I think Weinstein was guilty. But that does not mean prosecution was warranted. The woman he groped had made similar charges to officials twice before. In both cases she then refused to cooperate in prosecution causing a ton of wasted prosecutorial resources.
There was a tape the police obtained. The DA office said the police did not tell them about the tape. They did not know it existed. Also the DA office says that if the police had talked to them before the tape they would have told them what the required elements of the crime were under NY law and they could have made sure Weinstein stated those required elements. According to the DA office Weinstein did not state the required elements for a crime under the NY law.
And the crime was a misdemeanor. Weinstein would probably have been given a trivial punishment.
So is it not likely that any sane prosecutor would not waste precious limited resources in a case where the witness was unlikely to testify, where even if she did testify the only evidence that the required elements of the crime would be her word against his, leaving a reasonable doubt? Especially with a victim who made similar charges against other men who were not found guilty causing some doubt about whether she just makes charges like this for unknown reasons?
Prosecutors only use their limited resources when they think they will win. In this case they were almost certainly going to lose. The DA office made the correct decision.
That does not mean Weinstein shouldn’t go to jail for life. He should. But the fact he is a horrible criminal is not a good reason to smear the pristinely honest Manhattan District Attorney office.
= new reply since forum marked as read
