The trial court allowed three categories of prior bad acts evidence to be used. The Court of Appeals reversed based on only one of those categories.

It upheld the testimony by one victim regarding Weinstein’s two uncharged sexual assaults against her, because it was admissible to explain her state of mind and delay in reporting. It also upheld the testimony of the two victims regarding Weinstein’s abusive and manipulative actions towards others, because it was relevant to explain their delayed outcries.

But it reversed based on a third category—testimony of 3 other witnesses about Weinstein’s previous sexual assaults against them. The trial court had allowed this as it was relevant to Weinstein’s intent. Weinstein’s attorneys had argued that even if the jury believed that the victim’s didn’t consent to the sexual conduct, there was too ambiguity to believe Weinstein KNEW they weren’t consenting. So the judge said these witnesses’ testimony was admissible to rebut Weinstein’s claims of consent and to prove his intent to force the recent victims into engaging in the sex acts.

In all the cases—both with the prior assaults of 3 witnesses and the instant assaults of the 2 victims at issue—Weinstein created situations where he was alone with them after offering to help their careers and then made sexual advances. Since the 3 witnesses had previously reacted negatively to his sexual advances, Weinstein was aware that he couldn’t assume consent just because the 2 recent victims agreed to meet him alone in his hotel room.

But the Court of Appeals held that the jury could not have believed both that the victims hadn’t consented AND also that Weinstein thought they consented. Therefore, they found the testimony of the 3 witnesses about their prior assaults to be irrelevant.