Harvey Weinstein’s lawyers praise court’s decision to overturn Cosby conviction

Attorneys for convicted rapist Harvey Weinstein praised the decision by Pennsylvania’s Supreme Court to overturn Bill Cosby’s sex assault conviction, saying it reaffirms their confidence that the disgraced movie mogul will also be set free.

The trio of attorneys — Barry Kamins, John Leventhal and Diana Fabi Samson — released the statement through a Weinstein spokesperson in an email to The Post.

“In reversing the conviction of Bill Cosby, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has demonstrated, once again, that no matter who a defendant may be and no matter the nature of the crime, courts can be relied upon to follow the law and come to the correct decision,” the statement said.

“This decision also reaffirms our confidence that the Appellate Division in New York will reach the similarly correct decision in Harvey Weinstein’s appeal, considering the abundance of issues that cry out for a reversal,” the attorneys added.

Cosby was set free after the Pennsylvania high court determined prosecutors were not allowed to criminally charge him with drugging and molesting Andrea Constand in 2004 because ex-Montgomery County District Attorney Bruce Castor Jr. promised not to prosecute him.

Cosby arrived back at his Philadelphia-area mansion after being sprung from state prison soon after the decision was handed down. He cannot be retried for the alleged crime.

Weinstein is appealing his conviction in New York, where he was found guilty in February 2020 of first-degree criminal sexual act and third-degree rape.

Meanwhile, attorney Duncan Levin, who represented Nxivm bankroller and Seagram’s heiress Clare Bronfman, added in a statement that “uncharged conduct” should not be allowed in prosecutions — in reference to the five additional witnesses who testified that they, too, were drugged and assaulted by Cosby.

“There is nothing more important to our system of justice than the presumption of innocence,” Levin said in the statement.

“The rules of evidence exist so that testimony never turns into unfounded attacks on a defendants’s character, and that appears to be exactly what happened here. Vague evidence about uncharged conduct has no place in a courtroom,” he said.