Judge Gujarati’s Integrity Crisis: Privilege Violated, Evidence Tainted, Rights Ignored

By Juda Englemeyer

We have some major developments to share concerning Harvey Weinstein’s retrial and the OneTaste prosecution—two cases that are increasingly exposing serious issues of judicial overreach, prosecutorial misconduct, and institutional failure.

Harvey’s retrial is underway at New York State Supreme Court (100 Centre Street, Manhattan), while the OneTaste criminal trial is set to begin Monday, May 5, 2025, in the Eastern District of New York (Cadman Plaza, Brooklyn).

OneTaste: Privilege, Prosecutorial Misconduct, and Judicial Defiance

Last week, I mentioned OneTaste’s application for a Kastigar hearing to address the government’s use of privileged attorney-client material. Here’s a clearer picture:

Over a year ago, buried within tens of thousands of pages of discovery, the government concealed a few critical photos of stolen privileged documents. They were not easily searchable and only surfaced after OneTaste’s lawyers painstakingly reviewed the entire production. When they found them, it became immediately clear: the indictment reads almost verbatim from these privileged materials.

Daedone and Cherwitz moved to invoke privilege under the Sixth Amendment and longstanding legal precedent. Predictably, prosecutors argued that the materials had lost their protection because they were stolen—an argument with no legal basis. Rather than confront the issue directly, Judge Diane Gujarati punted, claiming that the individual defendants couldn’t invoke privilege because it “belonged to OneTaste,” not them.

So OneTaste itself filed its own motion to assert privilege. Judge Gujarati, rather than ruling herself, passed the issue to Magistrate Judge Robert M. Levy, who ruled squarely in OneTaste’s favor—ordering the government to return and destroy the privileged materials.

But here’s where it gets disturbing: despite Magistrate Levy’s clear ruling, Judge Gujarati refused to apply it to the criminal case. Without explanation, she denied the Kastigar hearing motion and allowed prosecutors to continue using tainted evidence.

In effect, Judge Gujarati is defying her own magistrate’s finding of privilege.
Something is deeply rotten at the EDNY courthouse.

Today Tuesday April 29, 2025, at 11:30 AM, there is a hearing on a supposed protective order violation by OneTaste. Originally, it was assigned to the magistrate—but now Judge Gujarati has clawed it back to herself. Another telling move.

And there’s more:

Jennifer Bonjean, lead counsel for Nicole Daedone and Harvey Weinstein, cannot attend the hearing because the first major complaining witness (CW1) will be testifying tomorrow in Weinstein’s retrial—a critical moment requiring Bonjean’s presence.

Although Bonjean requested a modest 30-day stay in the OneTaste case, Judge Gujarati denied the stay and is now threatening sanctions or even holding Bonjean in contempt for not being in two courts at once.

An associate will appear in her stead tomorrow—but the principle remains: the system appears weaponized against both defense counsel and defendants alike.

How is this not newsworthy to any outlet that claims to cover judicial integrity and due process?

When media headlines report on “judicial abuse of discretion” or “prosecutorial overreach,” this case deserves to be Exhibit A.

Harvey Weinstein: Ongoing Medical Abuse by NYC Department of Corrections

 Meanwhile, Harvey’s health continues to deteriorate due to shocking neglect by the New York City Department of Corrections.

Recently, Harvey was seen by a dentist regarding his persistent tongue infection. The specialist determined it was not just an infection, but a fungal outbreak—likely caused by mistreatment and misdiagnosis at Rikers Island. The dentist said he could do nothing more; Weinstein now needs to see a specialist. However, his team cannot even make that appointment because DOC is still fighting to send him back to Rikers, despite the obvious health risks.

Harvey is temporarily housed at Bellevue Hospital’s prison ward, but the civil court has not yet ruled on whether he can stay there for the duration of the trial.

As Harvey’s lawyer Imran Ansari put it:

“Certain things are indisputable: that Harvey Weinstein is in a state of extremely poor health and needs proper medical treatment. Yet despite these inescapable realities, the attorneys for the city are fighting tooth and nail to send Mr. Weinstein back to Rikers Island, despite our very reasonable and humane request to have him housed at Bellevue Hospital during the pendency of his trial.

The motive for this is baffling—perhaps fear that other incarcerated individuals will expose the inhumane treatment and constitutional violations rampant at Rikers. But that is no excuse for willful blindness.

The fact that Mr. Weinstein’s infection has been consistently misdiagnosed and mistreated while at Rikers is just one symptom of the grossly negligent care administered there.”

The City’s posture appears less about medical judgment and more about preserving a broken system at all costs, no matter the human toll.

These issues are not isolated incidents—they reveal a pattern of disregard for constitutional rights, judicial integrity, and basic human dignity.

Juda Engelmayer

Juda Engelmayer

See Full Bio