WATCH: Legal Analyst Explains Why Reversal Of Weinstein’s Conviction Is Great News For Trump

The New York State Court of Appeals last Thursday overturned Harvey Weinstein’s 2020 rape conviction and ordered a new trial. The decision emerged from what many saw as a landmark case of the #MeToo era, which split the justices 4-3 centered on what they deemed as significant judicial errors during Weinstein’s trial. Specifically, the court criticized the trial judge for allowing testimony from witnesses who were not directly linked to the charges against Weinstein, framing the testimonies as “prejudicial” rather than probative.

On Monday Fox News legal analyst Gregg Jarrett provided a scathing critique of the Manhattan District Attorney’s office under Alvin Bragg, suggesting that the prosecutorial missteps observed in Weinstein’s case could have implications for the ongoing legal proceedings against former President Donald Trump.

“Where’s the crime?” Jarrett posited during a segment with Fox News host Steve Doocy, pointing out the absence of direct testimony regarding the charges Trump faces. Jarrett characterized the proceedings as a “theater of the absurd,” where allegations of conspiracy and fraud are bandied about without direct linkage to recognized legal offenses.

Such prosecutorial strategies may reflect a concerning trend within the legal system—using the criminal law as a tool against political adversaries, a point underscored by Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch during last week’s immunity hearing. “This harebrained prosecution,” Jarrett argued, “is exactly what Justice Gorsuch warned about: prosecutors misusing criminal law to target political opponents.”

WATCH:

The discussion turned particularly critical when Jarrett addressed the handling of evidence and witness testimony. He drew a parallel to the Weinstein case, where the introduction of ‘similar bad acts’ by unrelated parties was ultimately pivotal in the appellate court’s decision to overturn the conviction. “And yet this judge is allowing that sort of evidence,” Jarrett noted. “It’s a pretty neat trick to unlawfully influence an election after it occurred,” he joked.

The narrow victory for Weinstein last week was condemned by Judge Madeline Singas, who wrote in her dissent that the majority of her colleagues were “whitewashing the facts to conform to a he-said/she-said narrative” and contributing to a “disturbing trend of overturning juries’ guilty verdicts in cases involving sexual violence.”

“The majority’s determination perpetuates outdated notions of sexual violence and allows predators to escape accountability,” Singas wrote. Weinstein, 72, was less than four years into serving a 23-year sentence after being found guilty of criminal sex acts including forced oral sex on a TV and film assistant in 2006 and third-degree rape of an up-and-coming actress in 2013. He will remain behind bars due to a separate Los Angeles conviction in 2022 which added 16 years to his sentence after being found guilty of another rape. He was acquitted in a third trial.

Meanwhile the charges against Trump arose from payments made during the 2016 election to allegedly silence allegations of an affair, a move purportedly made to avoid influencing the election outcome. The case, initially seen as a potential misdemeanor involving falsified business records, has escalated. Bragg’s team has attempted to link these charges to more severe violations of federal election law and state tax fraud.