to his criminal indictment. The combined accounts of three of Weinstein’s victims depicted a consistent pattern of forcible sexual acts, including oral and vaginal rape, committed through coercion, physical restraint, and abuse of power. Over the objection of the defense, the prosecution also offered testimony from three additional women alleging how they, too, were sexually assaulted by Weinstein. In the end, the jury convicted Weinstein of third-degree rape and first-degree criminal sexual act, but acquitted him of first-degree rape and both counts of predatory sexual assault. The court sentenced him to 23 years in prison.

However, on April 25, 2024, the New York Court of Appeals in People v. Weinstein reversed Weinstein’s sexual assault convictions and ordered a retrial, partly based on the trial court having admitted testimony of the uncharged sexual misconduct alleged by the three additional women. To the court, the use of additional testimony constituted an impermissible use of uncharged evidence that violated Weinstein’s right to a fair trial. As a general rule, evidence of uncharged acts—meaning evidence of other crimes or misconduct not charged in the indictment—is inadmissible to show that a defendant acted in accordance with a particular character trait. However, in limited, expressly defined circumstances, such evidence may be admitted. The Court of Appeals rejected the trial court’s application of such an exception in People v. Weinstein—a decision that sparked widespread outrage among victims and drew sharp criticism from sexualassault advocates. The following month, New York state legislators introduced legislation to incorporate Federal Rule of Evidence 413 (“Rule 413”) into New York state law, which would have explicitly allowed admission of uncharged evidence in sexual assault trials for any relevant reason...etc.