I mean, that isn’t some kind of bad thing. Appeals courts are there to catch bad prosecution. They’re supposed to protect citizens from the system failing to work as intended.
Now, the fact that it’s a rich fuck that can afford attorneys to do the work to make the appeal happen and most people couldn’t sucks. That’s a major flaw of the system, that throwing money at it means you’re gong to end up with unbalanced outcomes, but unless the decision handed down was not based in fact, a successful appeal is a good thing.
Fuck Weinstein, but this isn’t about him in specific.
Does anyone know the basis for this judgement? I consciously avoid looking up news because the world is terrible and it makes me depressed. But getting it filtered through Lemmy is somehow easier to digest because we support one another in viewing terrible things as terrible.
What I’ve read is the judge had let women that weren’t part of the case testify during the trial that they were abused, even though that related to different event than the one the trial was about.
So? That’s establishing character and a pattern of abuse, which is pretty standard in court cases.
