Appellate judges raise doubts about Weinstein's conviction

A New York appeals court blasted Manhattan prosecutors Wednesday for filling out Harvey Weinstein's rape trial last year with what one judge deemed 'incredibly prejudicial testimony; from women whose allegations weren't part of the criminal charges against him -- a strategy that now has the potential to jeopardize the disgraced movie mogul's conviction.

Members of a five-judge panel in the state's intermediate appeals court appeared incensed with Judge James Burke's decision to allow the witnesses and for another ruling that cleared the way for prosecutors to confront Weinstein with evidence about other misbehavior if he had testified.

Several judges on the panel appeared open to considering reversing Weinstein's conviction and ordering a new trial. A decision isn't expected until January.

Judge Sallie Manzanet-Daniels was particularly vocal, saying that prosecutors had piled on with "incredibly prejudicial" testimony from additional witnesses and that socking away details about Weinstein's behavior -- in some cases boorish but not sexual -- amounted to overkill.

"Let's inflame the jury's heart by telling them that he beat up his brother during a meeting. I just I don't see how there is a balance there on that," Manzanet-Daniels said, challenging a lawyer from the Manhattan district attorney's office who implored the judges to uphold Weinstein's conviction.