Mel Gibson Can Testify at Harvey Weinstein Trial

[carolinalily]

Mel Gibson Can Testify at Harvey Weinstein Trial, Judge Says https://t.co/1UUcQF4TRK
- The Hollywood Reporter (@THR) October 15, 2022

For … [wait who could it be] the prosecution against Weinstein

Comments

[tetrazzinichikn]

I don’t understand this at all, there has to be more to the story. The entirety of his testimony would be hearsay unless the sole purpose is not to prove Harvey actually did anything or that whatever she said back about any interactions was true, just that the victim had a negative reaction period. Unless the rules of evidence are 1000% different than my state, which I doubt, this is just so weird. Plus, why would the prosecutor want to bring in an antisemitic piece of shit against a Jewish defendant? It’s touched on in the article but like…don’t they have enough to convict one piece of shit without getting another one on the stand? If I were a juror, it would hurt credibility not assist. I’d still find Weinstein guilty as duck but as an attorney this is -very- WTF.

[carolinalily]

I think the purpose of MG testimony is to show that Jane Doe 3 did tell other(s) about her assault, which is one of the tenants of believability if the victim didn’t immediately alert the police. Eg victim may have been hesitant to go to authorities but they did inform other(s) that an assault took place.

[tetrazzinichikn]

The fact that she told people is not really relevant except for ~maybe~ what I mentioned in my last comment and I’m not convinced it would get around hearsay. You cannot bring in out of court statements to prove the truth of what was said.

[deja_vu822]

i feel like this is pretty common though. like for domestic violence cases women are generally advised to tell at least one person that it's happening so that if they go to court they can have people testify that they were told. i think if nobody else in their life knew the defense would certainly ask about it and use it to make the victim look like they're lying. it just builds credible character to have people verify they were told about it.

[tetrazzinichikn]

I don’t disagree that’s how things should be, it’s just that there are rules that must be followed. I’ve been a lawyer for almost 15 years and don’t know of any. But I could be wrong, which is why I asked that other person for a source. I’m not aware of any mechanism allowing such testimony to go forward.

[meadowphoenix]

...if the above purpose is state correctly, this purpose is quite literally not for the truth of the matter. it's to prove that the victim said something not that it was accurate.

now...whether it's more probative then prejudicial is probably what the judge is going to rule on.

eta: looked at the next comment and it is for the truth of the matter which is wild to me lol. i guess we both learned something new here.