Harvey Weinstein wanted his trial moved out of New York City due to coverage on the New York Post’s Page Six. But the answer is apparently no.
By Howard M. Riell
The trial was set to happen in Manhattan Supreme Court, and to commence on September 9. (USA Today reported earlier today that the sex-crimes trial, “scheduled to start in two weeks, will instead be delayed until January, as the fallen movie mogul returned to court in New York on Monday to plead not guilty at another arraignment on a new grand jury indictment in the case.”)
The movie producer’s high-powered legal team was insisting the trial be relocated to Suffolk County or even Albany. Their argument: the Page Six coverage had made it impossible for their client to get a fair hearing in court on the charges facing him of rape and predatory sexual assault.
Here’s what the Post had to say: “Weinstein’s lawyers had whined, “An Internet search of … Page Six, a mainstay of local New York City news, and the name Harvey Weinstein in 2019, yields over 11,000 hits.” The irony of this move is not lost on Page Six writers, given that Weinstein was historically hell-bent on getting his movies, stars and himself prominently mentioned in the column over the years, particularly in pursuit of Oscars.”
The District Attorney for Manhattan understandably rejected the request in documents that were filed with the Appellate Division First Department. They referred to the move as “a transparent attempt to delay the proceedings.”
“From the beginning, the defendant’s lawyers have contributed to the media coverage they now complain about … portraying the defendant as a scapegoat who has been targeted by the ‘Me Too’ movement,” the court papers read.
The Post’s coverages continued: “Assistant District Attorney Harriett Galvin cited research showing Page Six is a national brand and that 85 percent of NYPost.com and PageSix.com’s audience is outside the New York metropolitan area, and a jury pool in Albany or Suffolk could be equally as impacted.
“Page Six’s audience,” the paper added, “is so national that in 2014 … the parent company of Page Six, created a separate, stand-alone website devoted solely to Page Six content,” Galvin wrote, adding, “The irony of the … claim about prejudicial publicity should not be lost on the court where the defendant himself, through his legal teams, has been the source of much of the media coverage in this case.”
