NEW YORK — Harvey Weinstein appeared in court on Thursday for updates regarding his sex crime conviction, which was thrown out after heightened emotions among jurors emerged during deliberations last spring.
This marks yet another complex twist in the legal saga surrounding the former Hollywood mogul. His notable case, which played a significant role in the #MeToo movement, has spanned over seven years across two states. The retrial ended chaotically last year in New York. Weinstein was found guilty of forcing oral sex on one woman but acquitted of a similar charge involving another. The jury was unable to reach a decision on a rape accusation concerning a third woman, leading prosecutors to promise a retrial for that charge.
Weinstein, now 73, maintains his innocence against all accusations—claims that emerged publicly starting in 2017. His behavior amidst the allegations drew considerable attention and sparked discussions within the #MeToo movement. Early on, Weinstein expressed remorse for his actions but denied any non-consensual encounters, attributing his behavior to “the way I have behaved towards co-workers.”
During the trial, his defense suggested that the women willingly accepted his advances, motivated by aspirations for careers in the entertainment industry, and later falsely accused him to obtain settlements and publicity.
Last June’s divided verdict was unusual, as multiple jurors reached out to the judge to voice concerns about tensions in the jury room. One juror remarked that others were “avoiding” certain conversations, while another hinted at feeling cornered by discussions about Weinstein’s history. Contrarily, a different juror felt the discussions were moving in the right direction. The presiding judge was subsequently informed about pressures to change opinions, with one juror even expressing worries for safety after a fellow juror made a threatening remark. Eventually, they chose not to continue deliberating.
In court, Judge Curtis Farber addressed the confidentiality surrounding the discussions, instructing jurors not to disclose the “content or intent” of their deliberations. Since the trial’s conclusion, Weinstein’s legal team has communicated with jurors who expressed discomfort during deliberations.
In sworn statements, two jurors indicated they did not believe Weinstein was guilty, suggesting they felt coerced due to abusive remarks from other jurors. One juror mentioned feeling so threatened that she called relatives for help if she went uncontacted. Their identities were kept confidential in court documents.
Weinstein’s attorneys claim that the hostile atmosphere significantly disrupted the proceedings and that the judge did not adequately consider their requests for a mistrial. They are pushing for the conviction to be overturned or, at the very least, a hearing for a new jury.
On the other hand, the prosecution argued that the judge appropriately handled the “isolated instances” of disputes among jurors. They contested the jurors’ declarations post-trial, highlighting how one juror voiced to the media that there was considerable tension among them.
The prosecution also pointed out that concerns about discussions on Weinstein’s past were general and not entirely off-limits, given that testimonies referenced past media reports of sexual harassment claims going back decades.
The judge is expected to respond soon, with options to vacate the conviction, order a new trial, or let the verdict stand without further action. Whatever choice he makes could be subject to appeal.
Meanwhile, the prosecution is prepared to pursue another trial. In earlier comments, Weinstein addressed the unresolved rape charge, as he currently remains in custody in New York, facing additional rape allegations linked to a prior conviction in Los Angeles.
