New York Should Change Evidence Rules to Allow Multiple Rape Victims to Testify Against Serial Offenders
Source: Jeffrey Seaman. "Harvey Weinstein third New York trial: This debacle should not be happening.." April 22, 2026. slate.com
The Gist
The author argues that New York should change its evidence rules to let multiple rape victims testify against the same defendant. He says this would help convict serial rapists like Harvey Weinstein instead of forcing individual victims to face their attackers alone in court multiple times.
Conclusion
New York and other states must change their rules of evidence to allow testimony from multiple victims in rape cases to prevent serial rapists like Harvey Weinstein from escaping accountability
Premises
- Weinstein's conviction was overturned because New York's evidence rules prevented other victims from testifying, forcing Jessica Mann to face trial three times
- Federal courts and 16 states already allow multiple victims to testify about a defendant's propensity to commit sexual assault without negative consequences
- Multiple victim testimony transforms weak 'he said, she said' cases into stronger 'he said, they said' cases that juries find more credible
- False accusations of sexual assault are rare, and coordinated false accusations by multiple women are even rarer
- Less than 5 percent of sexual assaults lead to conviction, indicating the system already favors defendants over victims
- The current New York rule protects serial rapists while forcing individual victims to bear the full burden of proof alone
Assumptions
- Multiple victim testimony is more probative than prejudicial in sexual assault cases
- Juries can distinguish between relevant pattern evidence and irrelevant character evidence
- The goal of trials should be discovering truth rather than protecting defendants from potentially damaging but relevant evidence
- Current evidence rules reflect outdated and sexist assumptions about victim credibility