SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF NEW YOR. SRIMINAL TERM, PART 81
ee es
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
SUPPLEMENTAL
- against - NOTICE OF
MOTION
HARVEY WEINSTEIN, Ind. No. 2335/18
Defendant.
— — x
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that, upon the annexed affirmation of
BENJAMIN BRAFMAN, Esq., duly affirmed on the 5% day of
November, 2018, upon the exhibits appended thereto, upon the
accompanying memorandum of law, upon the indictment, and upon all
those proceedings previously had herein, Defendant Harvey Weinstein,
by his undersigned attorneys, Brafman & Associates, P.C., will move
this Court at the Courthouse, 100 Centre Street, New York, before the
Honorable James M. Burke, at a date and time to be fixed by the
Court, for respective orders:
1. Pursuant to C.P.L. §§ 210.20(1)(c) and 210.35(5),
dismissing the entire superseding indictment because it
was based on a defective Grand Jury proceeding, that
was irreparably tainted by police misconduct, Lucia
Evans’ false testimony and the District Attorney's
failure to provide the Grand Jury with exculpatory
evidence of the long-term, consensual, intimatea
relationship between Mr. Weinstein and the alleged
rape victim charged in Counts Three, Four and Five in
the indictment; in the alternative, the Court should
conduct a hearing to determine the extent of the
misconduct in the Grand Jury and whether the police
department or District Attorney's Office or both are
responsible;
Pursuant to C.P.L. §§ 210.20(1)(b) and 210.30,
dismissing Count One of the indictment charging
Predatory Sexual Assault because the Grand Jury
evidence was legally insufficient to support the charge
as the aggravating factor required under that statute
did not occur until nearly seven years after the
underlying crime had been allegedly committed;
Pursuant to C.P.L. §§ 210.20(1)(a) and 210.25(3),
dismissing Counts One and Three charging Predatory
Sexual Assault as that statute is unconstitutionally
vague;
Dismissing the entire superseding indictment because
the pervasive falsity and professional misconduct in and
around the grand jury, attributable to the police, the
district attorney and the complainants, completely
destroyed the character of that body as a Grand Jury;
accordingly, the indictment was invalid, thereby
depriving this Court of jurisdiction, in violation of the
Grand Jury clause under Article I, Section 6 of the New
York Constitutio
Granting the relief requested as part of Mr. Weinstein’s
original omnibus motion filed in August 3, 2018; and
Granting such other and further relief as the Court
deems just and proper.PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE, that Mr. Weinstein
reserves the right to make such further motions pursuant to C.P.L. §
255.20 (2) & (3) as may be necessitated by the Court’s decision on the
within motion, after further investigation and by further developments
which, even by due diligence, Mr. Weinstein could not now be aware.
Dated: November 5, 2018
New York, NY
Respectfully submitted,
BRAFMAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
BENJAMIN BRAFMAN
MARK M. BAKER
JACOB KAPLAN
Attorneys for Defendant
Harvey Weinstein
767 Third Avenue, 26th Floor
New York, NY 10017
(212) 750-7800
To: Clerk of the Court
Hon. James M. Burke
Joan Iluzzi-Orbon, Esq.