You are on page 1of 137
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, intimate a 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.