Harvey Weinstein is guilty, in a Manhattan state courtroom, of a 2006 sexual assault, again, just like he was found guilty in a Manhattan state courtroom five years ago of the same 2006 sexual assault.

Weinstein’s first conviction was thrown out and a new trial was needed because New York law does not allow the use of evidence from other, prior sexual offenses. That law needs to be changed and the state Senate passed a reform last year sponsored by chamber’s No. 2 leader, Sen. Mike Gianaris, with a remarkable and overwhelming tally of 55-4.

The Assembly and Speaker Carl Heastie need to match that before they break for the summer next Tuesday or another year will go by and prosecutors won’t have all the tools they need to pursue horrible monsters like Weinstein.

This is not a partisan matter; Gianaris is a Democrat, but every Republican senator voted for his measure, along with almost every Democrat. The numbers in the Assembly will be similar, provided Heastie brings forward the bill, sponsored by Assemblywoman Amy Paulin.

Under the fix put forward by Gianaris and Paulin, New York would join the federal standard, which is also used by a good number of states, which permits admitting evidence of a defendant’s prior sexual offenses in certain circumstances.

What happened in the initial Weinstein prosecution in 2020 was the Manhattan district attorney asked the trial judge if it was permissible to use such testimony and the judge approved it, as did a unanimous appellate bench. Under New York law, that is occasionally allowed, on a case by case basis. But when it reached the state’s highest court, it was narrowly overruled, tossing the whole Weinstein case and forcing this new trial.

This time, the Manhattan DA didn’t include any witnesses to testify about Weinstein’s previous assaults and the jury still convicted him.

But the law still must be reformed. As one expert points out, this verdict is yet further evidence that juries are capable of hearing evidence about multiple charges involving different victims without being overcome by prejudice, as they convicted Weinstein on one 2006 sex charge yesterday, but acquitted him of another from that same year. As to the third charge, from 2013, the jury will continue its deliberations today.

The Gianaris/Paulin similar crimes bill, which 16 other states have, is fair to defendants and fair to victims. Such laws have been challenged in state and federal courts and determined to be constitutional.

The sponsor’s memo in the bill’s justification mentions Harvey Weinstein and the reverse of his first conviction as the need for the legislation. That such an awful criminal is being invoked for something constructive to improve New York’s criminal prosecution system is a tiny bit of justice.

If the Assembly passes the bill and Gov. Hochul signs it, Weinstein can spend his coming many years in state prison thinking how he helped change the laws of New York in a positive way.

But should Heastie not even allow a vote, Weinstein will still be heading to prison, but the law will remain badly out of date, denying future victims their chance for justice.

Bring the bill to the floor, Mr. Speaker.

_____