Lawyer here.
“erroneously admitted testimony of uncharged, alleged prior sexual acts against persons other than the complainants of the underlying crimes.”
“We think Johnny robbed three banks last year. Therefore, he must have robbed this one because that’s the type of guy he is.” type of evidence.
This is called character evidence. It’s always inadmissible unless to show a common plan or design [and no, committing similar crimes doesn’t qualify]. Virtually never admissible in a criminal case. Judge knew this and should never have allowed this evidence. Guaranteed a reversal. Stupid, stupid man.
The Weinstein thing always felt like a rioting mob to me. No doubt he is a despicable human being, but the “justus” system is, without a doubt, driven by “optics” rather than the rule of law these days.