As the slogan says, “If you don’t want it on Page Six, don’t do it.”
Prosecutors have shot down Harvey Weinstein’s plea to have his trial moved from NYC because of Page Six.
Weinstein’s trial is scheduled to begin Sept. 9 in Manhattan Supreme Court, but the movie mogul’s legal team had demanded a last-minute change of venue to either Albany or Suffolk County.
They claimed there was no way he could get a fair trial in New York because of Page Six’s extensive coverage of his sex-assault charges — which include rape and predatory sexual assault.
Weinstein’s lawyers had whined, “An Internet search of . . . Page Six, a mainstay of local New York City news, and the name Harvey Weinstein in 2019, yields over 11,000 hits.”
The irony of this move is not lost on Page Six writers, given that Weinstein was historically hell-bent on getting his movies, stars and himself prominently mentioned in the column over the years, particularly in pursuit of Oscars.
Not surprisingly, the Manhattan DA’s office wasn’t moved and denied Weinstein’s request Friday, calling it, “a transparent attempt to delay the proceedings,” according to papers filed in the Manhattan Supreme Court.
“From the beginning, the defendant’s lawyers have contributed to the media coverage they now complain about . . . portraying the defendant as a scapegoat who has been targeted by the ‘Me Too’ movement,” the excoriating court papers read.
Assistant District Attorney Harriett Galvin cited research showing Page Six is a national brand and that 85 percent of NYPost.com and PageSix.com’s audience is outside the New York metropolitan area, and a jury pool in Albany or Suffolk could be equally as impacted.
“Page Six’s audience is so national that in 2014 . . . the parent company of Page Six, created a separate, stand-alone website devoted solely to Page Six content,” Galvin wrote, adding, “The irony of the . . . claim about prejudicial publicity should not be lost on the court where the defendant himself, through his legal teams, has been the source of much of the media coverage in this case.”