Ed Morrissey

First off, we don't start trials off by assuming guilt. "We all know he's guilty" is a tell for a political outcome rather than justice. 

Second, the issue of Molineux witnesses is complicated, even where allowed under limited circumstances, as in New York. For one thing, introducing testimony of uncharged and unrelated allegations in the guilt phase of a criminal trial is prejudicial, but Masters misrepresents what the appellate court found on this issue. It wasn't the witnesses per se or their testimony, but that prosecutors cross-examined Weinstein on the basis of those uncharged allegations:

The lower court had allowed the three women to testify about encounters with Weinstein under a state law that allows testimony about prior acts.

But Rivera wrote that Weinstein had a right to only answer for the crimes charged.

“The synergistic effect of these errors was not harmless,” Rivera wrote, while noting Weinstein’s absence of a prior criminal history. “The only evidence against defendant was the complainants’ testimony, and the result of the court’s rulings, on the one hand, was to bolster their credibility and diminish defendant’s character before the jury. On the other hand, the threat of a cross-examination highlighting these untested allegations undermined defendant’s right to testify. The remedy for these egregious errors is a new trial.”

Try him again. If he's obviously guilty, a competent prosecutor can make that case legitimately.