FROM OUR CORRESPONDENT
NEW YORK – Arthur Aidala is the lawyer of Harvey Weinstein. He obtained the revocation of the 23-year prison sentence for his client on appeal, transferred Friday from upstate New York to Rikers Prison but then immediately taken to the hospitalwaiting to understand if the trial is repeated. «He is a sick seventy-two year old», said the lawyer: heart problems, diabetes… In the transport «they didn’t treat him well, not even a sip of water…». There is also the possibility that the case will be closed: «It depends on the main witness», Mimi Haleyi. “Before the trial he had received no money, after he had a lot of money from Harvey’s insurance, so he has less incentive” according to Aidala. “If you say to the prosecutor: ‘I don’t want to go through this again, please,’ I don’t see how he can force an alleged victim of sexual abuse…” That still leaves another 16-year sentence in California.
Sicilian origins (Bronte)born in Brooklyn, his father forbade him to watch The Godfather because he didn’t want him to suffer the charm of the underworld, “romanticized in the Italian-American community”: Aidala followed in the footsteps of his grandparents, one of whom graduated in law in 1933 “when it had never been heard that an Italian-American could do it”, the another journalist. From his desk in Midtown, surrounded by photos of family and friends like the Supreme Court justice Antonin Scalia («almost an uncle»), goes on air with his podcast at 6pm: The Arthur Aidala Power Hour.
Will the Weinstein case affect Trump’s trial underway in New York over payments to Stormy Daniels?
“The reason why I think it will affect him is that I believe it will show Judge Merchan in the Trump trial that the Court of Appeals has the power to overturn a conviction even in a high-profile case like Weinstein’s. Trump may be unpopular in Manhattan, where he lost 13% to 87% of the vote, but nationally he’s 50-50. They didn’t like Weinstein 100% and the Court had the power to say: it’s not a fair trial, you have to do everything again. The Court is telling Merchan, “Judge, follow the rules. If you don’t do it just because you have a famous defendant, we will reverse. And you don’t want that to happen, it would be embarrassing.”
The Court questioned the broad discretion given to the Prosecutor’s Office in cross-examination, which prompted Weinstein not to testify.
«The judge had allowed us to talk about almost 40 things that Weinstein had done between the ages of 28 and 68: an argument with his brother, insults to a waiter…The Court of Appeal said: it can’t, we want to encourage the accused to tell his versiondo not discourage him with so much evidence that he cannot testify.”
And in establishing the topics on which Trump can be cross-examined, is Merchan allowing as much?
«He is allowing a lot. But I’m sure he’s reevaluating decisions based on the Weinstein case. An editorial in the New York Times on the Weinstein case speaks of a “tragedy”, but in my opinion they did not read the opinion of the judges: the law had been trashed to condemn a human being due to the pressure of the MeToo movement. The other aspect is that allowing four additional witnesses in a case that involved three is prejudice against a citizen and is prohibited. It was done because it’s Weinstein. And my fear is that’s what they’re doing with Trump in some respects. And furthermore he is trapped, he is not out campaigning…”
Even in the Trump case, the judge allowed other witnesses not directly related to the payments to Stormy. Another prerequisite for a possible revocation?
“Absolutely. It is the first time that a former and perhaps future president has been put on trial. They are using laws that have never been used beforetrying to turn misdemeanors into felonies and using federal crimes to justify state prosecution – so yes, it is an abuse of the system.”
If convicted, will he go to appeal?
“No doubt”
And will you be the lawyer?
«Let’s see, let’s see» (he says in Italian).
In America the justice system is under attack…
«Therefore this decision is important. The judges are saying: the laws ignored in the Weinstein case date back to 1901, it can’t be done. Three out of 4 are women. And it started with an Italian-American woman, Diana Fabi, my partner, who wrote to the Court of Appeals, and the chief judge at the time, Janet DiFiore, an Italian-American, opened the door to the case…” .
The judge of the dissenting opinion is also a woman.
«She wrote it as if she were a politician, not a judge. Scalia said that judges must interpret, not create laws. Lhe talks about women’s rights: it’s not his job… If Scalia read it he would turn in his grave. And Scalia would be horrified that Weinstein would walk free, but he once told me, “The nights I sleep best are after I make a decision where I hate the outcome.” If the law says so, so it must be. He hated saying you have the right to burn the American flag, but the law says so.”
