California law, however, allows accusers to testify as witnesses even if their own cases never resulted in charges.

The testimony is admissible due to a change in California evidence law in 1996 that allows witnesses to demonstrate an alleged pattern of behavior or propensity to commit a crime, said Dmitry Gorin, a former L.A. sex-crimes prosecutor. Before the change, California’s law was extremely narrow like New York’s, he said.

Now, prosecutors’ use of prior bad acts testimony in California is so prevalent that police will still investigate sex assault allegations that cannot be prosecuted due to the statute of limitations because they can still be used as evidence if an allegation that can be prosecuted is ever made.

“Very, very few prior bad acts appeals succeed in California,” Gorin said. “The law on admitting prior sexual assault evidence in California is very broad, and the judge’s decision to let that evidence in can be challenged as an abuse of discretion.”

While New York and California have different rules governing testimony in sexual assault cases, where often victims don’t come forward until long after the statute of limitations has run out, some legal experts say New York’s rules provide a needed layer of protection for defendants.

“You could think of New York as a dinosaur, but I think of it as New York being very vigilant of protecting the civil rights of defendants,” said Daniel Medwed, a professor of law and criminal justice at Northeastern who used to be a criminal appellate attorney in New York.

“It’s a traditional view, maybe it’s a lingering civil libertarian view that the jury punishes someone not for who they are alleged to be, but what they’ve done in this case,” Medwed added. “Loosening the rules of evidence could be a slippery slope to an erosion of all our rights.”

Weinstein, alongside his brother Bob, created a show business empire through their entertainment company Miramax. They revolutionized the movie industry with their ability to market independent films such as “sex, lies and videotape,” “Pulp Fiction” and Oscar-winning “Shakespeare in Love” into box office hits.

Along the way, there were whispers throughout the entertainment industry that Harvey Weinstein was a sexual predator. The allegations finally became public in October 2017, when investigations by the New York Times and the New Yorker revealed accounts of sexual abuse from women who dealt with Weinstein over the years.

The mogul denied the claims. But the accusations continued to mount, with dozens of more women coming forward. The stories involving a perpetrator with Weinstein’s larger-than-life Hollywood profile opened the door to a national conversation on sexual harassment and abuse of women in the workplace that became known as the #MeToo movement.

Some attorneys for women argue that the New York appellate ruling demonstrates that, even with the attention that the #MeToo movement generated, there are still obstacles for victims seeking justice.

“The ruling shows how far we still have to go to protect women and punish their rapists and abusers,” said Nancy Erica Smith, the employment attorney who handled former anchor Gretchen Carlson’s lawsuit against Fox News. “How could the fact that the defendant engaged in the same modus operandi with numerous women, only a few of which were allowed to testify and who were all subjected to vigorous cross-examination, not be relevant to the jury?” Smith added. “I’m sure many victims of sexual violence are devastated today.”

—Times staff writer James Queally contributed to this report.

©2024 Los Angeles Times. Visit at latimes.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.