Weinstein was previously found guilty of raping one woman and sexually assaulting another based on their testimonies.

However, the court ruled that the trial judge should not have allowed three additional women to testify about their own allegations against Weinstein, as their claims were not related to the criminal charges.

This decision raises questions about the use of such evidence in future sex crime cases.

The Molineux rule in New York law generally prevents the introduction of evidence about a defendant's prior bad acts to prove they have a propensity to commit crimes.

However, the rule is not absolute, and such evidence can be admitted if it relates to motive or intent.

In the Weinstein case, three women testified about the producer's alleged prior sexual assaults.

The testimony was initially allowed because the prosecutors argued it showed Weinstein knew his accusers did not consent but intended to force them into sex.

However, the majority of the court later found that the testimony violated the Molineux rule and made the trial unfair.

The ruling from the New York Court of Appeals means that the testimony from Weinstein's past accusers in California, who testified about non-criminal encounters, may not be admissible as evidence to prove Weinstein's motive or intent to commit rape or sexual assault in his California case.

However, the testimony could still be admitted as evidence of his propensity to commit such acts.