New York’s Molineux doctrine, the rule against admitting a defendant’s prior bad acts to prove propensity, has been back in the spotlight through the Harvey Weinstein prosecutions. CRKL partner Wayne E. Gosnell discusses what all three trials revealed in a new article for the New York Law Journal, “‘Molineux’ and Joinder in a #MeToo World: Lessons From the Harvey Weinstein Prosecutions.”
Gosnell examines New York’s renewed scrutiny of Molineux evidence and a related concern: that joinder in multi-complainant sex-crimes cases can function as the practical equivalent of propensity evidence, even when Molineux itself is not directly implicated.
Gosnell traces the doctrine across all three trials. He examines the 2024 Court of Appeals decision reversing Weinstein’s original convictions, which found that testimony from uncharged-act witnesses served no material non-propensity purpose. He then turns to the 2025 retrial, where the prosecution obtained consolidation of a separate indictment under Criminal Procedure Law 200.20(2)(c)’s “same or similar in law” standard rather than through Molineux-driven joinder, and to the 2026 retrial on the remaining count, which ended in a second deadlock before the charge was dismissed on the prosecution’s motion.
Drawing on that progression, Gosnell offers three principal takeaways for practitioners. First, Molineux applications should be litigated with precision where the asserted non-propensity purpose largely duplicates the charged proof. Second, joinder and consolidation decisions in multi-complainant cases warrant the same sensitivity to propensity reasoning that underlies Molineux, even though current Court of Appeals doctrine does not impose a categorical cross-admissibility requirement. And third, limiting instructions, while important, should not be treated as a complete answer to every joinder problem, particularly where jurors may treat the number and similarity of accusations as corroboration by accumulation.
Gosnell litigates complex, high-stakes criminal, civil and regulatory matters in federal and New York state courts. A substantial part of his practice is devoted to sexual misconduct and #MeToo matters, representing both survivors and those accused under the Child Victims Act, Adult Survivors Act and New York City’s gender-motivated violence law. He previously served as a prosecutor in the Bronx District Attorney’s Office and clerked for the Honorable William H. Pauley III in the Southern District of New York.
Read the full article here.