This is Handel on the Law, marginal legal advice, where I tell you you have absolutely no case.

Harvey Weinstein was actually granted an appeal in his sex crimes conviction in New York.

He had been given 23 years for sex crimes in New York.

I mean, he's been convicted all over the place.

So this sort of became a Pyrrhic victory.

I mean, he's doing a lot of jail time anyway.

But what he argued, his lawyer argued, is that in the trial, in this case, and it was

considered a landmark trial because it happened during the Me Too movement,

he was found guilty of sexual assault and rape.

And his lawyers said, you know what?

This conviction is no good because one of the jurors had written a novel about, quote, predatory older men and should have been

disqualified.

And if the court agrees, then he gets a new trial.

Guess what?

The appeals court in, or actually the Supreme Court in New York, they granted his appeal.

They said, yep, that's enough, which makes a lot of sense.

I mean, you're sitting on a jury in which an older man is accused of predatory sexual practices, including rape,

and this juror had written a book about predatory older men.

How that juror ever got on the jury is beyond me.

Now, I'm assuming that the jurors just slipped through the cracks, and that was still caused the appeal, but, you know, no one is, no one's going to be held responsible.

The juror is going to be held responsible.

What are they going to do?

...