Harvey Weinstein's lawyer, Jennifer Bonjean, encountered a skeptical panel of appellate judges in Los Angeles on Thursday as she argued for the overturning of his 2022 rape conviction. Weinstein, currently 74, was previously sentenced to 16 years in prison for raping an Italian model at the Mr. C Hotel in Beverly Hills in February 2013.

During the oral arguments, Bonjean contended that the trial court improperly withheld crucial Facebook messages exchanged between the victim and Pascal Vicedomini, the proprietor of an Italian film festival. She asserted that the lower court had "all but gutted Mr. Weinstein’s defense" by preventing jurors from seeing this evidence, which she argued would have supported the defense's claim that the victim was with Vicedomini, not Weinstein, on the night of the incident, thereby "prov[ing] the defense."

Bonjean also argued for the exclusion of Vicedomini’s testimony, which was taken via Zoom from Italy and played for the jury. She claimed Weinstein’s attorneys were denied the opportunity to cross-examine him in person. This Los Angeles appeal follows a similar legal challenge in New York, where Weinstein's earlier rape conviction was overturned by the state's highest court due to the introduction of prejudicial testimony from other alleged victims. While Weinstein faced similar "propensity" testimony in his Los Angeles trial, Bonjean's primary focus in this appeal was on the excluded evidence related to an alleged sexual affair with Vicedomini, explaining that California law grants prosecutors more leeway for such evidence.

In response, Deputy Attorney General David Glassman countered Bonjean’s arguments, asserting that the defense had, in fact, argued extensively to the jury about the alleged affair. Glassman further argued that the existence of an affair, even if true, was irrelevant to the central question of whether the victim was raped. He described the messages as merely "additional salacious messaging" that did not apply to any contested issue in the case. Moreover, Glassman argued that the defense's attempt to establish the victim’s sexual relationship with someone else violated California’s rape shield law, which prohibits defense inquiry into a rape victim’s sexual history.

The three justices presiding over the case – Michelle Kim, Gregory Weingart, and Helen Bendix – directed a series of skeptical questions toward Weinstein’s attorney. Justice Bendix commented, "One would argue you were able to present that theory." Justices Weingart and Kim noted that Weinstein’s trial lawyers had failed to object to the exclusion of a subset of the messages, a procedural misstep that would typically preclude raising the issue on appeal. Weingart also pressed Bonjean on why the rape shield law should not apply in this context. Regarding Vicedomini's Zoom testimony, Bendix expressed strong disbelief at Bonjean's argument for its exclusion, pointing out that Vicedomini was "key to your alibi" and essential for the defense's case.

Harvey Weinstein is currently in New York, where he is facing a fourth rape trial for one of the two counts that were overturned by the state's Court of Appeals. He was re-convicted of the other count last summer but has yet to be sentenced for it.