Harvey Weinstein Allowed to Stay in Hospital During New York Retrial, Judge Rules

Harvey Weinstein was moved from Rikers Island to a hospital in New York City, following a court’s approval of his petition to stay at the hospital while he faces a new trial for sexual misconduct allegations.

Last Thursday, Judge Paul Goetz ruled that Harvey Weinstein should be transferred to the medical wing of Bellevue Hospital for essential healthcare, as reported by the Associated Press.

This week, Weinstein’s lawyers have requested the court to move the trial during the process of choosing the jury.

According to AP’s report, Goetz’s ruling will hold until this coming Thursday. A discussion on the issue is set to take place at a later hearing.

Imran H. Ansari, a lawyer for Harvey Weinstein, expressed satisfaction with the Court’s instruction that the City move Weinstein from Rikers Island to Bellevue Hospital for necessary medical care during his trial. He stated unequivocally that Rikers Island is undeniably an inferior and hazardous prison. In his current state of health, Weinstein has endured significant suffering within its confines, and no person, regardless of the accusations against them, deserves such inhumane treatment that disregards the safeguards provided by our Constitution. This statement was communicated to EbMaster.

Currently, Judge Curtis J. Farber is overseeing the New York retrial of Harvey Weinstein. The trial will restart on Monday, involving further selection of jurors.

2024 saw Weinstein, who was battling bone marrow cancer, serving time on Rikers Island. Beyond his cancer diagnosis, he had also been receiving treatment for leukemia, diabetes, coronary artery disease, and sleep apnea at Bellevue Hospital in Manhattan. In September, he underwent an emergency heart operation.

In April 2024, the New York Court of Appeals reversed Weinstein’s 2020 rape conviction because they believed that the original trial had issues. These problems were due to the inclusion of testimonies from three additional accusers who weren’t part of the initial charges. The court deemed these testimonies as biased and unnecessary for the case. Consequently, the verdict was dismissed, and a new trial was scheduled.

Read More

2025-04-18 20:16